Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,731 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
I am grateful to the Minister for being so generous. On the point about the golden share and Royal Mail having been put on notice, what powers of intervention or sanction does the Minister have? Can he provide to my constituents who are listening to this debate the solution they are hoping for? We have not heard it yet.
I am grateful to my constituency next door neighbour for allowing me to intervene. Some of the post that goes to the southern part of his constituency may well be sorted through the Kidderminster postal sorting office. He mentioned that people are not getting their letters, and we have heard from other Members that urgent mail is not getting there. I too have raised this on Facebook and, independent from my residents in Stourport, Kidderminster and Bewdley—towns that should be well served—I have had 700 uninvited comments from people who are thoroughly fed up with the postal service in our part of the world. Does my hon. Friend agree that this Ofcom requirement is not being met in any way, shape or form?
As I am sure my right hon. Friend remembers, once the Bloomberg leak had happened, many of us said to the Government that now that those things had turned out to be true, we should turn Lord Peter Mandelson inside out as if he had been outed as a spy; surely, had the Government done so, the things that were released over the weekend would have come out. Is he surprised, as I am, that the Government did not seem to do an investigation into Peter Mandelson subsequent to him being fired?
Amid the utter muck-storm of this week, it is World Cancer Day, when we should be thanking our incredible scientists whose breakthroughs give hope to patients at their lowest ebb. Does the Secretary of State think that her Government should charge VAT on medicines being supplied to those patients for free?
I did not uncover any answer there. Charities and life sciences firms are telling me that this Government have begun to issue tax bills on free drugs, such that one company is stopping a compassionate access scheme and withdrawing two critical cancer drugs, and more could follow suit. This is a disaster for patients, a disaster for securing clinical trials, and a disaster for this Government’s cancer strategy. Will the Secretary of State and the Chancellor commit to stopping those bills as a matter of urgency, for the sake of patients and of our vital life sciences industry?
No matter which party we represent, no matter what deeply held differences we have and no matter how different our beliefs, everyone in this Chamber—indeed, anyone who serves the public—does so in the interests of this nation. We all signed up to serve our country, to do the best by Britain. Peter Mandelson has broken that vow. From politicians to civil servants, we all commit to the Nolan principles of public life. We promise to serve the public with integrity, objectivity, selflessness, accountability, openness and honesty. The principles state, without qualification: “Holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest…Holders of public office must avoid placing themselves under any obligation to people or organisations that might try inappropriately to influence them in their work…Holders of public office should act and take decisions in an open and transparent manner.” Peter Mandelson has broken every one of those principles. Every single Member of this House and the other place swears an Oath of Allegiance to the Crown. Before we take our seats, Members of Parliament stand in this very Chamber and swear to “be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles, his heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.” In years gone by, that Oath was to Her late Majesty the Queen. It is an oath to the Crown, but it is also an oath to this country. It is a solemn pledge of loyalty to this nation and its people. Peter Mandelson has betrayed that Oath and betrayed Britain, and the evidence is there for all to see in the Epstein files. Peter Mandelson distributed critical sensitive material about this country and its affairs. He conspired to work with foreign elites against this country’s interests, and against the policy of the Government he served. He gave some of the most privileged information to some very privileged people with the means and power to wield it. His actions could be classed as disloyal and duplicitous even if the recipient of the information was of good standing, but in this case the recipient of Peter Mandelson’s leaks was a convicted paedophile. Privileged information was passed not only to a very privileged individual, but to a disgraced criminal—a grooming-gang master from a grooming gang for the powerful and elite. Perhaps in the fullness of time, Epstein will be viewed as one of the worst grooming-gang masters this planet has seen. In doing so, Peter Mandelson has disgraced himself. His actions and his lack of candour are shameful in the extreme. But it is not Peter Mandelson’s actions that we should be concerned about. Earlier, I omitted one Nolan principle—the final one, which is leadership, and that is precisely what has been lacking from this Government since their formation. This Nolan principle requires public servants to “challenge poor behaviour wherever it occurs.” Why was Peter Mandelson’s behaviour not challenged by the Prime Minister before his appointment? Why was Peter Mandelson allowed to assume a key role when his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein was known?
My right hon. Friend is right. The Prime Minister’s position, particularly after his remarks during Prime Minister’s questions earlier, raises serious questions about what he knew and when, and why on earth he made the appointment. I have been doing this job as a Member of Parliament since 2017, and previously I was a Member of the Scottish Parliament for 10 years, so it is almost 20 years. Throughout that time, I have been aware of the rumours and speculation about Mandelson. Indeed, he was sacked from the Cabinet on two occasions for misconduct, and throughout his political life question marks have been raised about his credibility, his conduct and his scruples. Why was Peter Mandelson able to get away with distributing sensitive privileged information while in office? The questions over Peter Mandelson’s character, and his loyalty to this country, have to be answered.
