[0:01]Mr. Deutsche. >> Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the honorable gentleman for his uh question. Before I respond to it, Mr. Speaker, um I think it's important that we all recognize today as the house that
[0:12]it is, of course, the anniversary of the September 11th attacks. Um many of us will be attending commemorations later on today. Um and our thoughts are of course with all the thousands of people who lost their lives in that despicable
[0:23]terrorist attack, including many British, many American citizens, and many of many other countries. And Mr. Speaker, I think um the whole house's um condolences and thoughts will be with
[0:33]the family and friends of Charlie Kirk. Um absolutely appalling attack um and and murder uh yesterday, Mr. Speaker. Um we know too well in this house uh
[0:45]sitting underneath the two shields of our dear colleagues from across the political spectrum um the terrible consequences of political violence and I know that the whole house uh will be
[0:55]thinking of uh Charlie's family uh friends and others and urging an end to this sort of political violence is absolutely appalling. >> U Mr. Speaker, uh, in light of
[1:06]additional information in emails written by Peter Mamblesson, the prime minister has asked the foreign secretary to withdraw him as ambassador to the United States.
[1:17]>> The emails show, Mr. Speaker, that the depth and extent of Lord Madison's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein is materially different from that known at
[1:26]the time of his appointment. In particular, Mr. Speaker, Lord Madison's suggestion that Jeffrey Epstein's first conviction was wrongful and should be
[1:36]challenged is new information. And in light of that, Mr. Speaker, and mindful as we all are of the victims of Epstein's appalling crimes, um he has
[1:47]been withdrawn as ambassador with immediate effect. >> Neil, >> Mr. Speaker, thank you for granting this statement and I agree with the words of
[1:58]the minister about September 11th and uh Charlie Kirk. But Mr. Speaker, this is yet another extraordinary error of judgment by this weak prime minister. And I pay tribute to the leader of the
[2:09]opposition for yesterday securing justice for the victims of Epstein. This raises massive questions. It is not just that Peter Mandelon said that Epstein was his best pal and that he
[2:20]loved him. It wasn't just that he broke a deal for him while he was business secretary. We now of course know that he was working for Epstein's early release after he was convicted. And the simple
[2:31]question is this. Is the minister now saying that the prime minister did not know about any of this at the point where he was appointed? Don't say the boxes were ticked and the process was
[2:41]followed. What did the prime minister know at the point of his appointment? Um, our minister this morning said, "My understanding was that all of the
[2:51]information was present." Is that correct? Did the prime minister know and will the government now publish all the documents uh relating to Peter
[3:01]Mandlesson's uh vetting? And if the minister says he doesn't know at the time, when did the prime minister become aware of these revelations? Now, Peter Manderson quietly stayed at Epstein's
[3:12]house while he was in prison. Manderson now says uh that he was wrong to think he was innocent. That's his defense. Uh he had pleaded guilty. So there are huge questions here. Uh Mr. Speaker, did the State Department, the US State
[3:23]Department, give any warning to our government ahead of this appointment? Did the prime minister's chief of staff, Sue Gray, give any warning? Have any employees of global council visited our Washington embassy since his
[3:34]appointment? Next week is going to be the state visit. This is huge turmoil ahead of it. And I cannot believe that the government have put our monarch in this terrible position. Uh I am glad that Peter Manderson has now gone. The
[3:46]foreign secretary had said that protecting women, girls and victims was her priority. How on earth had did that square with the behavior of the government over recent days, squirming and twisting to try and protect Peter
[3:58]Mandel rather than the victims. Mr. Speaker, let's be clear. This is a government where you had a corruption minister having to resign over the links to corruption. You had a former police
[4:09]officer having to resign over having not been clear uh with the police. You've had a housing minister having to resign over not paying tax on her house. And now you put our ambassador to Washington in the middle of the biggest scandal in Washington. This is a weak prime
[4:20]minister with error after error of judgment. >> Minister. >> Well, Mr. Speaker, I think the first thing that we all need to be clear across across this house, and I'm sure the honorable gentleman wouldn't
[4:32]disagree with this, is that the victims of Epstein at the forefront of all of our minds. Um he was he was he was a despicable criminal who committed the most heinous crimes and destroyed the
[4:43]lives of so many women and girls. Um clearly obviously um events in in uh uh the last few hours. um he wrote his um remarks before that, but I want to
[4:54]reiterate what I said to him, which is that the emails show that the depth and the extent of Lord Mandlesson's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein is materially different from that known at
[5:04]the time of his appointment. And in particular, Mr. Speaker, the suggestion that Jeffrey Epstein's first conviction was wrongful and should be challenged is new information. Um Lord Mandles has
[5:16]resigned. Um that decision has been taken. Um and that is a very very clear answer to his questions. >> Andy McDonald.
