Baroness Fox of Buckley
Main Page: Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated - Life peer)(1 week, 3 days ago)
Lords ChamberI will correct the noble Baroness; the Question today is specifically about vetting. I note that there is a sharp difference with the Prime Minister we have today, who takes responsibility for the decision he made. He has apologised for the decision that he made and is taking measures to put it right. The apology that he made was received and accepted by one of the survivors of Jeffrey Epstein. If it is good enough for her to go on broadcast media and say that, it is good enough for me. I want to see measures put in place that will put this right and mean that this can never happen in the future. That is what the Prime Minister is focused on, and I think that is what the country wishes him to do.
My Lords, I appreciate that this is a Question about vetting, but behind it is potentially a question about political judgment. When choosing an ambassador for any country, rather than having an elaborate problem of vetting, one might google. When I googled this, I found out that that particular potential ambassador was friends with somebody running an international sex trafficking gang in which young women were exploited and abused. Therefore, although I want there to be good vetting, I suggest that maybe the problem is not vetting but one of political judgment. Does the Minister agree?
What I do agree with the noble Baroness about—I commend her on doing this—is focusing her question on those women and girls who were victims of a heinous paedophile. That is the right thing to do. Obviously, and the Prime Minister would be the very first person to say this, this was a bad decision. When you make a bad decision in life, especially when you are the Prime Minister, you have a choice. Some Prime Ministers have stood at the Dispatch Box in the other place and told barefaced lies about it. Ours did not, and I am proud of him for that.