The obvious question that stems from the hon. Lady’s point is why on earth the Prime Minister made that appointment when there was so much information about the toxic nature of Peter Mandelson. What on earth was the Prime Minister doing? The Secretary of State for Business and Trade, a Cabinet member, was doing the rounds saying that it was “worth the risk”, so clearly, even in the higher echelons of the Cabinet—not least the Prime Minister—there were concerns about this appointment, yet nobody did anything about it. This individual, who had this association with a predator and grooming-gang master and was subsequently caught sharing sensitive information with him, should never have been anywhere near the important office of our ambassador to the United States. There are so many questions that the Government need to answer, but there are crucial questions that the Prime Minister has to answer. For me, the Prime Minister’s conduct in this matter is completely unforgivable.
Perhaps I can rephrase the question asked by the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley). How was the Prime Minister to know that the famous serial liar Peter Mandelson would lie to him?
My hon. Friend is making a powerful, wide-ranging speech, and I am sure that more details will come out. Does it not come down to the fact that the Prime Minister appointed Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the US despite knowing that he had had a long-standing friendship with a prolific convicted paedophile, to the extent that he had stayed in that paedophile’s house while he was serving prison time? That in itself is sickening and shocking. Not only should people not be defending Peter Mandelson—and they are not—but nobody should be defending the Prime Minister for his sickening conduct.
Is it not shocking that the Prime Minister not only appointed Peter Mandelson knowing his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, but today has sought to deflect, cover up and table an amendment so as not to have to answer questions that he must now answer?
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?
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.
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?
In his interrogation of the permanent under-secretary of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Cabinet Secretary, was my right hon. Friend able to shed any light on another part of our motion as to whether severance payments were paid to Lord Mandelson and, if so, how much they were? If payments were made, we should be seeking to get them back for the taxpayer.
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing the debate. As she has just mentioned education, does she agree that education for children in very difficult settings can provide them with a lifeline and a place where they can feel safe, make friends and build up their self-confidence and self-esteem, while at the same time, giving them a sense of hope and aspiration for the future? For those reasons, does she agree that it is important that the Government continue to fund education in those settings and to fund education research into what works best in trying to help and educate our children in very difficult conflict zones?
As my hon. Friend says, the Prime Minister knew, but he also stood at the Dispatch Box in September and said that he had “full confidence” in Peter Mandelson—Lord Mandelson—knowing what he knew. Does my hon. Friend not find that extraordinary?
My right hon. Friend rightly talks about trust in politics and in politicians, but the issue is that the Prime Minister put so much blind trust in a proven liar that he was willing to forgo process and judgment when appointing him to one of the top diplomatic roles in the country. Why does my right hon. Friend think that the Prime Minister showed such a lack of judgment and such misplaced trust that it has caused this country to be a laughing stock on the international stage?
Does my hon. Friend agree that, if she struggles today to get answers to those very basic and straightforward questions, we can draw our own conclusions as to the answers?
Let us suppose that the Minister was appointing a new member of staff and he knew that a candidate had twice lost his job in the past because of misdemeanours. If he also knew that that candidate had continued a relationship with a convicted paedophile, would the Minister give him a job?
Given that—rightly, I think—the hon. Gentleman would not have appointed Peter Mandelson ambassador to the United States of America, does he think that the Prime Minister made the right decision, and will he ever again have confidence that the Prime Minister can make the right decision on any other national security issue?
I thank the hon. Member for the tone of his speech. I agree with him about the need to use moderate language and be representatives of our constituents, but in addition to that, we are elected to this place—I would hope—because of our judgment and the trust of our electorate. Whatever the outcome of this debate and of these documents, we already know that the public knew, the media knew and our constituents knew—we all knew, and we discovered at about 12 o’clock today that the Prime Minister also knew —that Lord Mandelson had a close personal relationship with a convicted paedophile. Does the hon. Member think that the Prime Minister can still command the trust of this House and the public?