[5:26]>> Thank you speaker. >> I'm sure I speak for the whole house in sending our best wishes to our colleague in Washington and Gates Head South for
[5:35]the appalling fire at her office overnight. We send our very best wishes to her and her staff. Um may I thank the
[5:47]minister for his statement. Uh the the prime minister has made exactly the right decision and I think that has to
[5:56]be acknowledged. He's moved at pace to put that right. Don't be ridiculous. Take it seriously. >> Breaking news this hour. Let's go live
[6:11]to Westminster. Our political correspondent. Let's put some courtesies to each other. I'll do that. >> Thank you, Mr. Speak. Could I could I ask the minister? Clearly, the
[6:22]appointment process didn't pick up these issues. That's self-evident. So, that can we uh have an assurance that there will be an inquiry as to why that was
[6:32]not the case and that this house will be kept informed. Thank you. >> Well, Mr. Speaker, can I first um I wasn't aware of the the terrible incident that he referred to this morning. have just been in informed and
[6:43]I'm sure the thoughts of the whole house will be with our colleague from Washington and Gates Head and Mr. Speaker I know how seriously you take the safety and security of members of this house and I think particularly in light of international events and the
[6:54]tragic loss of colleagues um the this all the more under underlines why um we must have security and safety to go about democratic debate in this country whatever our views um in a safe and
[7:04]secure way um uh Mr. Mr. Speaker, I thank him for his his comments um uh on the decision. As I said, this is a decision that has been taken um by the prime minister, the foreign secretary
[7:14]and Lord Manderson has uh resigned. And he asks about the processes of course any candidates any candidates any candidates for ambassador positions are subject to routine extensive vetting and
[7:26]background checks as a matter of course. and I would point him to the formal processes outlined in the diplomatic service code which highlights the robust security clearance and vetting process that all members of the diplomatic
[7:36]service undergo. >> Helen McGuire, Liberal Democrat spokesperson. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Uh firstly, our thoughts are also with the friends and families of the victims of 9/11. And I'd also first like to express my regret and
[7:47]sadness of the murder of Charlie Kirk. And I also hope that the staff and MP for Gates Head South are all okay following the incident at her um office because political violence should have
[7:57]absolutely no place in society. Tasked with overseeing the UK's relationship with Trump, the accusations surround Lord Manderson cast a damning shadow. So it's right the prime minister has
[8:08]withdrawn his support for um Lord Manderson. Yesterday, the prime minister stood by Lord Manderson's appointment to confirm that rigorous background checks had taken place. So, what has changed
[8:17]since then? There remain questions over what the government knew and when about Lord Mandlesson's relationship with the sex offender whom he previously described as his best pal. Did he resign
[8:29]or was he sacked? >> It's vital that the Civil Service Commissioner investigates whether the ambassador broke the diplomatic service code by failing to come clean over these revelations sooner. Was the vetting
[8:40]process pushed through too fast? So will the foreign will this um minister today confirm that an investigation will take place so that no such incidents can happen again? Reports have also served that the cabinet office suppressed the
[8:52]relationship of a memo about Madison's relationship because it could compromise relations with the US. Will the minister confirm if this was the case? >> Well, Mr. Speaker, I thank her for her
[9:03]um remarks regarding um our um honorable friend. Um and again um I would just underline uh the importance of us all being able to go about our roles in a safe and secure way and whatever our political views and our beliefs and I
[9:14]think in light of international events particularly in the United States that should be all at the forefront of our minds uh today. Um I've been very clear Mr. Speaker um in light of the additional information um in emails
[9:25]written by Lord Mandlesson. The prime minister asked the foreign secretary to withdraw him as ambassador. Um that is very clear. the decision was taken by the prime minister and um uh the foreign
