[0:00]in the first five minutes. Can I first of all say I'm very grateful to the honorable member for giving notice a point of order. As she says,
[0:09]contingent liability of this size will normally involve delaying of a memorandum for a period of 14 sitting days before the guarantee is approved. The written statement made by the
[0:21]Minister for Energy on the 1st of September when the House returned from the summer recess sets out the reasons why the usual process could not be
[0:30]followed in this case. Can I suggest to her that she might want to raise this matter privately with the committee of the public accounts and the energy and
[0:40]climate change committee and I know that she will be a doubt member that will ensure that those concerns will be raised in many other areas. Right. Let
[0:49]us come to the presentation of the bill. David Le to know >> public office accountability bill.
[1:00]>> Second reading. What day? >> Monday 13th of October. >> Monday the 13th of October. >> Right. >> Should we let the front benches change
[1:10]over so everybody's in the place. love me.
[1:32]>> Okay. >> We now come to the emergency debate. I call Sir David Davis. [Applause] >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I beg to move a
[1:42]debate on the appointment process and circumstances leading to the dismissal of the former ambassador of the United Kingdom to the United States, Lord Mandlesson. If I may say so, Mr. Speaker, sometimes there are exquisite
[1:54]coincidences that happen in this place. We have just heard the presentation of bill on public office accountability >> by the immediate past foreign secretary and I'll just read the house the first
[2:05]line of the presentation. It says a bill to impose a duty on public authorities and public officials to act with cander, transparency and frankness. Well, I
[2:17]think I might return to those issues in the course of in the course of what I have to say. Now, as I said, this is a matter of utmost concern across the house. I think this is an issue which
[2:28]doesn't just concern the Conservative Party or the Scottish National Party or the DUP. Members on all sides are worried about this as we've seen in the newspapers. Now, the government has key questions to answer and as I said
[2:40]yesterday, the central question is who knew what and when. But let's be clear, there are many questions on many levels in this matter. And the government must
[2:50]answer them all. and it had so far singularly failed to do so. The questions fall naturally into four categories. Firstly, was Peter Mandlesson ever an appropriate character
[3:01]to appoint as our ambassador? >> No. >> We'll get to that later. Secondly, what was the procedure for vetting? Was it properly followed? And why has it gone
[3:13]so horribly wrong? Thirdly, what's happened in the last couple of weeks to lead to the demise of the former ambassador? Who made the critical decisions and why? And
[3:24]fourthly, what do we do now? >> How do we make this government tell the house and the nation the truth, the
[3:32]whole truth, and nothing but the truth, >> which in itself be a no novelty for Lord Mandlesson. Now, let's begin with whether Lord Mandlesson was ever an
[3:42]appropriate selection. And again, as I said yesterday, our ambassador in Washington stands at the nexus of our most important bilateral relationship.
[3:52]Just for those of who have not served in government, this is the one bilateral relationship run by number 10, not actually by the foreign office really. It's run by number 10 because it's so
[4:02]important and it's a role of exceptional sensitivity. more classified information crosses the ambassador's desk than as I said
[4:12]yesterday again uh gets to most cabinet ministers and indeed of course in British embassies the agencies report to the ambassador >> yeah they don't it's not like the same
[4:24]in in Americans in American embassy the CIA do what they want but in our agencies they actually report to the ambassador so it's a really sensitive post and today as actually uh I sorry I
[4:35]forgotten his post Peter Kyle um uh said global circumstances dictate the position of this particular ambassador is more important ever been. It could easily go terribly wrong and
[4:46]the failure to appoint the right person has already had a serious and delletterious impact on the public interest. I give one. >> The prime minister staked his special
[4:58]relationship with the US president on the diplomatic skills of an ambassador who had a special relationship with the world's most notorious child sex
[5:07]offender. I'm sure he agrees with me that the prime minister's judgment and the US is the UK's presence on the world stage has been diminished by this affair.
