Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,731 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
I rise with incredulity, having learned that there was not a requirement to dispose of the interest. I recall going through ethics and propriety when being made a Minister, and I was told that it would be entirely inappropriate to hold things. I know of colleagues who had to dispose of their interests. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the noble Baroness Gray had still been running propriety and ethics, something like this would not have happened?
Q4. I will give the Prime Minister some brief respite from Peter Mandelson. However, he will also be familiar with the name Phil Shiner, the disgraced lawyer who was struck off and convicted for repeatedly inventing vexatious cases against British troops in Iraq. It is something of a surprise that the Prime Minister authored a chapter in Mr Shiner’s book about pursuing our veterans via the European Court of Human Rights. Can I ask him specifically: was he ever instructed by Mr Shiner’s law firm, Public Interest Lawyers, to act in any legal case?
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister, in response to my question, appeared to deny ever being instructed by the disgraced lawyer Phil Shiner, yet I have here the 2007 case of Al-Jedda v. the Secretary of State for Defence, where it quite clearly says that the appellants were instructed by public interest lawyers including one Keir Starmer QC. Perhaps the Prime Minister might want to return to the House and clarify his earlier remarks.
Order. There are several other points of order. I am keen that we do not conduct the debate via points of order, so, if the right hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will take two further points of order and then respond to his point of order. Hopefully we might then have an answer.
Order. That is not a point of order; it is a point of debate. I do not think it is appropriate during points of order specifically on the Intelligence and Security Committee to raise that matter. It is not for the Chair to rule on comments by other Members during the course of the debate.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. He has very clearly brought into question the probity of the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe). He might want to withdraw that. It is of course a matter for the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth to declare that, which he could now do by putting any interest on the record.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that point of order. As he will know, the powers of the ISC are not a matter for the Chair. However, the Minister on the Front Bench will have heard his comments and will have every opportunity in winding up to respond to that specific point and to provide the entire House with the clarity that I believe it is looking for on that point.
I thank the hon. Member for that point of order. He will know that declarations of interest are not a matter for the Chair. However, he might be advised to refer that to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards for investigation.
The hon. Gentleman will have heard my earlier comment that it is a matter not for the Chair but for the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards if he has failed to declare interests during the debate.
I did ask the Member to withdraw his comments. He now has the opportunity to do so.
I thank the hon. Member for putting that on the record. If there are no more points of order, I call Wendy Morton.
Order. Will the hon. Lady make sure that she refers to the Prime Minister as the Prime Minister, please?
Order. I count two uses of the word “you”. I have not said anything; it is the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) who has made a comment, but any intervention needs to be via the Chair.
I call the shadow Minister.
I will now announce the result of today’s deferred Division on the draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) Order 2026. The Ayes were 392 and the Noes were 116, so the Ayes have it. [The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]
At the point immediately prior to Peter Mandelson’s appointment as ambassador, the UK had a respected ambassador to the United States already in Dame Karen Pierce. Given that fact, the known abhorrence of Jeffrey Epstein and the appalling previous judgment of Peter Mandelson, why did the Government still decide that, on balance, it was a risk worth taking to appoint paedophile-adjacent Peter Mandelson to the post of ambassador?
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the public are sick and tired of people who appear to fail upwards in public life, simply for the reason that they appear to move in the right circles?
Aside from the evident, persistent and consistent failures in the Prime Minister’s integrity, does this issue not raise massive questions about the hold over the Government and those at the top of the Labour party by someone whose name has been a byword for sleaze for the last two or three decades?
Does my hon. Friend agree, particularly following her point about the writing being on the wall, that the Minister, when he wraps up on behalf of the Government, needs to quash any rumours that the Prime Minister is hunkered down in Downing Street and planning a reshuffle to stabilise a sinking ship?
The new Project Gigabit contract for Cheshire, expected to be in place by the spring, will cover only around a third of the premises in Chester South and Eddisbury that currently lack adequate broadband. I have raised this issue repeatedly, but I am still without a clear answer. Can the Minister now set out what specific plans exist for the remaining 10,000 homes and businesses, mostly in rural areas, that are not included in this new contract? When can those premises realistically expect to be connected?