[9:36]secretary um and those emails show that the depth and the extent of the relationship um is materially different from that known at the time of his appointment. >> Uh thank you Mr. Speaker. Can I
[9:47]associate myself with the comments about our condolences and concerns for our member for Washington and Gates head? Can I also thank the minister for for his statement and and confirm that I too am disgusted and appalled by the actions
[9:58]of Epstein and my thoughts are with the victims of of his crimes. Can the minister confirm that we have an excellent deputy ambassador in Washington who will ensure that our mission continues and next week's visit
[10:07]will go ahead. >> Well, Mr. Speaker, we have an excellent team o overall in in British Embassy Washington and indeed um I pay tribute to the work of of all of our diplomatic
[10:17]service colleagues um across the world and they do an excellent job representing this country ensuring that our security and prosperity um is at the forefront of their their work and of course in our relationship with the United States in particular that is
[10:28]crucially important. Um our special relationship, our unique security partnership um I'll be um at the United States embassy later on uh today and it's our closest and most important relationship. Um so um I agree with him
[10:40]that there is a very excellent team in British Embassy Washington. >> Father of the house Edward >> obviously this is a very sad day for the United States with 9/11 and the assassination last night. Now this is
[10:51]such a crucial relationship with us with the upcoming state visit and this is a dark cloud over this. So will he forgive me the minister? I just give him some gentle advice. In my experience of these
[11:01]scandals, the cover up and the lack of due process and the allegations of cronyism are much more serious than any original offense or alleged offense. So
[11:13]will the minister ensure that every single document is released post haste about the process including this issue about the u meeting uh that Manderson
[11:24]requested with Prime Minister Blair over. So we need everything released straight away. Move on and get a new ambassador. >> Um well, Mr. Speaker, he is absolutely
[11:37]right about the importance of our relationship with the United States and the upcoming state visit. Very important. We've got an extensive team working on that and his majest is obviously uh very much looking forward to welcoming uh President Trump and of course many many officials working
[11:48]diligently day and night to ensure that visit is a success. Um I I'm not going to get into the um the individual issues and and and claims that he he makes, but what I will say is that this is a
[11:58]decisive decision and in light of the additional information in emails written by Lord Mandlesson, the prime minister has asked the foreign secretary to withdraw him as ambassador John.
[12:09]>> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would also like to offer my support to uh my honorable friend, the member for Washington and Gates Head. This incident follows a number of incidents that she's
[12:20]experienced this week and it's out of order. I'd like to thank the minister for his statement and I'm really pleased that he has been sacked but I'd like to
[12:29]know what due diligence was undertaken prior to his appointment when everybody knew about his relationship with Epstein
[12:38]before his appointment. >> Um well Mr. Because I've made very very clear it was in light of additional information in emails written by Lord
[12:49]Manderson that the prime minister has asked the foreign secretary to withdraw him as ambassador and in particular um Lord Manderson's suggestion that Jeffrey Epstein's first conviction was wrongful and should be challenged as new
[13:00]information and again I I know and I know my honorable friend well I know that her thoughts and the thoughts of all of us will be with Epstein's victims um and the appalling crimes that he committed. So David,
[13:11]>> I think the house needs to understand the sheer size of the failure of the vetting process here >> in the public domain. >> Lord Mandlesson had to resign for not
[13:21]telling the truth about a interest free loan. He had to resign because he had on a second occasion because he had helped out a business friend to get a passport.
