[0:00]statement. Minister, >> thank you, Madame Deputy Speaker. Madame Deputy Speaker, as I know right honorable and honorable members across
[0:09]the House will agree, Jeffrey Epstein was a despicable criminal who committed disgusting crimes and destroyed the lives of countless women and girls.
[0:19]>> What he did is unforgivable. His victims must be our first priority. As the prime minister has said, anybody
[0:29]with relevant information must come forward and cooperate with investigations so that Jeffrey Epstein's victims can get the justice they have been denied for too long.
[0:40]Madame Deputy Speaker, on Friday, the Department of Justice in the United States released around 3 million pages from the case files relating to Jeffrey Epstein. It is increasingly clear that his awful
[0:51]crimes involved and were facilitated by many often powerful people both by actively participating in those crimes but also by failing to hear those
[1:02]victims victim's voices by equating wealth with integrity and by not using one's privileged position to speak out even against a
[1:14]friend. It is incumbent upon those of us who hold ministerial office to behave in such a way that builds trust in politics and upholds the standards that voters
[1:25]rightly expect from us. Contained within the release by the US Department of Justice were documents which highlighted the close nature of the relationship
[1:35]between Jeffrey Epstein and Peter Mandlesson, including alleged financial transactions when Peter Mandlesson was a Labour member of parliament and later
[1:45]minister. For the avoidance of doubt, this information was not known by the government until the release of documents by the Department of Justice on Friday.
[1:56]The nature of the documents also raise serious concerns about Peter Mandlesson's behavior whilst a minister. Peter Manderson must account for his
[2:06]actions and conduct. It is an understatement, Madame Deputy Speaker, to say that his decision to continue a close relationship with a convicted pedophile, including
[2:17]discussing private government business, falls far below the standards expected of any minister. His behavior was unequivocally wrong and an insult to the
[2:29]women and girls who suffered. >> No government minister of any political party should have nor ever should behave in this way.
[2:39]Madame Deputy Speaker, the Prime Minister has today asked the cabinet secretary to review all available information regarding Peter Mandlesson's contact with Jeffrey Epstein during his period as a government minister and to
[2:51]report back to him as a matter of urgency. As the House knows, Peter Mandlesson is no longer a member of the Labour Party, having resigned his membership last night. and the House may
[3:02]wish to know that disciplinary action was underway by the Labour Party prior to his resignation. The Prime Minister believes, as does the government, that Peter Manderson should
[3:14]not retain his membership of the House of Lords or use his title. As the House already knows, the government does not have the power to remove Purigages without legislation.
[3:26]However, the prime minister is calling on all political parties, including the Conservatives as the largest party in the House of Lords, to work with the government to modernize the disciplinary
[3:37]procedures to allow for removal of peers who have bought the House of Lords into dispute. >> The government will today write to the appropriate authorities in the other
[3:46]place to start that process. It would be better, Madame Deputy Speaker, to update those procedures so that they apply to all members of the House of Lords instead of having to
[3:58]introduce complex hybrid bills for each individual peer who has brought the other place into disrepute. >> Madame Deputy Speaker, I recognize the strength of feeling on all sides of the
[4:10]House, myself included, and the government will of course keep members up to date. I commend the statement to the House. I call the shadow chancellor of the
[4:20]Duchy of Lancaster. >> Thank you very much, Madame Deputy Speaker, and I'd like to thank the minister for advanced sight of his statement. The crimes of Jeffrey Epstein
[4:30]were truly terrible. Pedophilia, sex trafficking, child prostitution. It was an awful abuse of power. And it is, of course, a great embarrassment to our
[4:41]country that its most senior ambassador should have been caught up with a man like him. In this latest set of releases from the US Department of Justice, it's clearer than ever that theirs was a
[4:51]relationship built not just on affection, but on the transfer of money from Epstein to Mandlesson's family and the transfer of information from
[5:01]Mandlesson to Epstein. In some cases, this was apparently market sensitive information that Mandlesson only received by dent of being a member of
[5:12]the Labor government. So, of course, we welcome the belated announcement that there will be an investigation into Mandlesson's conduct whilst he was a minister. But this should have happened long ago. And I say that because we know
[5:23]that in February last year, Gordon Brown, the former prime minister, wrote to the cabinet secretary explicitly asking for an investigation into the veracity of information contained in the Epstein papers about the sale of assets
[5:35]arising from the banking collapse and communications about them between Lord Mandlesson and Mr. Epstein. that investigation never happened. In any case, I'm afraid the investigation
[5:45]announced today alone will not do. It is not enough to consider Mandlesson's historic conduct. There also needs to be an investigation into his behavior whilst he was our ambassador in
[5:57]Washington. Given that he abused his previous position, it is entirely conceivable that he abused his most recent one. For example, I understand that on the 27th of February last year,
[6:08]Mandlesson arranged for the prime minister to meet Palanteer, a client of Mandolen's company, Global Council. How many more such meetings were there? What other information was shared? We all
[6:19]have a right to know. Likewise, the government cannot hide from its responsibility in having made Mandelin its ambassador in the first place. This was a political appointment. It happened
[6:30]only because of political pressure. And so one of two things must be true, Madame Deputy Speaker. Either there was the most terrible failure of the vetting
[6:38]system or the government chose to brush that vetting information away. And both are very serious. But the government must now be honest with us about which
[6:48]it was. And it seems very unlikely that the government's vetting system broke down entirely. Indeed, on the 10th of September, the prime minister told the House that full due process was followed during this appointment. Can it really
[6:59]be the case that this full due process did not pick up the extent of the relationship? On the 3rd of November, Ollie Robbins, the then permanent secretary at the foreign office, told committee back before Lord Mandlesson
[7:10]was announced as the appointee, there was a process within the cabinet office to make sure that the prime minister was aware of Lord Mandlesson and the issues around his appointment. We can confidently say that the relationship
[7:20]with Epstein was indeed surfaced. So the government knew that Mandlesson had a long maintained and unhealthy relationship with Epstein and yet it continued with its appointment anyway.
