Lord Mandelson
Jerome Mayhew Excerpts(1 week, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Arthur
Hopefully the documents will explain what happened. Hopefully.
I know I do not look old enough, but I have been around for a long time. I can remember Mandelson’s first lap, and his second lap, when he went to the Lords. Now there is this third lap. My general perception of him is not of someone I would trust. I would not buy a second-hand car from him. However, that is based on my perception from the media. I have not seen the details of the vetting procedure that he went through. The Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), described the selection procedure, and I accept that this Government inherited it, but I thought it sounded like an absolute shambles. The steps that it involved were nothing like what I expected. I expected much more detail, and I hope that the documents that we are talking about will give us at least a bit more.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
The hon. Member says that he would not buy a second-hand car from Mandelson. Would he have made him ambassador to the United States?
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
We have heard some very powerful speeches in this debate. It is a credit to this House that we are discussing this issue and the appalling behaviour of Jeffrey Epstein in a way that is not happening in Washington. However, what we have heard in the last few days has been truly shocking. There have been the photos, the emails, and the revelations of the very close nature of Peter Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, which raise questions of potential criminality, and even treason.
The House is asking how it was that somebody who was already established, who had already had to resign twice from Government in disgrace, who was the subject of questions about his performance in the European Commission, and who was known to have maintained a very close friendship with a convicted paedophile, ever came to be regarded as an appropriate appointee to the position of ambassador in Washington. That was the critical issue that the Foreign Affairs Committee was anxious to examine. We repeatedly asked that Peter Mandelson come before the Committee; he did not. We were told eventually that we had had an opportunity to speak to him briefly over breakfast when we were in Washington, and that was sufficient. It was not sufficient. We were not able to ask him any of our questions.
We did subsequently have the opportunity to ask those questions of the Cabinet Secretary and the permanent under-secretary at the Foreign Office. The Chair of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), has already set out some of the issues that were raised, but I think it is worth repeating that we were told that Lord Mandelson’s appointment process had three stages. On the first stage, because this was a political appointment at the direct instruction of the Prime Minister, there was no interview panel, and there was not the “fireside chat” that would normally take place between an appointing Minister and a candidate. Instead, the Foreign Office was told that this was the wish of the Prime Minister, and Lord Mandelson was asked to fill in a conflict of interest form, so that there could be an understanding of private interests that “might” conflict with his position.
Jerome Mayhew
The Prime Minister made a huge deal about the process that had been gone through when he answered questions from the Leader of the Opposition earlier today. If I understand it correctly, the process was that the Prime Minister wanted Peter Mandelson.
Sir John Whittingdale
That was made absolutely clear right from the start. Indeed, the permanent under-secretary described this as a political appointment, which was made on the direct instruction of the Prime Minister.
I want to go through the three stages. The first stage was the conflicts of interest form. As the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee said, this essentially consisted of Peter Mandelson being asked to fill in a form and to choose what to put on it, and there was no subsequent questioning about anything that did not appear on his form. Of course, we have not seen the form. I believe that as part of the motion, which we are likely to pass today, that form should now be made public.
Given the potential conflict of interest, I raised with the permanent under-secretary the question of Lord Mandelson’s continuing shareholding in Global Counsel. The permanent under-secretary replied:
“This was honestly the hardest bit of this bit of the process for both of us. Lord Mandelson was a founder of the company…While he was confident that he could conduct his role as ambassador without giving rise to a conflict, we wanted to make sure we managed and mitigated that possibility in some particular ways.”
The conclusion was not that Lord Mandelson should dispose of his shareholding. Instead, some Chinese walls were put in place to ensure that he was not aware of who the clients of Global Counsel were, or of the work being undertaken. I listened with concern to what my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) said about the meeting that took place with Palantir. That raises real questions about the effectiveness of the so-called undertakings that were put in place by the Foreign Office, and we need to understand that.
Sir John Whittingdale
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and actually he anticipates my next point. I asked the permanent under-secretary whether or not Lord Mandelson was still on the civil service payroll and was told that he was not. When I asked whether a settlement or payment had been made, I was told that he had resigned but that his contract would be honoured; when I asked whether that included a payment, I was told that was a confidential matter between Lord Mandelson and the civil service. I will read the direct quote, because the exact wording is worth quoting again. I said:
“So the Foreign Office is not going to give any information as to whether payment was made to him”.
The permanent under-secretary replied:
“Any implications of his termination will be reported in our annual report and accounts, but termination payments below a particular threshold, which I think is £300,000, do not get itemised”—
I think the quick answer is no. However, I hope that is also something the Government have indicated will now be made public.
Jerome Mayhew
I was just thinking about the response that my right hon. Friend got from the permanent under- secretary. Does he think that was a permanent under-secretary trying to be helpful to the Committee, or was it him obfuscating and telling elected Members of Parliament to get their noses out of his business?
Sir John Whittingdale
I have to say to my hon. Friend that I regarded the whole session as a sort of masterpiece in Sir Humphrey-speak—an awful lot of words that conveyed very little substance.
I absolutely understand the necessity of not revealing information that may be damaging to national security. However, as one or two Members have already said, transparency is really important here, and I therefore hope that the Government will make public as much as possible. As a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, I will certainly be pressing the Committee to look at all the information that is published and to follow up on the rather unsatisfactory session that we have already had.