[5:18]>> I mean there is no doubt she's correct. Uh and frankly I'm not I'm going to try not to make this ad homonym about the ministers who made decisions. I think we need to make that decision later as it
[5:28]were. But she's right. It has diminished uh the standing of our prime minister. And I regret that because although we have opposition, I want this government
[5:38]to succeed in the national interest of actually it's doing the opposite of that. So the ambassador's conduct both
[5:47]prior to appointment and during must reflect the highest standards of integrity that is fundamental and that's
[5:55]true for any ambassador. I give way >> right honorable gentleman for bringing this forward this debate unites I believe this house and and the purpose of it as clear as within the rules Mr.
[6:07]speaker that MPs are accountable for their staff and their conduct and and and that there will be repercussions for that. Does the right honorable member
[6:17]agree as well that the prime minister is also accountable for his appointment of the UK ambassador to the United States of America and the same rules should apply.
[6:27]>> He's absolutely right. And when we look at the mechanisms, as I hope we will in the course of this debate, when we look at the mechanisms engaged, we'll see, I hope, why he made the wrong decision
[6:38]because no doubt in my mind that he did make the wrong decision. Now, if I can turn to uh the point, >> of course, I give way.
[6:48]>> I thank I thank the right honorable gentleman for giving way. He talks about decisions by the prime minister. He
[6:56]talks about the duty on members of this place and members of the other place to have uh the appropriate conduct. Does it surprise him as it surprises me uh that
[7:08]we have a situation where uh the honorable member for York Central has been unfairly suspended from the Labor whip along with others for opposing
[7:18]disability benefit cuts. The mother of the house remains suspended from the Labor Party. Yet Lord Mandlesson retains the Labour whip in the House of Lords. Aren't all of those things decisions by
[7:30]the Prime Minister? And don't people outside here, including Labour members, think that's completely unfair? >> I I I understand all too well the point
[7:43]the honorable gentleman is making. Many have made it in the newspapers generally um not not anonymously. uh the double
[7:53]standard as it were that applies to the top of the Labour party to Labor royalty if you like uh as as opposed to other people who have been punished for
[8:05]actually doing their jobs for representing their people and so on. So no, he's he's got a point there. He's got a point there. But but if I then make some progress,
[8:16]>> I thank the member for giving way. Does he not think it's slightly odd that prior to the appointment of Lord Mandlesson, there was obviously not sufficient due diligence done and on the day before he was dismissed, apparently
[8:27]there were a lot of emails available to the prime minister which he either wasn't given or didn't read. And so we find this odd situation where the British ambassador to the USA has to be
[8:38]dismissed in full glare of international publicity because of what his behavior had been in the past which was apparently very well known to a very large number of people who should not
[8:49]have supported his appointment in the first place. The right honorable gentleman is exactly and we will come to a number of
[9:00]circumstances where information was available which should have been acted upon and wasn't and this was not as hard
[9:09]as some may try to portray. After all the appointment did not come as a surprise. I mean uh the uh L mount
[9:18]himself was uh clearly campaigning to become uh the uh the ambassador uh after he failed to win the chancellorship of
[9:28]Oxford University. I suspect I I I think somebody told me that he was actually campaigning whilst he was trying to campaign. So So he was after two jobs,
[9:37]not one. So it was clear early that uh that he was going to attempt to do this and there was widespread discussion at the time about his suitability for the
[9:47]role and therefore there was plenty of time for a preliminary a preliminary uh uh investigative or or vetting process.
[9:56]There was and is vast amounts of data in the public domain. >> Yep. >> Most of what I'm going to speak of today is public domain material. I I'll explain when it's not, but most of it
[10:07]is. And what would that vetting process be looking for? Traditionally, and I I speak and a number of us on these benches, and most benches, I imagine, have have been through these vetting process ourselves. What would they look
[10:18]for? Traditionally, they'd review the history and personality of the candidate assessing risks. >> The risk of the candidate being susceptible to the undue influence or in the extreme example, that's the
[10:30]blackmail. I mean, the Russians and the Chinese collect compromising or misusing the role, >> risk of the candidate doing something
[10:40]that would cause reputational damage or, and some on the Labour front bench may find this difficult, rather old-fashioned perhaps, risk the candidate is too morally flawed to be
[10:52]given a major role in any place, which is where we may arrive in a moment, that they fail a simple ethical test. an ethical test. And I'm I'm afraid I am
[11:02]oldfashioned. I view ethical tests as absolute. They're not they're not ones you can trade off against some some benefit. >> Well, in the history I'm about to
[11:11]detail, we see a Peter Manderson who is easily dazzled by wealth and glamour >> and who is willing to use his public position to pursue those things for himself.