The Foreign Affairs Committee, on which I sit, called for Lord Mandelson to appear before us on multiple occasions to explain the circumstances and process of his unusual appointment. He did not adhere to that request. Does the shadow Minister agree that Lord Mandelson’s failure to come before the Committee sends the signal that the Government wanted to hide something, that there were issues in the appointment and vetting process, and that, had there been transparency in the early stages of his appointment, we would have avoided sending someone wholly unfit to fulfil one of the UK’s most senior diplomatic roles?
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister, who has now left the Chamber, said that each Humble Address that his party laid in opposition mentioned national security. However, I have checked the two most recent Humble Addresses laid by the Labour party when it was in opposition, and all Labour Members should be aware that the words “national security” do not feature even once, because it is not necessary in an Humble Address. So how can we get the Prime Minister to correct the record when he has chosen just to leave the room? [Hon. Members: “Call him back!”]
The hon. Lady’s point about the wider establishment is important. Individuals like Sir Richard Branson clearly offered to help Epstein launder his identity and reputation by suggesting public relations advice on how he might recover from his prosecution. We have gentlemen like Bill Gates, whose wife has bravely spoken out, saying that one of the reasons she left him was his links to Epstein. How do we make sure that such men, who continue to have extreme power, face some sort of justice?
Will the hon. Lady give way one more time?
I thank the hon. Lady for raising that issue. I wrote to the Cabinet Secretary on 5 December, asking when Peter Mandelson’s pay had stopped, how much the severance pay was, and whether taxpayers have had to foot the bill for it. Although that was well over two months ago, I have received no response. How can we have any confidence that this investigation will be carried out properly when the Cabinet Secretary will not even answer basic questions about how Mandelson was paid and how much it cost us all?
I understand that the right hon. Lady is saying that the information that Peter Mandelson had maintained a relationship with a then convicted paedophile passed her by. However, she does have an entire committee of Clerks who will have advised her. She also says that she said that this was an imaginative appointment. I am afraid she actually said that it was an “inspired appointment”. I know, because I spoke out against the appointment. Will she please tell me whether her Clerks at any point shared with her concerns about the background of Epstein and his relationship with Mandelson, and whether she will therefore now say that she regrets calling it an “inspired appointment”?
I thank my right hon. Friend for making that point. From my perspective—I wonder if he agrees with me—if the amendment had said that anything that was secret or top secret needed to be withheld, that would be a very different argument. However, the use of the very vague terminology of “national security”—which has never been used in a previous Humble Address by the Opposition, as I made clear in a point of order after Prime Minister’s questions—is a nonsense, and the idea of “international relations” is completely vague.
I wish to credit the hon. Gentleman for the speech he is giving today. Very early in my career, I voted for something and I could not sleep that night. Never since have I voted for something that has made me feel ashamed of myself, and I will never do it again. It takes bravery to do that so early in the hon. Gentleman’s time in Parliament. It is really important. I hope his colleagues on the Labour Benches, in particular the new intake, stand behind him, support him for the decision he has made and do not criticise him, because he is doing what he believes to be right. All credit to him, because we know how difficult that is, from having governed for so long. I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he is saying and what he is doing today.
There does seem to be amnesia about this. When Mandelson was made ambassador, it was well known that he continued the relationship with the convicted paedophile post his conviction, and there were simpering emails already in the public domain saying things like, “Oh darling one, all should be forgiven.” The suggestion that it only recently became unacceptable for him to be ambassador is wrong. If Labour Members want to suggest that it was not well known, let me tell them that colleagues like me raised it in this Chamber on the day that he was appointed, and I was greeted with jeers and boos from the Labour Benches. No one said, “Absolutely, maybe there are concerns”. Should that amnesia perhaps be reconsidered?
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Another appointment that we have had is that of the National Security Adviser, Jonathan Powell, who some might argue is the de facto Foreign Secretary. Given that he is running around having secret meetings with Wang Yi and other Chinese senior officials, how can we have confidence that he went through the appropriate vetting, when we cannot have confidence that it was done for our ambassador to America?