I will conclude with my overall impression, having looked at this process in some depth. It was clear that the Prime Minister wanted Peter Mandelson to be our ambassador to the United States. The Foreign Office had to go through the usual procedures—we heard about the three parts of the process—but I believe that the clear message that was sent to the Foreign Office was: “Go through your motions, but make sure that it ends up with his approval being granted.” The overriding impression is that, to some extent, boxes were ticked, but the Foreign Office was told very clearly that Mandelson was to be the next ambassador, and that was a direct instruction from the Prime Minister.
Oral Answers to Questions
Jerome Mayhew Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
First, I am sorry to hear that her constituent David is waiting. We took decisions at the Budget to invest in the NHS and tackle waiting lists, which was to help people such as David. We delivered £29 billion extra investment into the NHS and scrapped NHS England to invest in the frontline. We are opening 250 neighbourhood health centres to treat patients closer to home, and we have more than 5 million extra appointments being delivered. Waiting lists are down 230,000—[Interruption.] Conservative Members are chuntering, but they absolutely destroyed our health service—we are picking it up. They should be ashamed of themselves.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point; let me address it. At the heart of this issue is that temporary business rate relief was put in by the last Government during the pandemic. That was the right thing to do, and we supported it, but it was temporary relief. That is now coming to an end, and obviously there is a revaluation that goes with it. What we are doing is permanently lowering the rates for leisure, retail and hospitality, but because of the changes, we are putting in £4 billion of transitional relief. That means there will be a cap on increases for small businesses, and we are finding that by adjusting the burden between them and the online giants. It is the temporary business rates coming to an end that we have to adjust through this policy.
Oral Answers to Questions
Jerome Mayhew Excerpts(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
Anna McMorrin
This Government want to strike a fair balance between supporting farmers and fixing our public finances on which our communities, including those important agricultural communities, rely so heavily. The vast majority of farmers will not be affected by this change, and they will be able to pass the family farm down to their children. Welsh Conservatives voted to block the support reaching Welsh farms in March, which shows that the Conservative party just does not care for farmers and the agricultural community.
Jerome Mayhew
I welcome the Minister to her position at the Dispatch Box. I know she will be excellent at the job. I also refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Welsh farming is central to the Welsh economy—we can all agree on that—but it is now facing a double whammy from the mad sustainable farming scheme from Labour in Cardiff, and the frankly bad family farm tax that has been dreamt up by Labour in London. The Farmers’ Union of Wales tells us that more than 85% of active farms in Wales will have IHT bills that exceed their incomes. That spells economic disaster. Why is Labour so deaf to the voice of farmers in Wales?
Anna McMorrin
As I said, the Government want to strike that fair balance, and that is what they are doing. Our reforms mean that the majority of those claiming agricultural property relief will not be affected. That is a fair approach that balances fixing our public finances after the chaos of the Conservative party, and maintaining much needed support for families, farms and the wider rural agricultural community.
China Spying Case
Jerome Mayhew Excerpts(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alex Burghart
The previous Government were clear on a number of occasions that China was a threat, but if the hon. Gentleman had been listening to what I just said, he would have heard that the Director of Public Prosecutions said last week that it was categorically not a question of what the last Government said. Now that I have the hon. Gentleman’s attention, I will repeat for his benefit what the DPP said: that the question was
“whether China was—as a matter of fact—an active threat to national security.”
It was not a question of policy; it was a matter of fact. [Interruption.] I am not going to go through it a third time.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for setting out the story so far, but given that there have been so many variations on the truth, can he come up with an explanation of why the Government cannot alight on a single version of the truth of this matter?
Alex Burghart
I think there are basically two possible answers to my hon. Friend’s question. The first is that the Government cannot tell their elbow from their posterior; the second is that they do not want this House to know the truth. Either way, on a matter as serious as this, it is incredibly important that we get to the truth. Tonight’s motion presents the Government with an opportunity to be entirely transparent with us and set out the facts of the case as they were at the time—particularly on 1 October, when this all-important meeting took place.
Oral Answers to Questions
Jerome Mayhew Excerpts(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Order. We have had one or two little bits of that, Mr Mayhew, and we do not need it. You should know better; you have been here long enough now. I expect a little bit more respect.
Darren Jones
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. We want senior roles in locations across the country and not just in London. That is why we have committed to ensuring that 50% of UK-based senior civil service jobs are located outside London by 2030. I should add that on my visit to the Cabinet Office headquarters in my hon. Friend’s constituency, we met senior civil servants there, and we look forward to returning again in the months ahead.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
I declare that I am a member of the Unite union and refer to my relevant entries in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests on support in general election campaigns. The Office for National Statistics estimates that 36,000 working days were lost because of labour disputes in the public administration and defence sector, which includes the majority of the civil service, between July 2024 and August 2025. That is down from the 95,000 days lost between May 2023 and June 2024.
Jerome Mayhew
I am grateful for that answer, albeit partial, from the Minister, because he is quite right: he relies on the Office for National Statistics for the compilation of these figures. Now, even its staff have a strike mandate. They are refusing to attend work even for two days a week. What are the Government doing to enforce attendance levels at work? When does he think the ONS will find time to report on it?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Attendance levels are certainly important, but the hon. Gentleman has got some chutzpah, because under the previous Prime Minister—I note he is no longer in his place, although he was earlier in the questions—the UK lost more days due to strike action than France did, and the hon. Gentleman is here trying to lecture us about it. We will work in partnership with trade unions to avoid unnecessary disruption and not end up in the situation that the last Government did.