[13:32]Beyond that, there are still unresolved doubts about his behavior as the European Trade Commissioner when he gave concessions to the Russians which helped
[13:41]his other dubious close friend Mr. Derek Pasca. But on the positive vetting process when he came to be a minister
[13:49]again the uh uh in 2010 the uh the code section 71 says ministers must ensure that no conflict arises or could
[14:00]reasonably be be perceived to arise between their public duties and their private interests financial or otherwise. Secretaries of state don't
[14:09]have private diaries. He spent time with uh or in uh uh Mr. Epstein's flat. Um it
[14:19]seems quietly meeting other members of the people involved in the sea deal which cannot have been cannot be seen to have been following his proper duty as a
[14:30]secretary of state. Was this investigated because it was in the government documents? It doesn't have to be a private uh email he sees. Was this
[14:38]investigated and was it made a judgment? Well, Mr. Speaker, um, as I've said, and he asks specifically about vetting, all candidates for ambassador positions are
[14:50]subject to routine extensive vetting and background checks as a matter of course. And I point him to the formal process outlined in the diplomatic service code, which highlights the robust security
[15:01]clearance and vetting process, which all members of the diplomatic service undergo. But again, I would point out that in light of additional information in emails written by Lord Mandlesson, the prime minister has asked the foreign
[15:11]secretary to withdraw Lord Mandlesson as ambassador to the United States. >> Sarah Cubs. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I agree with the minister's utter condemnation of all the horrendous crimes of Jeffrey Epstein. Does he agree that the
[15:23]government, as soon as this new information came to light, did take decisive action very swiftly, which is which is different from the party opposite when they were in government when they had serious misgivings. It was actually the independent ethics adviser
[15:34]that ended up resigning. >> Well, I do agree with my honorable friend um that this is decisive action.
[15:44]Um the prime minister has acted in light of that additional information. Foreign secretary has acted and Lord Manderson has been withdrawn as ambassador to to Washington. David Flynn. Speaker, I'm sure the minister's delighted that he's
[15:56]not had to shred his own reputation like his ministerial and cabinet colleagues have had to do on the broadcast rounds over the course of recent days, including of course this morning trying to defend Lord Mandlesson and the lack
[16:06]of judgment shown by the prime minister. I don't know what it is about the decades of scandals and being best friends with the notorious child trafficker and pedophile, which should have got some alarm bells ringing in
[16:18]number 10 before this decision was taken. But if I'm listen correctly, the minister did not confirm to the father of the house that all materials relevant to this would be published. Did the
[16:28]prime minister know about these emails prior to standing up at that dispatch box just yesterday to say he had confidence in Mr. Mandlesson and does he retain the labor whip in the House of
[16:39]Lords? >> Well, Mr. speaker. Um what I can commit to and indeed other honorable uh members and honorable asking questions is we will keep the house updated on these
[16:50]matters um uh that decision that decisive decision has been has been made. Um and as I've been very very clear all candidates are subject to routine extensive vetting and background checks. As a matter of course the prime
[17:00]minister in light of the additional information has asked the foreign secretary to withdraw him as ambassador to Washington. um and in particular um that additional information um the emails show that the depth and the
[17:12]extent of Lord Madison's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein is materially different from that known at the time of his appointment. Um but where I do agree with him of course is on the appalling crimes committed by Jeffrey Epstein of the thoughts of all of us with his
[17:23]victims as they are every day. Mr. Speaker Andrew >> thank you Mr. Speaker and I first associate the comments others made about disgusting crimes of Jeffrey Epstein. Also, 24 years ago today, I was sat in
[17:35]the TU Congress as a delegate when we awareness of what happened on 911 had just come. So, can I also put on record my tribute to the first responders and public service workers in New York who came to the aid of people, many of whom
[17:46]are still paying the price of that today. A lot has changed in politics since then. In those 24 years, one of the motivations that got me into public life was around accountability and the lack of accountability we saw from
[17:57]senior ministers when the party opposite were in government and their failure to resign when scandals came up and the failure of fun ventures to take action. So, can I welcome the swift action this government has taken? Now, new
[18:08]information has come to light. Can the minister assure us that lessons will be learned and if these things arise again, this government will hold up to the highest standards and take the action needed to protect public life?
[18:20]Well, well, Mr. Speaker, I can absolutely assure him of that and this is decisive action. Um, and and Mr. Speaker, you know, he references his time during um the the the September 11th attacks and I think we all remember
[18:31]where we were on that on that fateful day and that tragic day and that's why um we remember the victims particularly um today on that anniversary. >> Bernard J.