“Liberation Day!”—that was how Mandelson described the day of Epstein’s release from prison for procuring children to be trafficked and raped. His next message was, “How is freedom feeling?” Epstein replied, “she feels fresh, firm, and creamy”. Mandelson’s next reply: “Naughty boy”. We had not seen those emails, I admit, when the ambassador was appointed, but let us look at what we did know when he was appointed ambassador. We knew at that point that he had consoled this paedophile on his being found guilty and convicted of just one of the many crimes he committed. We also knew that while he was Deputy Prime Minister of this country and Business and Trade Secretary, and while he was carrying the flag of our great nation, he stayed in a convicted paedophile’s flat while on an official visit to New York. How dare he do that while representing this country! Did no one in the Cabinet Office or the Department for Business and Trade—no civil servant or political appointee —know that he had said, “No, I don’t need a hotel, thank you ever so much. I’m going to stay at my friend’s Epstein’s house. Oh, by the way, he happens to be in prison, but I’m going to stay at his house anyway”? There are serious questions about why he was not pursued for misconduct in public office at that point. No one can say that the Labour Government did not know, because I have been a civil servant; I knew where my Ministers were staying when they were abroad. I am not sure that they always wanted me to know, but I knew, and none of them would have ever done that. That is at the heart of the issue with the judgment of the Prime Minister. On Monday, a Government Minister said that nobody objected when Mandelson was appointed. Look at Hansard: I remember objecting very clearly and repeatedly, because it was clear at that point that Mandelson had repeatedly said that Epstein did not deserve to be in prison, that this was an awful time for him, and how he cared about and was thinking about his good friend. Why was there no investigation, and why was the vetting not done right? There is no question but that the vetting cannot have been conducted properly. I have been through vetting myself—not as a Minister, I accept, but as a civil servant. I have sat in a room with a rather elderly gentleman for two hours, being asked about my every sexual proclivity, when I lost my virginity, and whether I had taken drugs. I was asked about every single aspect of my life because both apolitical civil servants and politicians in this place should hold themselves accountable and be right for appointment to their role. It is clear from the debate, and from the evidence put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale), that the Prime Minister wanted this appointment made, and because the Prime Minister wanted Mandelson, Mandelson was going to be appointed. We will see when the docs are released how they were able to get around the official vetting, but that brings me to my concerns about another political appointment that was rushed through because the Prime Minister demanded it: that of Jonathan Powell, the National Security Adviser. There are significant concerns about his business interests. There are significant concerns in the House about the fact that there has been no scrutiny of him because he will not come before the House and give evidence. There is also significant concern about his relationships in China and around the world, yet he is permitted—again, while flying the flag of this nation—to conduct secret visits to China, where he met Wang Yi and other senior representatives. The British Government refused to put out any press notice explaining why the visit happened, or even that it happened at all.
I entirely agree with my very good and hon. Friend. I was taken aback by the comments of the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), who sought to give us a lecture on how Government vetting is undertaken. She kept referring to fast-stream civil servants as those responsible for vetting. Fast stream is a mode of recruitment, not a type of civil servant. It felt as if she was trying to suggest that junior civil servants should take the can for the vetting process that was pursued. I very much hope that is not the case, because it is deeply inappropriate. The commonality between the appointments of Lord Mandelson and Jonathan Powell is Morgan McSweeney, so I must ask whether Morgan McSweeney is the one who should be held accountable. At this point, it looks as if no one will be held accountable.
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. He may also recall that, following Prime Minister’s questions, I had no choice but to make a point of order because the Prime Minister had told this House that every Humble Address that the Labour party had proposed in opposition had a national security protection clause, yet neither of Labour’s last two Humble Addresses in opposition featured the words “national” or “security”, let alone the two put together. In contrast, the Prime Minister put his hand up to me and dismissed me, shaking his arm at me as he left the Chamber, as if the point I was making was not necessary. [Interruption.] And yes, on Monday, Members will also recall that he shouted that I was pathetic for asking why he met with the master of two Chinese spies during his recent trip to China.