[7:32]So the question is madame deputy speaker who in number 10 knew what and when? The chief secretary to the prime minister has a duty to tell this house precisely what the prime minister knew when he
[7:42]made the appointment to disclose the documents that the prime minister saw. And if the prime minister genuinely did not know, well somebody must have done. Who was it? Was it his chief of staff,
[7:53]Morgan Mcweeny, who is reported to have personally pushed the appointment? Was it the deputy prime minister who was then the foreign secretary who would have been party to some of the information? It's just time for the
[8:03]government to be open and clear with us all. Something went very badly wrong with this appointment. Madame Deputy Speaker, it has caused very great embarrassment to this country
[8:13]>> and it is time that someone took responsibility. >> Thank you. Uh, Madame Deputy Speaker, the person that has to take responsibility for their failings is
[8:25]Peter Mandlesson. Uh, the shadow chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster uh, knows because the process for political appointments, whether to ambassadorships or otherwise, was one that was set up under the previous Conservative
[8:36]government. It was a process that we inherited and have since updated. The prime minister has been very clear that the declarations of interest that were put forward by Peter Mandleton were not
[8:48]wholly truthful. When it became clear from the release of information that that had not been the case, the prime minister moved swiftly to remove Peter Manderson as the ambassador to the
[8:58]United States. On the first point uh that the shadow chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster made in relation to an investigation requested by former prime minister Gordon Brown, I can confirm to the house that his statement was
[9:09]incorrect. Former prime minister did ask the cabinet secretary to investigate to look for any particular documents that related as he said to the sale of RBS assets to JP Morgan. That investigation
[9:19]was undertaken. The cabinet secretary did respond to the former prime minister to confirm that no documents in relation to these questions were held by the government. Evidently, now that more
[9:30]documents have become available to the public and to the government, further investigations are now taking place. >> Emily Thornbury. Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. These files seem
[9:42]to show that Peter Mandlesson was given £50,000 by a notorious pedophile and a few years later he sent on market
[9:52]sensitive information to Epstein who worked for JP Morgan about market bailouts, the prime minister's resignation, telling them that they should mildly threaten the chancellor of
[10:03]the exjecker and then told him about matters of national security. Surely this is not a matter of whether Peter Mandel should be in the House of Lords. This is a matter of whether the police
[10:15]should be involved. >> The honorable lady is right that each individual issue is wholly unacceptable
[10:25]and cumulatively it is also unacceptable. the undeclared exchange of funds, the passing on of government information, let alone the fact that those exchanges were to a convicted
[10:36]pedophile are wholly unconscionable. And the House will know that if any of those activities were to take place today, ministers would be swiftly relieved of
[10:46]their duties and could be via the recall petitions available to the House removed from their constituency, too. As to the matter of criminal investigations, of course, that is a matter for the
[10:58]prosecution services and the police, and the investigation into the release documents from the cabinet secretary of the prime minister, as I've informed the house, is currently underway. >> Liberal Democrat spokesperson Max
[11:08]Wilkinson. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Chief Secretary of the Prime Minister and the shadow CDL are right. We must start by remembering the many women and
[11:18]young girls who experienced unimaginable horrors at the hands of network of the network of Epstein. We must also ask, Madame Deputy Speaker, what it was that first attracted the
[11:29]politician Peter Mandlesson to the billionaire financier Jeffrey Epstein, and why was it that that relationship continued after Epstein's character was well known? At the very least, the
[11:41]forwarding of confidential government correspondence to a wealthy and powerful individual was clearly well beneath the conduct expected of a cabinet minister and possibly a breach of the law. When that is combined with the reported
[11:52]financial flows, the evidence is damning. The use of public office for private gain is the very definition of corruption. Regardless of the outcome of a government investigation, millions of
[12:03]people up and down this country are more than capable of judging for themselves on the evidence in front of them. So, Madame Deputy Speaker, I asked the Chief Secretary of the Prime Minister, isn't it time to end the Lord Mandlesson
[12:15]sherard once and for all by bringing legislation to this house to strip him of his puridge? And what about his membership of the Privy Council, too? >> Absolutely. >> The Chief Secretary of the Prime
[12:27]Minister referenced declarations of interest. So, will the government work with House authorities to republish Peter Mandlesson's register of interests dating back to his time as a cabinet
[12:37]minister in a Labor government? Uh, thank you. And can I welcome the honorable member to his um post on the Liberal Democrats front bench. Um,
[12:48]the honorable member is right that it is time for the procedures in parliament to be updated. This house has taken steps in recent years to do that. The other
[12:59]place has not. And as I said in my statement to the house, the government is making an offer today to the other place and to the appropriate authorities in the House of Lords to put forward
[13:10]proposals to do just that. And if we need to make time available to do so, we will. >> Clive Emer the the key question here is is who
[13:22]advised the prime minister? I don't expect the prime minister to do due diligence on appointments of this kind himself, but those around him must have done and it does appear that there were questions that needed to be asked of
[13:34]Lord Mandlesson that weren't asked or if they were asked that the answers were not passed on. So when there this is investigated, can my right honorable friend give us a guarantee that those
[13:44]around the prime minister who would have advised him on this appointment will be investigated fully? >> Uh the appointment for political uh the
[13:55]process sorry for political appointments um has since been strengthened by this government to include additional interviews and processes for declarations of interest. The key thing
[14:06]though madam deputy speaker is when someone lies in their declarations of interest there must be a consequence and the consequence in respect to members of the other place needs to be removal from
[14:17]the house of lords and loss of your periage. That can only happen if the other place bring forward proposals to update their own processes which the government stands ready to support them
[14:28]in doing so. But I agree with my honorable friend that there needs to be robust, clear, transparent processes and where there are conflicts of interest for those to be surfaced and dealt with adequately and then when people are