[18:41]>> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Can I just point out that it was as plain as day after the exchanges between the prime minister and my right honorable friend, the leader of the
[18:50]opposition yesterday that uh Lord Mandlesson couldn't possibly carry on in his role. >> So why did the prime minister delay or did he have to wait and be told what to
[19:01]do by Morgan Mcweeny? And who is going to be the new ambassador? And how quickly is the new ambassador going to be appointed at this absolutely critical time when Russia is testing the very
[19:12]defenses of NATO countries and we are showing such a weak response. >> Mr. speaker, he he will know having um I'm sure visited our embassy in
[19:23]Washington on many occasions um that we have an excellent dedicated team there including also of course in King Charles Street in the Foreign Office here in London and they're working on many many aspects of that crucial security um
[19:34]defense and economic relationship. Um we are preparing for the state visit and they're working diligently in that regard and I commend them for that work. But he asked about um new information and I've been very very clear, Mr.
[19:45]Speaker, in light of the additional information and emails written by Lord Mandlesson, the prime minister has asked the foreign secretary to withdraw him as ambassador and I've gone into the particular items um and of course in light of that and mindful of the victims
[19:57]of Epstein's crimes. He has been withdrawn as ambassador with immediate effect. >> Whereas Mr. Speaker, the prime minister
[20:05]has acted swiftly and decisively. What a contrast with the party opposite. I note the shadow foreign secretary is not in the house today. What happened when she
[20:17]broke the ministerial could code? The conservatives promoted her. Does the minister agree with me that we will not take lectures on ethics from the party
[20:26]opposite? >> Well, Mr. Mr. Speaker, I I've been very very clear that the prime minister has acted decisively on this matter and in light of that additional information. Uh
[20:37]the prime minister asked the foreign secretary to withdraw Lord Mandlesson as ambassador to Washington. That is decisive action. Um that is responding to that information. Um and I've explained the reasons for it. >> Can I just say to member when he's
[20:49]mentioning another I presume he has contacted to let them know that he's going to mention them. Is that the case? I'm sorry but please do not do that again. We're meant to be treating each
[20:59]other with respect and what I would say is please and it's a message to all members if you're going to mention somebody give the courtesy of ensuring the member is a work Richard.
[21:11]Mr. Speaker on the foreign affairs committee we have seen the high caliber of career diplomats who usually take up the most senior ambassadorial appointments. So it's not obvious to me
[21:22]why the British ambassador to the United States was a former MP. In the emails that have leaked overnight, it seems like Lord Mandlesson thinks that to govern is to shimose. Lord Mandlesson
[21:33]famously declared in an election victory speech that he was a fighter and not a quitter. Yet Lord Mandlesson urged the convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein that to fight for early release was the right thing. And Lord Mandlesson did not do
[21:45]the decent thing and quit. Does the minister regret the original appointment? >> Minister. >> Um well, Mr. Speaker, he asked about president. will know of course there is there is precedent but of course and we
[21:56]will also know we do have absolutely excellent ambassadors and high commissioners around the world and he and I have met many of them directly together um representing this country and doing that absolutely diligently um I've been very clear Mr. Speaker, in
[22:07]light of the additional information and emails written by Lord Mandlesson, the prime minister has asked the foreign secretary to withdraw him as ambassador. And in particular, Lord Mandlesson's suggestion that Jeffrey Epstein's first conviction was wrongful and should be
[22:18]challenged is new information and the emails show that the depth and extent of Lord Mandlesson's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein is materially different from that known at the time of his appointment. >> Roger.