As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. Energy-intensive industries have long been the backbone of our industrial economy. From steel and chemicals to ceramics and refining, these sectors provide skilled jobs, anchor local communities and guarantee our economic security, yet they are operating in an increasingly hostile environment driven largely by the cost of energy. The draft regulations will make limited but important amendments to the energy-intensive industry electricity support payments regime. Specifically, as the Minister says, they will increase the compensation available under the network charging compensation scheme from 60% to 90% from April 2026 and will extend the application window from one month to two. The changes are made using powers under the Energy Act 2023 and are intended to strengthen the British industry supercharger package. The stated aim is to lower electricity costs for the most energy-intensive sectors, reduce the risk of carbon leakage, and help retain manufacturing investment and jobs in the United Kingdom. The Opposition will always welcome measures that provide greater clarity and modest additional support for industries under pressure. However, it is impossible to consider this instrument in isolation from the wider context. Britain’s industrial electricity prices are among the highest in the world. On a per-kilowatt-hour basis, our electricity costs are the most expensive in the G7 and the European Union—around 46% higher than the median. Industrial electricity prices here are around four times higher than in the United States, and roughly 50% more than in France and Germany. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) has rightly said in other debates, Government policy risks accelerating the deindustrialisation of this country, from Stoke in the Potteries to the Prax Lindsey oil refinery in Lincolnshire.
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise that point; I have always been impressed, on a cross-party basis, by the passion with which he speaks for industry in his constituency. My point is that we need to talk to those industries that do not currently have the support. I noticed that the hon. Gentleman bobbed to try and catch your eye, Ms Vaz, so perhaps he will have some helpful comments for the Minister on that front when he is called. I am making a point about the wider context in which we have to see the statutory instrument. The most glaring omission is the oil and gas industry in the North sea. Energy-intensive industries are not just struggling; they are being driven overseas by costs that they simply cannot absorb. The very thing that the Minister said he was trying to prevent is happening. Since Labour came into government, more than 15,000 manufacturing and industrial jobs have already been lost, largely because of astronomical energy costs combined with unnecessary green levies and carbon taxes. When manufacturing moves abroad, we do not eliminate emissions; we simply offshore them, often to countries like China with weaker environmental standards and far greater geopolitical risk. We have also heard clear warnings from industry leaders. Sir Jim Ratcliffe has been explicit that high taxes and energy costs have left sites such as Grangemouth unable to compete with overseas rivals. These are not abstract concerns, but real decisions affecting real jobs. Against that backdrop, while the draft regulations make proportionate and technical changes, they do not address the fundamental problem. Increasing compensation within a flawed system is not the same as fixing the system itself. The best way to reduce electricity prices for energy-intensive businesses is to tackle costs at source by scrapping the energy profits levy and removing punitive carbon taxes that undermine competitiveness. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify how this statutory instrument fits into a broader long-term strategy for energy-intensive industries. Does he accept that compensation schemes, while welcome, cannot substitute for the structural reform of energy pricing? Can he assure the Committee that the Government are developing a plan that genuinely restores Britain’s industrial competitiveness? Ultimately, energy-intensive industries know that their future depends on predictable affordable energy. If we are serious about growth, resilience and security, the Government must ensure that the policies of this country enable those industries to survive and thrive at home, not drive them abroad.
My hon. Friend is right to look at the process, but I do not think that it provides any cover for the Prime Minister’s decision. If the story in the New Statesman today is true, the Prime Minister was directly sent a report that “clearly stated that Mandelson’s relationship with the paedophile continued after his conviction for soliciting a minor for prostitution. It contained links to photographs of Mandelson with the paedophile, and drew particular attention to evidence that Mandelson had stayed at Epstein’s apartment while he was in prison.” Candour has been talked about a lot today. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should hear from the Minister today whether that report in the New Statesman is true and whether the Prime Minister received that report? That takes away any idea of the extent of the relationship—the extent of the relationship is as laid out in that report.
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister needs to tell us at the Dispatch Box whether the New Statesman report today is true—that the Prime Minister was directly told that Mandelson stayed in Epstein’s flat while he was in prison, and therefore that the extent of that relationship was absolutely clear to the Prime Minister when he made the decision to make that appointment? I know—because I spoke to some of them at the time—that so many Labour Members were uncomfortable but felt obliged to go along with it.
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, grounded as it is in the Nolan principles. Does he agree that if the Prime Minister had appointed someone who went on to breach all the Nolan principles to a position as serious as that of ambassador to the United States, that would be a serious issue to deal with, but the fact is that he appointed a person who had already broken all the Nolan principles before his appointment, as well as doing so after it? I think that makes the Prime Minister’s position untenable.