[11:22]>> This was visible very early in his career uh even to his friends. So when in 1998 he was sacked as a trade and industry secretary for failing to declare an interest free loan, a pretty
[11:33]enormous interest free loan he had received from Jeffrey Robinson. Uh at that time Mr. Robinson's uh uh businesses were being investigated by
[11:45]Mandlesson's department. So there's a clear clash of interest and he didn't even declare the loan. That was the first time we saw so publicly the abiding flaws in Lord Mendlesson's
[11:55]character which frankly would normally disqualify any normal person from a job this important. But even his friends saw this. This flaw was described plainly by
[12:06]one of his friends uh back then as I quote, "Peter was living beyond his means, pretending to be something he's not, and therefore he was beholden to
[12:16]people." And the important bit of that is that last frame. He was beholden to people. And this is a characteristic that was displayed time and again as he sought to use his position to curry
[12:28]favor with very wealthy and very powerful people who were either current or future benefactors. >> Now this was repeated in 2001 when Lord
[12:38]Manson again was sacked after attempting to broker a British passport for Mr. Hinduja a wealthy donor to the the millennium dome project of which he was involved and Mandlesson attempted to
[12:50]influence the home office to give Mr. Hinduja a passport when Mr. Hinduja and his brother were under investigation in the Buffer's weapons contract scandal.
[13:00]So again a dubious reason. It was about that time, just uh as an aside, that his association with Epstein starts uh and the infamous birthday book
[13:11]entries date from there. >> On that point, >> uh yes, >> I thank Max Wilkinson. >> I thank the honorable member for giving way. Does he share my concern that if the prime minister is to be discussing
[13:22]this issue with President Trump later in the week and the prime minister has to have influence over President Trump for very good reasons that if the issue of Lord Mandlesson's relationship with
[13:32]Jeffrey Epstein comes up because President Trump is also in that birthday book we understand with the very infamous poem.
[13:42]>> What's the prime minister going to say? Well, I'm very glad to say I'm not the prime minister's speech writer. >> There's a vacancy. There's a vacancy.
[13:52]>> There's a vacancy just and and and I and all I can say is I hope it doesn't come up because it will be undoubtedly embarrassing and diplomatic and
[14:01]diplomatically problematic for him. Now, however, we get to about 2004 and astonishingly after being sacked twice for misdemeanors in 2004, he's appointed
[14:12]by Tony Blair to be the European Trade Commissioner. He gets a third chance as it were uh at this. And as trade commissioner, he was criticized on
[14:22]numerous occasions for accepting lavish hospitality from companies whose commercial interests he was in the process of ruling on. whether it's Microsoft or an Italian shoe producer or
[14:34]whatever. Um, and this lavish hospitality for some reason often involves free luxury cruises. But he saw nothing wrong with this apparent compromising behavior. He saw nothing
[14:46]wrong with it. >> And of course in that category and rather at the top of that category was his association with the Russian oligarch and gangster capitalist Oleg
[14:57]Derek. Now, let's be clear who we're talking about here. Most colleagues, I'm sure, wouldn't really know much about him. So, Mr. Dere Pascal was the winner of the
[15:07]battle for control of Russian aluminium, the Russian aluminium industry. A battle in which roughly 100 people were murdered. In court reports, Interpol documents and
[15:18]in American government publications, Derapasca has faced serious allegations of murder, >> bribery, extortion, and involvement in organized crime.