[22:30]>> Mr. Speaker, the minister's a decent man and the whole house knows >> that the business of the house was delayed while he had to hurily rewrite
[22:38]the speech that he was expected to make. >> But he's stretching the bounds of credibility >> too far. Yesterday, the prime minister told this
[22:49]house that he had full confidence >> in a man who befriended the most vilest of convicted pedophiles. and state. >> He should not have been appointed in the
[23:00]first place. >> That was a gross error of judgment and everybody in this house knows it and the prime minister has to take responsibility. But now that he's gone,
[23:10]will there be a cabinet office inquiry into the manner in which Mandlesson while a government minister was negotiating
[23:18]with the convicted pedophile? >> Minister. >> Well, Mr. Speaker, he'll understand why from the dispatch box. I'm not going to comment on on on his last remarks, but what I will say is that the prime
[23:30]minister has acted decisively in light of this new information. Um, and he has taken that decision um to ask the prime minister, the foreign secretary to withdraw him as ambassador. And I would say again for the house's information,
[23:41]in particular, the suggestion that Jeffrey Epstein's uh first conviction was wrongful and should be challenged as new information. Um, the emails show that the depth of the relationship and the extent of the relationship was materially different from that known at
[23:53]the time of his appointment. And I think again, Mr. Speaker, in light of that and mindful of the victims of Epstein's crimes, he has been withdrawn as ambassador with immediate effect. >> Dr. Caroline Johnson.
[24:03]>> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the idea that our country should be represented in America or on the world stage by somebody has trying to get a pedophile out of prison early will fill
[24:14]us all completely with revulsion. But I wonder if the minister could be clearer. He's used the terms the prime minister has asked the foreign secretary to withdraw the ambassador. He said the PM made the decision, but he's also said in
[24:25]this speech that Mandlesson resigned. So could he be clear in simple terms, did he resign or was he sacked? >> Question. >> Yeah, M Mr. Speaker, I've been very very
[24:36]clear. The prime minister asked him um to asked the foreign secretary to withdraw him as ambassador. That is the process. He is no longer in his position. But what I will agree with her is our absolute revulsion across this
[24:48]house at Jeffrey Epstein's crimes. Ruper. >> Uh, thank you, Mr. Speaker. Uh, I concur with the comments about Charlie Kirk, which the minister made at the
[24:59]beginning. It shows the dangers, I think, that anybody who's brave enough to put themselves up for public service and try and change the world for the better, uh, they risk those they they they face those risks.
[25:10]Can can I ask the minister to to to first of all give us a reassurance that we will have total transparency on the process that was followed uh in the
[25:20]ambassadorial appointment? Number one. Number two, can the minister please explain to the house, assuming we get over that hurdle, why the appointment of
[25:29]a man who described President Trump as a danger to the world, who the Americans described as an absolute who has close links with China and who has a
[25:40]history of misfeasants in public office. Why was he the right appointment to make to the to the relationship with the most important and powerful country in the world and a relationship which is
[25:51]essential to this country? >> Well, Mr. Speaker, if I refer to firstly to his first um comments and you know, he he and I fundamentally disagree on many different issues, but we know that
[26:02]we conduct our robust debate in this house um and in our media and in our um in our political society and we don't engage in um any form of uh political violence. and what has happened in the
[26:13]United States over the last um 24 hours is is simply appalling and again our thoughts with all of Charlie Kirk's family and friends and you know as somebody worked very closely with both um our late colleagues uh Joe Cox and
[26:24]David Amos um I think it shocked me to the core it shocked all of us to the core um and it can never be acceptable um he asked about the processes I've been very clear Mr. speaker. All candidates for ambassador positions are
[26:35]subject to extensive vetting and background checks as a matter of course and I'd refer him to that formal process outlined in the diplomatic service code. But what I can assure him, Mr. Speaker, is that we will keep the house updated on these matters.
[26:47]>> Gag Mahendra. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Uh while the whole house um is welcoming of the withdrawal of Lord Manson as head of mission, can the minister confirm whether the whether Lord Manson is still
[26:59]being paid as a civil servant? Um my my understanding, Mr. Speaker, is that he's he's still an employee. Proper
[27:08]employment processes um take place, but um I I will um write to him and confirm um an answer to that to that question. He's he's been asked to withdraw as ambassador obviously in the in the in in
[27:19]in recent times. I will come back to him with a very detailed answer on that. I don't want in any way inadvertently, Mr. Speaker, to mislead the House on an important matter. >> Tom G. >> Mr. Speaker, it seems that there's a
[27:30]broad consensus from the whole house. This felt like it was a question of when, not if. So, I would ask the minister during that extended vetting procedure, was there ever any
[27:42]interference or pressure from either number 10 or the prime minister? >> Mr. Speaker, he he he will know. I I simply am not going to go into vetting procedures. They're conducted
[27:53]independently. Um and um certainly uh uh he can look at the details of how vetting process is undertaken in that diplomatic uh service code which outlined the process. >> So governor Williamson.