[14:39]found to have lied, there must be some consequence. >> Chair of the select committee, Simon Hall. >> Thank you, speaker. Yeah, >> the chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster
[14:49]is is right to say that the other place must modernize its disciplinary procedures, but that kicks the Mandlesson can down the road. This is
[15:00]not the first time this modernday Icarus has flown a little bit too close to the sun, usually over money. We all remember the Jeffrey Robinson mortgage loan which
[15:11]of course occasioned an earlier uh resignation and the Hinduda passport. Where I disagree with the minister is that you should conflate the updating
[15:23]of the disciplinary procedures of the other place and bringing forward legislation which is allowed to remove Mandlesson's periage. I am absolutely
[15:33]certain that were the government to bring forward a bill, it needn't be complex and hybrid as he suggested. It could be rushed through this house in a day such as the appetite to make the
[15:44]point. >> Uh Madame Deputy Speaker, for the sake of clarity, can I just make it clear that neither I nor the government are here to defend Peter Mandlesson. Uh we
[15:56]are here to defend the integrity of this house and the other place and to ensure that processes where they need updating are updated on the question of legislation for individual members of
[16:07]the other place. The fact I might say madam deputy speaker is there's a cue that's why the process needs to be updated to apply to all peers in the house of lords as opposed to the need to bring individual legislation whether
[16:19]it's for Peter Mandlesson or Michelle Moon. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Like the Chief Secretary, I am a parent of young children and I know the Chief Secretary would have found it very
[16:30]difficult to stomach some of the details that came out over the weekend. And rightfully, so far the conversation here has been dominated about the actions of the men. But could I seriously ask the
[16:40]Chief Secretary what is he doing to ensure that the victims mostly children of sexual violence and sexual assault is going to be heard by those in power
[16:50]including the prime minister? I thank my honorable friend for her question and I'm sure there isn't one member of this house that doesn't agree with her about the levels of disgust
[17:00]that we feel uh in seeing the disclosures from the Epstein files. The House knows that the government is taking forward radical proposals for tackling violence against women and
[17:10]girls and in respect of Jeffrey Epstein is doing all that we can to ensure that people who do have information make it available to investigators. >> Sir Christopher Ch.
[17:21]Madame Deputy Speaker, does the minister think that the deep involvement of Mandlesson with Epstein shows that Epstein's victims were not only women
[17:32]and girls, but may also have included young men? >> It wouldn't be appropriate for me to uh entertain that hypothetical question at
[17:42]the dispatch box. Madame Deputy Speaker, we obviously hope that that is not the case. But as I say, I am not here to speak for Peter Mandlesson. Andy McDonald.
[17:53]>> Madame Deputy Speaker, um this is a disaster. Um and of against the backdrop of the incredible abuse of young women
[18:03]for such a long time, it just fills the house with horror. But I I must agree with the honorable member from North Dorset. Um this house would be minded uh
[18:14]to bring legislation and quickly. But can I ask my right honorable friend? It would appear that Gordon Brown was
[18:24]very concerned in September of 2025 that there had been disclosure of information by Mandlesson to Epstein that may have been used for commercial
[18:36]gain. He turns out to be right. So how is it that that error could occur within government? That information wasn't known. Can he assure the house
[18:48]that those matters will be given full attention in any inquiry and that from this day on full engagement will be had with the criminal authorities because as many people have said in this place
[18:59]already the time has come for criminal prosecution. >> Uh my honorable friend is um right to raise the concerns in the way he has. As
[19:10]I confirmed to the shadow chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster, the cabinet secretary did respond to Gordon Brown's request to search for documents in the government archive in relation to the
[19:19]sale of RBS assets to JP Morgan at that time. Uh the review of documents at the time concluded that those documents did not exist in the government archive. It
[19:29]is now evident from the release of documents from the US Department for justice that the emails that we have all seen uh account for what took place at the time. And that's why the cabinet secretary now is reviewing the archive
[19:40]again, not just in respect of that particular question, but in the round during the time that Peter Manderson was a labor minister and he'll be reporting to the prime minister as soon as he's
[19:49]been able to do that. >> Speaker, in Cash Questions, all the recent sexual harassment cases at Westminster, the police were called, they were called proactively by the
[20:00]government. Uh why is the government in this case conducting inquiry without informing the Met Police? Uh and if they're not, will they get on with it straight away because it's inevitably
[20:11]going to happen? >> You're here. >> As I have told the house, the cabinet secretary is currently looking at the government archives to see what documents are available and will advise the prime minister accordingly. If the
[20:22]government can be of assistance to any investigations in due course, of course, it will do so. >> Justin Madders. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There are many aspects of this which are hugely troubling. I just want to focus on one
[20:33]which is the passing on by a serving cabinet minister to third parties of highly sensitive uh information. Clearly that's something that could amount to misconduct in public office and I hope
[20:43]that the police do investigate that. But it does reveal these papers, doesn't it? A very casual relationship with uh property for uh Mandlesson and his uh
[20:54]apparent willingness to share high sensitive information with third parties. Now what concerns me in particular is of course that he has been in a very senior role in recent times. So I wonder if the chief secretary could
[21:04]confirm whether he or anyone else serving in government uh in a ministerial or advisory capacity has discussed in recent times in the course of this government information of a
[21:16]similar nature that could have been used to benefit third parties. Uh the information that became available over the preceding few days from the US Department for Justice is new
[21:26]information to the government. >> Christine Jardine. >> Thank you very much Madame Deputy Speaker. Can I echo the remarks that been made in this house this evening about the fact that it might be time for
[21:38]criminal proceedings to take place in this. I also think it's important when the government has made um such a a totem of tackling violence against women
[21:48]and girls that they're seen to stand up for women and girls in this and encourage everyone who's been mentioned in this to cooperate with the American authorities and give any information
[22:00]that they have to the inquiries in the United States. here here. >> I agree wholeheartedly with the honorable lady and the government has called for anybody with information to do just that. >> Rachel Hopkins.