The right hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech. He referred to the speech on factionalism made by his colleague on the Labour Benches, the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), and made the point that we need an independent inquiry. One of the reasons for that is the number of staff from Labour Together, a factional group within the Labour party, who were appointed to civil service posts directly after the general election, including one—Jess Sargeant—who was appointed to the Cabinet Office’s propriety and constitution group. Labour Front Benchers should not say, “Don’t question the impartiality of the civil service.” They undermined the impartiality of the civil service, and we need an independent inquiry if the public are to know that we will get to the truth.
The Government tried to stop the full disclosure of documents today. It was primarily Government Members who identified that and said that they would not put up with it, so it is thanks to them that a manuscript amendment has been tabled. However, there may still be a misunderstanding. The hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin) said that the ISC would vet documents before they were released, but that is not my understanding. The Committee will get to see them, however inappropriate it is for them to be published to the whole House. Does my right hon. Friend agree that Ministers must set out the principle that not only should documents be referred to the ISC, but should be released, if the ISC agrees that they are not injurious to our security and should be made public?
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister should find out—if he does not already know—whether Mandelson was in No. 10 at the time of the last Government reshuffle? Was he involved in the appointment of Ministers on the Treasury Bench? If the Minister can tell us categorically that he was not, that will be a relief to this House.
My hon. Friend may have heard the powerful speech by the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) earlier in the day about factionalism in the Labour party. The Prime Minister not only appointed Peter Mandelson to the post of ambassador knowing, as he declared today, what he knew, but he previously brought him in as a strategic adviser, advocate and planner in the 2024 Labour general election campaign. All Labour Members are tainted by that association with Mandelson, which was brought about by the leader of their party, now the Prime Minister, who knew about this matter at the time. That perhaps has not been picked up on as fully as it should have been in today’s debate.
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Further to that last intervention, we need an assurance that we will have urgency. We have seen victims of child abuse in this country let down by a Government who resisted an inquiry but then agreed to it in a big moment. Today could be a moment like that, when the Government appear to give way, but months then pass with nobody appointed to the inquiry. We need to hear from the Minister that the Government will move with speed to ensure that this information comes out.
Before the appointment of Peter Mandelson as our ambassador, he was appointed as a strategic adviser, a consultant, an advocate and a planner for the 2024 Labour party general election campaign. May I suggest that he was appointed—Government Members know this to be true—because he was treacherous, deceitful, a liar and a master manipulator in the political dark arts? That is why the Prime Minister appointed him. There is no defence, is there?
When we talk about the appointment of Mandelson, what we are really talking about is the judgment of the Prime Minister. Mandelson is now a key part of the Starmer Government —appointments, what goes on, the key people—which brings into question every judgment made by this Prime Minister, from Chagos and China to the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. I would say that today is the crumbling of Starmer. His judgment is poor, and it is ruining this country and the Labour party.
I am going to raise a very sensitive issue. My hon. Friend raised a point about vulnerable women being abused, about powerful men taking advantage, and about a friend who was appointed when he was known to be a friend of a convicted paedophile. We also have a Labour Government who ran away from investigating grooming gangs—again, vulnerable women being taken advantage of by powerful men. The Labour Government have said they stand up for women, women’s rights and vulnerable women. They have shown now that they do not, at any level—whether at the highest level or in respect of white working-class girls. Labour, I am afraid, has a lot of questions to answer about protecting women.
I will be very brief. I will not reiterate what has been set out so eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire, the shadow Minister, nor will I reiterate what the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central set out. They both illustrated, as did the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire, why the intention behind the draft regulations is to be welcomed. It is the right thing to do, but there is a considerable amount of complexity involved in how it will play out over time. The one point that I make to the Minister is about paragraph 47 of the impact assessment. The third bullet point refers to the need for the policy to be “reviewed at an appropriate juncture”. That is sensible, but can he set out what an appropriate juncture would look like?
There is a fourth point, which is that there is likely to be a sizeable volume of documents for the ISC to review. Will the Minister reassure this House that the ISC will be given the resources it needs to do its job?
Q8. For months, our communities in Epping have been deeply distressed by the Bell hotel reopening as an asylum hotel. My thoughts remain with the victims of the sexual assaults, including the 14-year-old Epping schoolgirl whose trauma was compounded by the mistaken release of the offender from prison. Weekly protests continue, some of which have become violent, with injuries to 10 brave police officers. I am grateful to the Minister for Border Security and Asylum for meeting me recently about this untenable situation, but will the Prime Minister listen and act now, close the Bell hotel once and for all, and help restore our town of Epping?
My hon. Friend is making excellent points. It is a surprise not to see the Prime Minister answering these questions himself. At the end of the day, he made the decision to appoint Mandelson to the post of ambassador, so he must explain his decision-making process, and what he knew and when. Why is he not here?