[28:04]>> Uh thank you Mr. Speaker. The diplomatic service code states that diplomats behavior, action or inaction must not significantly disrupt or damage the performance, reputation of the
[28:15]diplomatic service. It also states that diplomats must set out the facts and relevant issues truthfully and correct any errors as soon as possible. In light
[28:25]of this, did the Lord Mandolson set out how many payments he had received by the sanctioned Russian oligarch Oleg
[28:34]Deripasca even to accounts in this country, Switzerland or other areas? And has there been a situation where there's
[28:44]been one set of rules for civil servants and another set of rules for friends of the prime minister and Jeffrey >> Epstein? >> Well, Mr. Speaker, his question in
[28:58]essence to the right honorable gentleman um gets to the essence of the decision that's been taken in light of additional information in emails written by Lord Mandlesson. The prime minister has asked the foreign secretary to withdraw him as ambassador to the United States. The
[29:10]emails show the depth and the extent of the relationship with Jeffrey Epstein is materially different from that known at the time of his appointment and in particular Mandlesson's suggestion that Jeffrey Epstein's first conviction was
[29:20]wrongful and should be challenged is new information. He's well aware of the procedures and of course he knows that I don't have the documents relating to the vetting process in front of me. >> Jim Sham,
[29:31]thank you very much. Uh um you've caught me on a war there. Uh can I on behalf of my party convey my support to the honorable lady for Washington uh on what's happened to her and I think it's very much in her thoughts and I was in
[29:42]her company yesterday. Also behalf of my party uh can I also express deep cons sadness at the assassination of Charlie Kirk 31 uh conservative influence who engage with young people across the
[29:54]United States of America. I know he's in heaven. Do pray for his wife and children. I think we should all do that. At times like this, it is essential that we have an ambassador in place to convey our sincere sympathy with our allies.
[30:04]The removal of Peter Madison is to be welcomed. Uh he should never have been there in the first place in my humble opinion. Does the minister believe it is imperative we have an ambassador in
[30:14]place and that that ambassador must have adequate history and qualifications rather than the jobs for the boys mentality. and further what changes will the minister make in the appointment
[30:26]process to restore confidence to restore confidence in that very role. Thank you. >> Well, Mr. Speaker, um uh my honorable friend is is is rightly known as one of the kindest and most generous members of
[30:37]this house. Um and again, I thank him for his his his comments about our honorable friend and and the attack that she's endured this morning. And again, I wholeheartedly agree with his comments in relation to Charlie Kirk. Um he can be assured that we are already um
[30:48]conveying our our our condolences to the United States. Um and of course uh I expect to be with the United States ambassador to London later on today where I'll be able to do that in in in person. Um he will know from a practical point of view that of course there are
[31:00]many posts where um uh we for periods of time have uh ambassadors or high commissioners vacant. We have excellent teams who do the job and of course when ambassadors and high commissions are traveling there is a team in post able
[31:11]to represent this country and ensure our interests are maintained and that is exactly what will happen in this case. >> Dr. Luka. >> Mr. Speaker, this is about the prime minister's judgment. By Manderson's own
[31:23]admission, he said there's more very embarrassing information coming. So the prime minister could have come to the house yesterday and said, "I will suspend pending further investigation."
[31:34]But he didn't. He backed him. So on the back of that, >> can the prime minister be 100% sure that in any trade deals or any negotiations
[31:45]that Mr. Mandlesson has not been compromised by the information that has now come forward and will he commit to investigate that? >> Very good. >> Well, Mr. Speaker, again, I bring him
[31:55]back uh to the fundamental point here, which is in light of the additional information and emails written by Lord Mandlesson. The prime minister asked the foreign secretary to withdraw him as ambassador investigation.