[22:12]>> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. [clears throat] Many of my constituents will be horrified, like all of us, by the revelations regarding Peter Madison and the Epstein files, but they'd also be shocked to know the government doesn't
[22:22]have the power to remove perigages. So does the chief secretary agree with me that it's absolutely right to do whatever necessary to modernize procedures to allow for the removal of peers and their pages when they've
[22:33]brought the other place into disrepute. >> I think my honorable friend is exactly right and that's why the government has written to the appropriate authorities in the other place today to request that
[22:43]that work is now started. Steven Flynn. Thank you, Mr. >> Speaker. I don't understand why the minister, who I respect greatly, is standing there and speaking as though
[22:54]the government didn't know about the relationship and the connection between Peter Mandlesen and Jeffrey Epstein prior to appointing him as the ambassador to the United States. I can't
[23:06]understand why the minister isn't standing at the dispatch box today saying that this house will sit until whatever hour is required in order to move legislation to strip him of his
[23:17]period. I cannot understand why the minister is acting like the Labour Party have been proactive in relation to this when they have known for months about Peter Mandlesson's revelations and yet
[23:29]have allowed him to maintain a party membership throughout that time. And I cannot understand why half an hour ago the prime minister of the United Kingdom did not just apologize for his
[23:40]decision-making, his lack of judgment and say that Peter Mandlesen should be subject to a criminal investigation. >> Neither the Labour Party nor the
[23:51]government or indeed this house or the honorable member knew about the information that was made available by the US Department for Justice only a matter of days ago. As soon as that information became available, the
[24:03]government has acted accordingly. And in respect of the previous decision of the prime minister to sack Peter Manderson as the ambassador to the United States, the prime minister was very clear with this house and indeed the public that he
[24:13]did so quickly as soon as the extent and depth of the relationship became clear from the disclosure that took place. The prime minister relied on the information provided by Peter Madison at the time of
[24:24]his appointment. As soon as that information changed, the prime minister acted quickly and removed him from office. Richard Bergen. >> Thank you, >> Madame Deputy Speaker. The public is asking how on earth Peter Mandlesson
[24:35]ever got to be appointed ambassador to the United States given what was known. One would presume Peter Mandlesson passed some sort of security check or
[24:45]vetting. But as well as an inquiry into Peter Mson's appointment, can the chief secretary to the prime minister reassure this house and the public on behalf of
[24:56]the prime minister that everyone in number 10 who advocated for or had influence in securing Peter Mandlesson's appointment in spite of what was known
[25:06]about his relationship with Epstein had security clearance, a key protection to guard against improper influence. months and exposure
[25:17]for our country. Are >> you here? >> Uh all due process was followed as the prime minister's made clear for political appointments. It was clear that additional measures needed to be
[25:28]put into place which have now been put into place. And I remind the honorable member in the house that the information that became available both at the time the prime minister sacked the former
[25:38]ambassador to the United States and in the in the last few days only became available to the prime minister and the government at the same time as everybody else. So Julian Lewis,
[25:49]>> can the minister not see that it's in the Labour's party's interest as much as it is in the national interest that this issue of stripping Mandlesson of his
[25:59]period should be resolved as soon as possible. Bring in the wider legislation subsequently. Now, he may be a little young to remember when the late John
[26:10]Prescott compared Mandlesson to a scorpion in a jam jar that he was holding. But can the minister explain to
[26:19]this house the fatal fascination of Labour leader after Labour leader in appointing this man to post after post
[26:28]with his checkered record of corruption and multiple resignations? >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Julian, >> I said say to the right honorable gentleman and to the house that whether
[26:40]it's about Peter Mandlesson or Michelle Moan or other peers who have brought the other place into disrepute that there needs to be a process for the removal of members of the other place and their
[26:51]periage. The government is making it very clear today that that should be conducted on a cross party basis to ensure the integrity of the other place and our democracy in the future as it
[27:02]relates to all peers. and I would encourage members across the house and in the other place to make sure that those proposals are brought forward swiftly. >> Kim Johnson. >> Thank you, Madame Deputy Speaker.
[27:12]Mandisur's behavior fell well below expected standards for a long time, but sadly he was disgracefully allowed to
[27:21]resign very quietly, even though he was sacked as the US ambassador last year. More action should have been taken last year. So I will ask the chief secretary
[27:32]to do everything that he can do to expedite legislation to remove all of the privileges from this awful man as soon as possible.
[27:43]>> I thank my honorable friend for her question. The government stands ready to work with authorities in the House of Lords to update their procedures. As I've informed the house, we've written to the appropriate authorities in the other place today to start that process
[27:54]and we hope to move as quickly as possible. Manuela Pertig together. Madame Deputy Speaker, and I want to focus on the victims uh the the children and the young girls who were trafficked.
[28:05]Will the government confirm that any UK linked offenses will be fully investigated, that all evidence will be acted upon, and that anyone implicated,
[28:16]whatever their status, will be pursued with the full force of the law, ensuring the victims and survivors will receive the justice and support that they deserve. here.
[28:27]>> Um, I thank the honorable lady and she's right that the victims of Jeffrey Epstein need to be at the center of all of our uh, attentions. Um, the government will of course cooperate with
[28:38]any investigations that take place and as we have said repeatedly, anybody with any information should make themselves available to investigators whether here or overseas.
