Lord Mandelson
Zarah Sultana Excerpts(2 days, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Your Party)
This situation stinks. Peter Mandelson maintained a relationship with Jeffrey Epstein after he had been convicted. It was not before anyone knew about his grotesque crimes, not when it was being whispered about, but after his conviction, when the world knew exactly who and what Jeffrey Epstein was. Yet before Mandelson’s appointment as ambassador to the United States, senior Labour MPs—Members sitting on the Government Benches today—went on television and social media to praise him. They knew the facts, because by that point it was public knowledge that Mandelson had stayed in Epstein’s New York home while Epstein was serving time as a convicted paedophile.
When asked about this last September, the Prime Minister told the House he had “full confidence” in Peter Mandelson, despite knowing about his close relationship with Epstein. That’s right: the leader of the Labour party and Prime Minister had full confidence in a man who was besties with a convicted nonce. What a disgrace! What we are witnessing is not accountability but the Westminster club protecting its own.
This is not just about this Labour Government; large sections of the media also played their part. Mandelson did not simply drift back into public life. He was rehabilitated, rebranded and presented as respectable. He was welcomed on the BBC’s flagship programmes as a wise elder statesman. He was given deferential treatment by The Spectator, The Guardian and The Sunday Times. Those are the same outlets that lecture relentlessly about standards and morality when it is a trade unionist, a protestor or a working-class person who puts a foot wrong. But when it is one of their own, the tone changes. Suddenly it is about experience, pragmatism and “getting things done”. This is how power protects itself.
What about the victims—the girls and young women abused by Epstein? They received an apology from Mandelson only after sustained pressure. It was not freely given, not offered because it was the right thing to do. Until recently, he still enjoyed the zone 2 dinner party treatment, with magazine-style PR photos of Mandelson being published only this week.
Then there is the money. At least $75,000 was transferred from Epstein to Mandelson. He says that he cannot remember the transactions. If £75,000 landed in the bank account of almost anyone else in the country, they definitely would remember. To claim otherwise is contemptuous and goes to the heart of why trust in politics is collapsing. If those in power cannot remember vast sums of money flowing into their accounts, why should the public believe that they are acting in the public interest?
This only came to light because the American authorities released the Epstein files. We are told that the UK has no record of Mandelson’s emails. If those files had not been released, he would have settled back into public life, shielded by friendly journalists and wealthy backers. That is how broken our political culture has become. And now further emails have emerged, raising serious questions about whether market-sensitive information was leaked while he was at the heart of Government.
When ordinary people make mistakes, they pay the price. Nurses are disciplined, teachers are suspended and care workers lose their jobs, but if you belong to the Westminster club, you can be linked to one of the most notorious predators of our time and still reach the top.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Does the hon. Member agree that potentially every single working person, retired person and child in this country has paid the price for what Mandelson did? If he did indeed share information relating to the financial crash, it has cost everyone a fortune and he owes everyone in this country an apology.
Zarah Sultana
I absolutely agree. This is a systemic issue, and that is why I support the calls for an independent, judge-led public inquiry.
Yes, Peter Mandelson was eventually removed as ambassador to the US, but he remained in the House of Lords and as a Labour party member until three days ago. The Labour party cannot pretend that this was some distant mistake, quietly corrected a long time ago. This was a decision it defended until it was forced to abandon it, and he should never have been appointed in the first place. If this Labour Government believe that the appointment was proper, they should stop stonewalling and prove it by publishing all the documents: the vetting, the advice, the risk assessments, the correspondence and the contracts—including with Palantir. Instead, the Prime Minister tabled an amendment to withhold any papers deemed
“prejudicial to UK national security or international relations.”
We know that when Governments fear scrutiny, they wrap themselves up in the flag and hope that the public will look away. If there is nothing to hide, why carve out broad exemptions in advance? The Government’s last-minute manuscript amendment is a desperate attempt to control dissent on the Labour Back Benches. This is not accountability. It is not transparency. It is delay and damage control. The Government are kicking the can down the road in the hope that the outrage will fade and the questions will go away, but they will not. That is why I am supporting calls for an independent, judge-led public inquiry.
This is not just about Peter Mandelson; it is about a system that protects the powerful and disregards the public. The victims deserve better and the British public deserve better, so the Government must publish all the documents, end the corruption and the cover-up, and stop insulting the public with empty words when what we need is transparency. The Prime Minister said he had full confidence in Peter Mandelson, but the public have no confidence in the Prime Minister. He should do the honourable thing and resign.
Oral Answers to Questions
Zarah Sultana Excerpts(10 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
As the hon. Member knows, the SFI schemes have operated to provide quite considerable support so far. There have been a number of schemes: they have closed and then a new scheme has been put in place. In 2022 and 2023, the Conservatives closed them without the six weeks’ notice. But we do support farmers and we will be putting forward more details at the spending review. The difference in this Government is that we are funding the farmers, whereas the Conservatives failed to spend part of the budget.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Ind)
The Prime Minister
I am really appalled by Israel blocking aid when it is needed at greater volume and speed than it has ever been needed. Blocking goods, supplies and power entering Gaza risks breaching international humanitarian law and it should not be happening, and we are doing everything we can to alleviate that situation.
Anniversary of 7 October Attacks: Middle East
Zarah Sultana Excerpts(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
Iran bears huge responsibility across the region, both in its assistance in relation to the 7 October attack and through the other action that it is supporting in the region. That is why we have been clear in our positioning on Iran, and clear about the responsibility that Iran bears in relation to those awful incidents.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Ind)
On the anniversary of the horrific 7 October attacks, I again repeat the call for the immediate release of all hostages. In light of Israel’s genocidal assault in Gaza, the violence in the west bank and the invasion of Lebanon, does the Prime Minister believe that Israel’s right to self-defence justifies a death toll that, according to research by US medical professionals who have worked in Gaza, has now surpassed 118,000, as well as the 2,000 people killed in Lebanon? Will he do what is morally and legally right and end the Government’s complicity in war crimes by banning all arms sales to Israel, including the F-35 fighter jet, and not just 30 licences—yes or no?
The Prime Minister
No, but it is a really serious point. Banning all sales would mean none for defensive purposes—
The Prime Minister
It would mean none for defensive purposes. On the anniversary of 7 October and days after a huge attack by Iran into Israel, that would be the wrong position for this Government and I will not take it.
Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase 2 Report
Zarah Sultana Excerpts(1 year, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
Sir Max Hill has personal experience of these sorts of cases, as have I. We need to ensure that resource is in place, and that we are clear about the speed of decision making. They are not straightforward decisions, but none the less they should be taken as swiftly as possible. We need to ensure that the courts are in a position to handle the cases as soon as they are ready to go to court, if there are cases to go to court.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Ind)
I join colleagues in remembering the 72 people who lost their lives in the Grenfell Tower fire tragedy, and I say to their friends and families that I will always fight to deliver justice for their loved ones. As chair of the Fire Brigades Union parliamentary group, I put on record my admiration for the heroic bravery of the firefighters who attended that night. The FBU has long said that deregulation and corporate greed were the reasons for the catastrophe, and the report vindicates that view. Does the Prime Minister agree? When will the Government set up the statutory advisory body on fire policy, in order to give firefighters and control staff a voice in setting national standards, and to ensure lessons are learned? When will the timetable for that be set?