[32:06]>> Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Can I associate myself with words the minister said about 9/11 and the untimely and tragic death of Charlie Kirk? Yesterday it was reported that in 2008, Lord
[32:17]Mandlesson emailed Epstein and said that the conviction that happened to him in the United States, I quote, could not happen in Britain, but also encouraged Epstein to go for early release. Mr.
[32:28]Speaker, the whole house can see that the prime minister has an issue when it comes to judgment and only acting when he's pushed by events in this house. But will there be an investigation into Lord
[32:38]Mandlesson's meetings while he was ambassador to see if they bear any relation or any interference on his current business interests? Will this government remove the whip from him in
[32:47]the House of Lords? Yes or no? And will Lord Mandlesson be entitled to severance pay once this action and this sacking has happened? >> Um well, Mr. Speaker, on on on the
[32:58]question about the the whip, um as a as an FCDO employee, um Lord Madison was on a leave of absence from the other place. Um so um that's very uh clear. Um as I
[33:08]said, Mr. Speaker, um the emails show that the depth and the extent of Lord Madison's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein is materially different from that known at the time of his appointment and in particular his suggestion that Jeffrey Epson's first
[33:19]conviction was wrongful and should be challenged as new information and that is why the prime minister has asked the foreign secretary to withdraw him as ambassador to Washington.
[33:28]>> Mr. Speaker, uh the the prime minister had behind protest yesterday. The minister is doing the same today. Did the prime minister know about these messages before prime minister's
[33:40]questions yesterday? >> M Mr. Speaker, I'm of course updating the house in real time as to actions and decisions that have been taken. I've been very clear about the new information that has come to light and
[33:51]the decisive decision that the prime minister has taken as a result. >> Question. >> Final question. John, >> thank you, Mr. Speaker. The minister claims that additional new information has come to light which has which has
[34:02]resulted in the ambassador being sacked. But can the minister confirm this is the only new in information and all the other information was in the prime
[34:13]minister's knowledge? >> Mr. Speaker, I refer him to the comments I've already made. >> Point. The minister says that the only reason
[34:24]Peter Manderson has had to resign is the additional information that he had campaigned for the early release of uh Epstein. They are not saying exactly what they did or did not know at the point of appointment. And the only way
[34:34]for this house to know exactly what the government knew is to publish the documents relating to his vetting. Now, if the government will not publish uh those documents, as the minister says they will not, would it be possible for
[34:45]this house to obtain those documents using the humble address mechanism? It's not a decision for me. What I would say is the Treasury bench has heard and
[34:56]if the minister wishes to respond, I'm more than happy. Not going to. I'm not going to continue the debate, but I'm going to take a point for Steven. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On a point of order, I would just welcome clarity
[35:07]further to the point that was previously made. The minister was asked on numerous occasions when the prime minister was made aware of the information which led the additional email information which
[35:16]led to Mr. Manderson's sacking. He's not provided the house with that information. What avenues are available to us as members to find out when the prime minister knew about this
[35:27]additional information? Look, the role member and the leader, I know very well he knows the mechanisms that he will start to use. What I would
[35:37]say is I don't think this is the end of it today. I think this will be returned at some point in furnace to the minister. He has said the house will be
[35:47]updated as and when they have the information. So the points have been taken. I expect the points to be
[35:54]answered sometime. But let's just it's going to be a long weekend before we get to Monday. Let's leave it there. I don't want to continue the point of
[36:05]>> order and it's in relation to this issue but in terms of the house procedures. Can I ask you Mr. Speaker, the intimation that I took from the minister's answer was
[36:16]that Lord Mandleton had not given the full account of his actions in the past while going through vetting processes. Therefore, can I ask you as a member of the House of Lords, what are the
[36:26]disciplinary mechanisms that can be taken by the procedures of the House of Lords to make him accountable for that action if true? Can >> I just say I'm enough with the House of Commons? The responsibility in the House
[36:36]of Lords is not for me and we're certainly not going to take it. Right, let's leave it there.