[28:49]>> Alex McIntyre. >> Thank you madam speaker and can I thank the chief secretary for his statement this afternoon. Glouster residents will rightly be angry and incredibly disgusted by the revelations that were
[29:00]revealed by the papers released by the American government over the weekend. And I think it's in the interest of this whole house that we get this place in order so that those who commit heinous
[29:10]acts who align themselves with people like Jeffrey Epstein are no longer in this place so the public can have the trust that we are acting in their best interest. So can my right honorable
[29:22]friend confirm that he and the government will act at pace to ensure that that man is removed from the House of Lords and can he update the House on the steps they've taken to improve the direct appointments process since he was
[29:32]removed as ambassador. >> Um I thank my honorable friend for his question and share in his discuss what has taken place. As I've said to the
[29:43]house, the House of Lords must update its procedures to ensure that there are consequences for the behaviors of members in the other place that bring their house into disrepute. The House of Commons, this
[29:55]House has in recent years been able to do that and there is no reason why the other place should not and the government stands ready to support the House of Lords in whichever way is necessary to make sure that's put into
[30:06]effect. Robert Jenry. >> Pointing Peter Mandolson to our premier ambassadorship was always a grotesque error of judgment by the prime minister given everything that we knew about this
[30:17]man. And now we're told >> that this man leaked confidential information to a convicted sex offender when he was a cabinet minister and took
[30:27]tens of thousands of pounds in secret backhanders. It is a total disgrace. Is the minister really coming to the house today to say that he neither intends to bring forward primary legislation to
[30:39]deal with this now, but will write to the House of Lords and seek their support to modernize their procedures in months time. And nor will he go
[30:49]proactively to the police and demand an investigation when Peter Mandlesen has clearly broken the law and stands now
[30:59]accused of serious misconduct in a public office and should be tried for his offenses. As I've said repeatedly, Madame Deputy
[31:10]Speaker, the government will of course cooperate with any investigation that takes place and encourages everybody to do so. We stand ready to introduce legislation if required at pace to work
[31:21]with the House of Lords to update their procedures. We agree that that needs to happen and that it needs to happen quickly. And might I just gently say that when the right honorable member was
[31:32]a member of the Conservative Party, at the point Peter Manson was first appointed to the ambassadorship of the United States, the official opposition didn't at that point object in any way.
[31:42]>> Joanna Baxter. >> Thank you, Madame Deputy Speaker. I thank my right honorable friend for his statement this afternoon. Jeffrey
[31:50]Epstein's crimes were utterly abhorrent. >> Yeah. and our thought should always be with the women and girls whose lives were destroyed by him and his network
[32:01]and the revelations over the weekend were utterly disgusting. Would the chief secretary agree with me that the cabinet secretary should undertake an immediate review into Peter Manderson's actions
[32:12]when he was a government minister, particularly in relation to the issue raised by the previous prime minister, Gordon Brown, in relation to the potential and unacceptable disclosure of
[32:22]government papers and information when this country was battling a global financial crisis. >> I agree wholeheartedly with my honorable
[32:32]friend. And the cabinet secretary is now today reviewing the government archives to see what information is available at that time. Not just in relation to the sale of RBS assets to JP Morgan as
[32:44]requested by the former prime minister Gordon Brown, but more broadly during the time that Peter Manderson was a labor minister in the then government. >> Er, >> thank you madam deputy speaker.
[32:54]>> Well, does the government believe Lord Mandel should be stripped of his periage? Yes or no? And if they do, they should bring forward primary legislation
[33:04]which would do just that, which they can do. And I'm afraid the minister's excuse of a cue does not wash whatsoever. Uh that being the case, will they bring
[33:15]forward this legislation for the disgraced Lord Mandelson, their friend? Because if they don't and he does keep his deitle despite Andrew
[33:26]Mcbatton Windsor being stripped of his what rank hypocrisy? What further can this government do to add further stain
[33:36]to their tarnished reputation? >> As I've said repeatedly, Madame Deputy Speaker, neither the Labour Party nor this government seeks to defend Peter Mandles, as the honorable lady implies
[33:48]in her question. uh the leader of the opposition has herself called for Michelle Moan's periage to be removed. The point I make is that that can't happen either because the processes are
[33:59]not up to date in the House of Lords. It would be better to bring forward changes to ensure that the rules can be applied to all members of the House of Lords in these circumstances whether Peter
[34:10]Mandlesson or Michelle Moan and we stand ready to do so. >> Andrew Leane, >> thank you speaker. Can I thank the chief secretary for coming to parliament at the first opportunity to address this
[34:22]issue. Epstein's crimes were vile and I can't begin to imagine how all these latest revelations have compounded the pain for all of the women and girls who were victims. Many in this house have
[34:33]already spoken powerfully about our collective alarm at the revelations in the last few days of government information being passed to Epstein in
[34:43]2009. I fully support uh the decision to have an investigation, but for public trust, can the chief secretary reassure me that the cabinet secretary will be given everything he needs to make sure this investigation moves forward at
[34:55]pace? [clears throat] I agree with my honorable friend and again to reiterate that if any minister was found to be forwarding government
[35:04]information in that way, they would be quickly removed from post under the rules that we have today and could be subject to recall to their own constituencies uh from the house
[35:14]authorities here. In respect of the cabinet secretary's work, of course, officials from the proprietary ethics team and elsewhere in the cabinet office are supporting his investigations today to review what documents are available
[35:26]in the archive because the prime minister's made it very clear that he wishes for the cabinet secretary to report back to him as a matter of urgency. >> Luke Taylor. >> Thank you, Madame Deputy Speaker. Um the
[35:36]files released on Friday uh are horrific record of the relationships between the rich and the powerful including uh Elon Musk, Donald Trump. Um we've seen
[35:47]mention of Andrew Mountbat and Windsor and of course Peter Mandelson. Um it's horrific and we as other members have mentioned we must keep the victims at
[35:57]the very forefront of our minds. Um, we've seen the discussion of the email that Peter Mandlesson sent to him about business uh issues. Um, and then there's a second one in 2010 where he gave a
[36:09]preview of the 500 billion pound bailout that was imminent. Um, in light of these, will the government be proactive in encouraging a police investigation? But can I also ask whether they're in discussions with the US Department of
[36:20]Justice for unredacted emails and potentially documents that have been withheld and not released yet to further detail uh the offending. um but also whether he will republish Peter
[36:31]Mandlesson's register of interests back from his election as an MP in 1992 through to 2010. >> Um I think madam deputy speaker that the question of the register of interest is
[36:42]for the house and not for the government but I'm sure that the house authorities have heard the question from the honorable uh member. Uh in terms of uh investigations the answer is yes.