[15:29]>> This is a truly bad man. I wouldn't >> for the case he's making I just wonder while he deals with the case of the influence of Russian oligarchs in
[15:41]British politics whether he would appine on the suitability of British political parties accepting donations from Russians and the impact that that might have on their policies and their positions. So David,
[15:52]>> had he been had he been here before the last election, >> he would have sat in his chamber, I hope, and heard me app on all those subjects and and raise laws or
[16:02]prospective laws to deal with those oligarchs laws that sadly this government has failed to carry through on. >> So
[16:12]that's the backdrop, you know. And >> in 2006, Mr. Dera Pascar's uh visa was revoked by the Americans.
[16:22]>> So Manslson had no excuse for not knowing about this. And yet as European trade commissioner he saw fit to accept hospitality from Deripasca on multiple
[16:33]occasions over several years including visit him visiting him in Moscow being flown by Der Pascar's private jet to stay at his Dhaka in Siberia and on his
[16:44]private yacht in the Mediterranean all while all while considering whether to give Russian aluminium access to the European market.
[16:54]Now Derapasa's activities were known to the British security services and briefings were available to Mr. Madison Lord Madison
[17:05]uh I think Mr. was then and so again there is no excuse he did this in full knowledge of who he was dealing with. Now, it was in this position that
[17:17]Manslson promoted and signed off concessions to Russian aluminium companies that ultimately benefited Mr. Deripasca or his companies to the tune of $200
[17:29]million a year. $200 million a year. And a company that was due, it didn't actually happen, but it was due to be IPOed. It was due to be floating shortly
[17:39]thereafter. A $200 million change in profits tends to mean a multi-billion dollar change in value into the pocket of Mr. Der Pasca. And of course, we
[17:50]should all know Dera Pasca is a nominee of Putin. So you can assume that a large chunk of that went to Putin as well and sanctioned. Now in 2008, Melson was very
[18:01]controversially raised by Gordon Brown for the periage and appointed as business secretary and his contact with Epstein did not end. As Epstein was pleading guilty to
[18:12]child sex offenses, Manslson emailed him. I think the world of you and I feel hopeless and furious about what's happened. Your friends stay with you and
[18:19]love you. So little little uh uh little remorse there should we say and little pity for the victims.
[18:29]Now after he left office in 2010 when Labour lost that election, Lord Manson founded a lobbying firm. >> Yeah. >> Global council.
[18:38]Now he controversially did not name his clients. Now in the House of Lords, House of Lords got rather slack >> Yes. >> rules on this. And so somebody can create a company and then they just
[18:50]declare that they get however much money from the company and don't declare who the customers really are. Now
[18:59]I don't have documentary records on this so I'm not going to name the companies we're talking about. Um but there are
[19:08]Russian companies, extremely dubious Russian companies. There are Chinese companies and I'm looking down at my right honorable friend in front of
[19:18]me, the member for Shakeford who uh or Eping or whatever it is now. I've lost lost track. >> Um he would recognize a number of them because he's campaigned on a number of
[19:28]them. I'll leave it as Lucid, >> but in the context of his appointment to Washington, bear in mind this is all a judgment being made about being the ambassador of Washington. It's his close association with the organs of the
[19:40]Chinese state that would have raised most red flags if the house will forgive the pun. The parliamentary alliance on China presented a dossier to US senators
[19:50]that provoked enough concern that they passed it to the FBI. This may have been a reason and here I am summising this may have been the reason for the purported concerns on whether Trump the
[20:02]Trump administration would allow Mandlesson's accreditation back in January. Of course I give way. I thank you for giving way on that point and appreciate some of the points he was making. Thank you. I would just note that the one of the Conservative
[20:13]candidates at the last general election running in Milton Kees worked for Global Council and it's interesting that the Conservative Party has such complaints about an organization when they were willing to support a candidate who
[20:23]worked for the organization. [Applause] >> Grow up. Well, exactly. >> Risible. >> Let me let me let me just I'm I'm going
[20:35]to be very I'm going to be very gentle. >> Let me just say this. We're talking about a very serious issue here where the national interest is engaged. >> We're talking about somebody who in my
[20:45]view has used public position to his own advantage and to the disadvantage of the state. That is not true of some candidate working in a junior role for a company. It is true for the man who
[20:56]created that company and who used it to promote his own interest. Now I'll come back to the the the interpolamentary alliance to to China u because from my
[21:08]point of view and this is a I'm it's personal rather than rather than public this but from my point of view even more worrying were the attitudes struck uh by
[21:19]Mandlesson in February 2021 when he told Chinese Premier Lee Kyouong that the critics of Beijing's human rights record
[21:29]would be proved wrong during a lobbying meeting of course on behalf of his rich clients. And then this astonishing statement was followed later that year when Manslson
[21:40]was the only Labour peer in 2021 to vote against the threeline whip against the genocide amendment which would have meant the country had to reconsider any trade with the deal any trade deal with
[21:52]a country found by the high court to be committing genocide. Most specifically China was in the crosshairs on this. So frankly it would appear that Lord Manson
[22:02]has sub subcontracted his conscience for money. >> Of course I get >> he mentioned the intermith mentioned the inter parliamentary alliance on China.