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because I agree that he should hold his Government to exactly those standards. I am very sorry that he missed my point of order—I recognise that it was not a show-stopper—but that is exactly the point I made: national security concerns are implicit in Humble Addresses. If the Government had put such wording in their amendment as “secret or top secret documents cannot be revealed”, I would have said, “Yes, that is absolutely fair.” But that is the point: there is no requirement to stipulate national security concerns, let alone provide some vague wording about international relationships, because that is already provided for. I thank him for confirming exactly my position. We have touched on China. I hope that when these documents are released, we will see the full extent of Epstein’s relationship not just with the Putin state, but with the Chinese Communist party. I have deep concerns about the way in which Mandelson had a say about the Government’s China policy. There is no question but that he has been influencing it. Some questions are still unanswered. As I have said almost every day this week, I wrote to the Cabinet Secretary on 5 December to ask for the details of Mandelson’s severance package. These were not complicated questions: what was the detail of the contract, and will it be published; has any non-disclosure agreement to do with it been signed at any point; when did Mandelson receive his final payment, or is he still being paid by the taxpayer; and what were the details of his severance package? Almost two months on, I have received no response from the Cabinet Secretary—in whom, as we have discussed today almost ad nauseum, we do not have confidence to carry out this inquiry. That is not a personal attack; it is recognition of the fact that he works for the Prime Minister and does not reply to straightforward questions from Members of the House.
Unfortunately, as Members must slowly learn, where there is a vacuum of silence in this place, our constituents, the great people of this country, see conspiracy, and sadly too often they are right. The Paymaster General has committed to get me answers to my letter, and although he is currently having a conversation with someone else, I gently encourage him that I would like answers to those questions on severance pay today from the Dispatch Box, because I raised the issue on Monday and have received no response. It is in the motion, so please can we have those answers? I also want briefly to reflect on what has happened over the past week. On Sunday, the Labour party informed the media that it could not strip Mandelson of his membership of the Labour party—perhaps the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) would like to intervene on that, as I suspect he has something to say about the Labour party stripping people of their membership. On Monday, the Government told the House that they cannot legislate as that would not be appropriate or possible, and it was too difficult, despite the entire House offering to sit until 4 am to do so. We then had silence from the Government when Members of the House asked them to refer the matter to the police. It was clear from early doors that this was going to end with the police, and hopefully in our courts, as I have argued it should have done back in 2010.
One lesson of being in government—there are many—that I hope we have learned is that the writing is normally on the wall. It was very clear from early days that this man was going to let down our country, but those of us who criticised him were told, “This is imaginative; this is inspired. They are putting in place a man who can shake things up and make friends with Donald Trump.” Throughout his persistent behaviour, as more and more became clear, the Prime Minister could have taken decisive action. As I said, it has been clear for a long time that this was not going to end up just with Mandelson disgraced, or with us rightly saying that he should be removed from the other place; it is going to end up with him facing court, I hope. Let me be clear: malfeasance in public office is what he should be tried for, and that carries a life sentence. That is how severe are the crimes that he has been conducting, and I am ashamed that Gordon Brown raised the flag of warning and seems to have had nothing in response to his concerns.
It is very difficult, particularly when a party has such a high number of new MPs—we have been there and experienced it—to feel the mood music, hear the jungle drums, and understand whether something is a precipice or a turning point. For many of us who have been reflecting over the past few days, this has the hallmark of things that we feel we have seen before. We have been here; we have seen this sideshow. It is very difficult, because our integrity is the only thing we take with us when we leave this place. Too many colleagues from across the House have had to learn that over the past few years, because this is a cruel game, and we can find ourselves being thrown out when we do not expect it. May I say how much I welcome the fact that the manuscript amendment has been put forward? It is a sign that the Government are listening, and I give them credit for doing so. However, this could all have been prevented if the Prime Minister had come before the House on Monday and given a firmer commitment to take action.
I can give but one comment to those new MPs who may think that a reshuffle is a good thing: it causes only more upset and heartache within the party, and it will not be a solution.
It is quite clearly the will of the House that that would be beyond unacceptable—it would be a contempt of Parliament, if it happened. I can say—I would like to think that this goes for the entire House—that I have complete confidence in the integrity of gentlemen such as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), who sits on the ISC. No one would impugn his integrity or question whether he would ensure that he got to the bottom of whatever is necessary. There is no question but that this issue goes so far beyond the vile and inhumane treatment of women; it appears, I am afraid, that Peter Mandelson betrayed not just his colleagues but his own country for the financial interests of others.