[36:54]everybody whether the government or individuals involved or with any knowledge should should um cooperate with any investigation because as he said at the start of his question if the victims of Jeffrey Epstein's crimes are
[37:04]at the heart of all of our thinking the answer has to be justice >> Ian burn madam deputy speaker the latest information appear to show Peter Manderson when a minister worked
[37:14]alongside one of the world's most notorious pedophiles conspiring against the interests of the British people in pursuit of money power and influence Such detail strengthens the case for the
[37:26]Hillsbor law to hold those in power properly to account. Under this law, >> ministers who use their office to gain a benefit, financial, reputational, or
[37:36]otherwise, or cause detriment to others while knowing their conduct is improper, could face up to 10 years in imprisonment. It cannot come quickly enough. But can I ask the chief
[37:47]secretary to the prime minister a simple question? Will the government commit to an immediate investigation into who knew what and when about Peter Manderson
[37:59]before enduring his disastrous appointment as ambassador to the United States? >> Well said. >> Um, can I congratulate my honorable friend for all of his tireless
[38:09]campaigning on the Hillsborough law um and reaffirm the government's commitment to bringing that legislation back to the house as soon as possible. uh in respect of the appointment of Peter Mandlesson
[38:20]as the ambassador to the United States and then the prime minister's decision to uh sack Peter Mandlesson when more information had become available. The prime minister has spoken at length to that at the dispatch box here in the
[38:32]house and in public >> Robert Labor appointee Lord Manderson has been a pivotal figure in the prime minister's
[38:42]leadership project and this is now a damage limitation exercise for the government. There is a deep irony I think that the government can appoint people to the House of Lords but they
[38:53]can't clear up after their own mess. So why hasn't the government referred this to the police? And does he admit that this is doing grave harm to the
[39:03]confidence of the public in the accountability of our democratic institutions? Yeah. >> Uh the cabinet secretary is as we speak, Madame Deputy Speaker, reviewing the
[39:14]government archive to see what documents we have available in relation to the time that Peter Mandlesson served as a labor minister. As I've informed the House, the release of documents from the
[39:25]US Department for Justice over the preceding few days was new information to the government, and we will do all that we can both to highlight the information that we have, but also to cooperate with any investigation that
[39:36]may then take place. Matt Bishop. >> Thank you, Madame Deputy Speaker. I thank the chief secretary for his statement. I wonder if he agrees that without this legislation that we've talked about bringing being brought
[39:47]through swiftly and quickly uh that actually what we're doing is running the risk of diminishing any confidence that victims of serious uh sexual abuse and other violence actually has in in all ministers and people who actually make
[39:58]decisions and laws. I think my honorable friend is right that the public expects that if you break the law or the rules. There should
[40:08]be consequences for that behavior. In this house, that is the case. In the House of Lords, it is not the case. That's why the government is encouraging the appropriate authorities in the House of Lords to come forward with proposals
[40:19]to change that. And if the government is required to assist in any way, including making time available in this house to do so, we will. >> Senhart. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. There are two issues here. One is the
[40:31]connection of a member of the House of Lords to a convicted pedophile who is, let's not forget, not the only Labor appointee recently made who's been connected to a convicted p pedophile.
[40:41]Lord Matthew Doyle, who was appointed only recently, has maintained a persistent connection with convicted pedophile as well. Would the chief
[40:50]secretary agree that it isn't enough to be referring this to the cabinet secretary? The police should be called immediately because what we're seeing right now is misconduct in public office. This goes all the way to the
[41:01]chief of staff to the prime minister and the possibility of destruction of evidence and obscuring a future prosecution is now raising impossibility and it is being masked by his
[41:11]government. Madame Deputy Speaker, I have to refute in the strongest possible terms any accusation that the government would seek to interfere or block any
[41:22]investigation in relation to Jeffrey Jeffrey Epstein. It's absolutely wrong to suggest that documents would be made unavailable or deleted. The cabinet
[41:33]secretary is today reviewing the government archives from the time in question and as I've said will comply with any investigation that then takes place and I think the right honorable
[41:45]gentleman must know that to accuse me or other parts of the government of misdemeanor in the way he has is wholly unsatisfactory and might to say out of character. >> Dr. Peter Prince.
[41:56]>> Thank you madame deputy speaker. Sir, I can recall the description of the scorpion in the jam jar. And uh Mlesson surely does have some sort of a
[42:06]self-destruct chip inside his head. It was reported in the Times this afternoon that Mr. Butler, the Downing Street adviser to Gordon Brown, said that the alleged leaked memo containing highly
[42:18]sensitive market information from Mandlesen presented an unimaginable breach of trust. So, does the minister agree with me that this looks like political insider trading on a grand
[42:29]scale? And would he support not only an independent inquiry, but a criminal investigation? >> My honorable friend is absolutely right
[42:39]that releasing government information in and of itself, let alone in respect for personal or commercial gain, is wrong and a breach of the rules that we must
[42:49]all comply with. And if that is the case, then there should be appropriate investigations and consequences for that behavior. >> Elyia, >> thank you madam. >> I'm afraid it is untenable to suggest
[43:00]that what was already known of Mandel simpering after the conviction of Epstein was not enough to make him inappropriate to be ambassador and I did object from day one on that exact basis
[43:09]is on Hansard. I'm afraid there were a number of questions the cabinet secretary to whom I wrote on the 5th of December with the honorable member for East Grinstead that still have not been answered. I'd be grateful for the answers today.
[43:21]>> Did Manderson receive a taxpayer funded severance payment after stepping down as ambassador? If so, how much? Was that paid by taxpayers? Will details of his contract be published in the name of
[43:30]transparency? Was any NDA agreement signed in any way? And when did Lord Manderson's salary formally cease? These are not unreasonable questions. We're almost two months on and I have had no
[43:40]response from the cabinet secretary and that gives me no concern. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> Um to the first part of the honorable lady's question, as the prime minister
[43:51]made very clear, when the extent and depth of the relationship between Peter Manderson and Jeffrey Epstein post his conviction became clear, the prime minister moved very quickly indeed to
[44:02]sack Peter Manderson as ambassador to the United States. The prime minister was not aware of that at the point of his appointment and Peter Manderson made certain commitments to the prime minister that obviously turned out to be
[44:13]untrue. Uh in respect to the honorable lady's letter to the cabinet secretary, I will feed that back to the cabinet secretary and ensure that she gets appropriate answers to her questions. >> John Slinger,
[44:25]>> deputy speaker, could the chief secretary explain what steps this government has taken to make sure that the voices of the victims and the survivors of sexual abuse and violence
[44:37]are heard by those in power. Uh my honorable friend knows that the government has committed to reducing violence against women and girls and has
[44:47]brought forward recently uh a strategy for how we'll be working across government to do just that over the years ahead and specifically in respect of the victim victims of Jeffrey
[44:57]Epstein. Uh we will continue to do all that we can to support any investigations uh to ensure justice for those victims and encourage everybody else with any information to do just the
[45:07]same. Monica Harding. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I asked the prime minister in this chamber on behalf of my constituents, Alicia Morton, who were asking the same thing,
[45:18]why Peter Manderson had been appointed at all as our most senior ambassador given the knowledge of his links with Epstein. By September, it was clear just how close that relationship had got. And
[45:30]yet, the PM didn't immediately sack him. But there still wasn't a full investigation of Mandlesson's investig uh relationship with Epstein. So why is that investigation only happening now?
[45:41]And given that the prime minister stated his commitment to restoring trust in public life, how does the minister equate that with his delay with that his promise to uphold these standards and
[45:52]the delay in investigating it? >> I'm not sure that I agree with the honorable lady that there's been any undue delay in investigations one way or another. Peter Madison made commitments
[46:03]to the prime minister at the time of his appointment that his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein was different to that which then became evident when documents were released. As soon as the extent and
[46:14]depth of that relationship became clear, the prime minister's sacked Peter Mandlesson within a matter of days from his post as ambassador to the United States. Now that even more information
[46:24]has become available, the cabinet secretary is reviewing what documents as available in the government archive and will of course comply with any investigation that may then take place. >> Chris Vins. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I
[46:35]thank the chief secretary for his statement in particular, his focus on the victims of these terrible crimes is absolutely right. I think, Madame Deputy Speaker, whatever cover rosette you wear, the majority of us who come to
[46:45]this house come here to represent our constituencies. And I hope that I show that I repres every single day. So when we hear of an MP and in this case a government minister representing the interests of
[46:57]other of outside bodies and in this case a vile pedophile, it is absolutely disgraceful and very upsetting for us who come here for the right reasons. Um can I ask the uh chief secretary what he
[47:08]will do working with the PM to ensure that we have a strengthened ministerial code so this can never happen again. My honorable friend is absolutely right. The government and specifically the
[47:20]prime minister has already strengthened the ministerial code that we are all subject to in this house today and made the ethics adviser independent giving him the authority to investigate
[47:30]ministers freely without requiring permission from the prime minister as was the case under the previous administration. That has already shown to be effective where ministers have had to sat down as a consequence of breaches
[47:42]of the ministerial code. It is right and proper that we have robust rules in this house for ministers and for members and it is about time that we have similar processes in the House of Lords as well.
[47:53]>> Brendan Har. >> Thank you, Madame Deputy Speaker. Try as he might, the Prime Minister cannot escape his responsibility in this the
[48:02]latest scandal to engulf Peter Mandlesson. ordering a very limited inquiry or investigation now into his activities is pretty meaningless. What
[48:13]we need is a an investigation which is fully independent of government or the Labor Party, which has the scope not just to investigate Mandlesen, but also
[48:24]those who put him in the House of Lords, those who promoted him to being the UK ambassador to the United States, and those who have done everything they
[48:32]possibly can to protect him over several decades despite his scandalridden career. >> Does the minister not agree?
[48:43]The prime minister has acted at every stage with integrity. It is Peter Mandlesson who has to be accountable for the actions of Peter Mandlesson. And to suggest that the prime minister should
[48:55]be responsible for the actions of Peter Mandlesson is obviously wrongheaded. As I've said in my statement to the House today, Peter Mandlesson, who is no longer a member of the Labor Party, should be accountable for his actions
[49:06]and should account for them. >> Dr. Caroline Johnson. Madam speaker, I think it's disgraceful that the government are choosing not to bring forward legislation to remove Peter Mandlesson from the House of
[49:17]Lords. It's entirely within their gift to do so. The public know this. The public will be not only alarmed by the fact that the government are not doing this, but they'll question the motivation for their delay. >> But if I could ask the minister a
[49:28]specific question, on what date exactly did Peter Mandelson cease to be paid by the government? Yeah. Yeah. >> As the honorable lady knows from the
[49:37]debate in the house today, it is not that we don't wish to take action in respect of Peter Mandlesson. Is that we respect action to be taken that affects all members of the House of Lords,
[49:49]whether it's Peter Mandlesson or other peers who need to be removed from the House of Lords as a consequence of their behavior. We stand ready to act swiftly on that basis and have asked the House
[50:00]of Lords to bring forward proposals to do just that. Chris Law, >> Mr. Speaker, revelations in the press that Peter Manson's leaking confidential government secrets to pedophile Jeffrey
[50:11]Epstein's business secretary should be more than enough the evidence to warrant expelling them from the House of Lords. And yet, we hear today that's not going to happen through legislation. Sadly, m Madame Deputy Speaker, this is yet another scandal on the House of Lords.
[50:23]And whilst Labour's promised major laws reform over 100 years, time and again have kicked the can down the road. So, does the chief secretary agree with many in this house that rather than desperately trying to reform what's an
[50:33]embarrassingly broken system, it is time for the House of Lords to be finally abolished? >> The honorable member knows that the government has stated and believes that Peter Manson should not be a member of
[50:45]the House of Lords and should not use his title, but he is right that the rules need to be updated to allow for that action to be implemented by the House of Lords. We've written to the House of Laws authorities today to say
[50:56]that that work must begin and the government stands ready to support them in doing that. >> Dr. Andrew Mirrison. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. To be fair to Peter Mandolson, I think the
[51:07]crustation in John Prescott's jam jar was in fact a crab and not a scorpion. Madame Deputy Speaker, in our system, in
[51:17]our system, it is very unusual for ambassadors and high commissioners to be appointed outside the ranks of the civil service. And for pretty good reason.
[51:28]When that does happen, and particularly when the appointee is a politician with baggage as here, the appointer has to
[51:38]own it because he has made that decision. in this case against advice.
[51:46]>> What does the minister think this fiasco says about the judgment of our prime minister? >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> The prime minister's judgment was made
[51:58]clear when as soon as information became available that he had been misled by Peter Mandlesson, he sacked him. >> Vicky Slade. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The actions of Peter Manderson are a
[52:09]disgrace and I support proposals to remove him without delay. But he's not the only British person implicated in the appalling Epstein files. So what is the government doing to ensure that all those linked to Mandlesson, Andrew
[52:20]Mount, Battle Windsor and any political, public or civic figure are fully investigated here? Not just cooperating with US authorities, but taking action here for all the crimes committed on our
[52:31]soil. >> The honorable lady knows that it's not the government that instigates criminal investigations. It's for the criminal prosecution service and the police to
[52:41]take those decisions independently of ministers. But whether in respect of UK investigations or investigations in the United States, the government's made it very clear that all individuals should comply with those investigations and
[52:53]make any information available to ensure that the victims of Jeffrey Epstein's acts are able to seek justice. >> Lincoln J. Thank you, speaker. >> When the prime minister sacked Lord
[53:05]Madison as the American ambassador, ministers came to this house and that dispatch box and I pointed out to them that for the whole time that he was our ambassador, he had been subject to
[53:16]politically fatal compromat which therefore left him open to leverage. Yeah. >> As it finally turn played out. Um, and I said that if he we found out that he was
[53:26]spying for Russia or China, we'd be turning his time in office inside out, every single aspect of it in order to find out the truth. >> And the government said, "Well, he's
[53:37]been sacked." >> So, does the minister regret the fact that following his sacking, they didn't do the sort of due diligence and inquiries which might have unearthed the documents from the Department of Justice?
[53:48]>> Yeah. Yeah. To be clear, the documents produced by the United States Department of Justice were not available to the government uh until they were released a number of
[53:58]days ago. And as soon as they have become available, we've instigated processes within our own authorities to make sure that we have a clear view of what information was available to government at the time and to comply
[54:10]with any investigations that may take place. >> Rachel Gilmore. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. As so many of my colleagues have rightly said, our thoughts today should be first and
[54:20]foremost with the victims. Thank you. >> And I would hope that no political party in this chamber would use it as an excuse to cover the backs of some of their less fragrant members of the House
[54:30]of Lords. The fact that Lord Mandlesson, as ever, was only interested in the ruthless pursuit of financial gain will come as
[54:39]no surprise as a surprise to no one. Number 10 now saying that Mandlesson should indeed lose his periage. I have to say I wholeheartedly concur. However,
[54:51]isn't it staggering that members of this house seemed more aware of Mr. Manderson's skeletons in the wardrobe than the prime minister who appointed him? Thank you.
[55:02]>> As far as I'm aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, no member of this House had access to the information recently published by the United States Department for Justice or the documents that were released at the time the Prime
[55:13]Minister sacked the ambassador to the United States. The Prime Minister has been very clear to this house previously that had he had access to that information, he would not have appointed
[55:22]him in the first place. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The minister indicated that that Manderson assured the prime minister that his relationship
[55:32]with Epstein was of a different nature. >> Can he explain what sort of relationship of a convicted pedophile would be acceptable in this role? And will the prime minister come back to the house to
[55:44]make a specific statement on the advice he received regarding Manderson's conduct? The information that became available in September, which led to the sacking of
[55:55]Peter Manderson as ambassador to the United States, made it clear for the first time to all of us and to the prime minister, that Peter Manderson not only remained a friend with Jeffrey Epstein
[56:05]following his conviction, but had actively mentored and encouraged him on how to challenge that conviction um and how to push back against it. That was
[56:16]one example. There is now a list of examples of how the depth and extent of the relationship following the conviction of Jeffrey Epstein between Jeffrey Epstein and Peter Manderson was
[56:27]unacceptable. If the prime minister had known that at the time Peter Manderson was being considered to be ambassador to the United States, he would not have appointed him and as soon as the prime minister became aware of that
[56:38]information, he sacked him. >> Richard F. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Epstein files suggest that Lord Mandlesson was prepared to lobby in the United States for a policy position in
[56:50]contradiction to the position of Her Majesty's government, which he was then serving in 2009 as business secretary. How will this revelation encourage the government to find out where else Lord
[57:01]Mandlesson has lobbied against his government while serving last year as British ambassador to the United States? And can the chief secretary find out where in US policy towards the UK this
[57:12]lobbying against British government policy is revealed? >> Yeah. Um, as I've informed the house today, Madame Deputy Speaker, the cabinet secretary is currently reviewing all documentation that relates to Peter
[57:23]Mandlesson's time as a minister in the last Labor government to see what information is available today and will will comply with any investigations that take place as a consequence of that in
[57:34]the future. He is right that any minister acting against the collective decisions of cabinet and against the government is a breach of the rules and is unacceptable behavior and if any
[57:45]minister were to do that today they would be quickly dismissed. >> Jim Shaman. >> Thank you madame deputy speaker. Can I thank the chief secretary for for his statement today. It is indeed very
[57:55]disturbing to uh read of the role of Peter Mandlesson when holding high office in government. Uh just to remind the chief secretary was also the EU trade uh uh commission for five years. I
[58:06]I believe that needs investigating as well was how far does this go? I can also ask it's my understanding that the latest releases may have made public victims names that weren't previously
[58:17]released. So, can the chief secretary please assure this house that any British victims who have been made public will have support and help to make their way through what could be a
[58:27]retraumatizing experience with this time uh press invasion and and interference. Thank you. >> Um I was not aware of that issue, so I thank the honorable gentleman for
[58:38]bringing it to my attention. And of course, if there are any British victims affected by the crimes of Jeffrey Epste, whether in relation to the latest publication of documents or otherwise, uh, government services stand ready to
[58:50]be of support to those victims and to ensure that they can seek justice. And that concludes the statement.