[22:12]Can I just explain in case house thinks this is a conservative organization. It has members of parliament from all parties in this house. It has 53 countries involved in it with both
[22:23]co-chairs on the left and on the right. It is wholly above party politics but all about the threat from China. >> Yeah. >> So David, >> he's exactly right. And and the senators
[22:34]that these documents were sent to are very responsible senators and they would not >> frivolously pass on those documents to the FBI, you know, and the FBI would not frivolously accept them and and
[22:45]investigate them. >> My right honorable friend. >> Yes, of course. >> I'm very Julian, >> my right honorable friend. Um, does he recall that on 21st of November last the
[22:57]prime minister was challenged to rule out appointing Lord Mandlesson as ambassador to the United States on the
[23:07]grounds that he had said that Ukraine would have to give up all the land that Russia had occupied and that it must give up any hope of ever joining NATO in
[23:18]return for some unspecified security guarantees. The prime minister said he would not be tempted to comment on that
[23:27]possibility of uh him being appointed ambassador. And as he said it, he had a very noticeable little smirk on his face. Does my right honorable friend
[23:37]agree that the prime minister isn't smirking about this matter anymore? >> I I'll say to my rightful friend that the the prime minister gave what was
[23:48]clearly what what can I say? a lawyer's answer to that question which is as we all know is not a proper answer at all. Now number 10 was well aware that
[23:58]Manelsson had continued his relationship with Epstein after he was convicted as a pedophile. >> How the prime minister could possibly have thought it was wise to appoint a man who was on record consorting with
[24:10]alleged murderers and convicted pedophiles to a position of privilege and power to me is utterly unfathom. It's long. All right. >> He has he has rightly >> we are both
[24:22]>> he has rightly pointed out his murky attitude towards money. Um but does it not also shine a terrible light on his attitude towards women and that by contrast this um doesn't look good for
[24:32]the government. >> So David Reese is right. I mean his his continued support of Epstein um shows an attitude which I find
[24:42]completely reprehensible in exactly that respect because Epstein's victims were women, young women, girls, children. >> So yes, I do agree with
[24:53]>> now. So it's long been clear he was not suitable to be our ambassador. >> So the question is what changed last week? The Bloomberg emails revealing further
[25:04]details the extent of Epstein's relationship with Mandlesson and the birthday book where Mandlesson referred to Epstein as his best pal were with Mandles were with Mandlesson by Monday
[25:15]evening and with the foreign office by overnight or by Tuesday morning at the latest. The prime minister is said to have known of the investigation by Tuesday afternoon but not of the content of the emails.
[25:26]Why when our most important diplomat in our most important international relationship uh is under question, under investigation, would the prime minister
[25:36]not want to know the details of the investigation immediately? >> Yeah, >> we understand the prime minister's chief of staff, Morgan Mweeny, was talking to Manson all day on Tuesday. So, what was
[25:48]Mandlesson saying to Mweeny and what was what was this and was this passed to the prime minister? One of the things I would ask the minister later on is, you know, can he give the house an undertaking? We can have a record of that conversation because I think we
[26:00]need to know that. >> Mandlesson gave a media interview on Wednesday morning, hours before PMQs, admitting that more embarrassing revelations would come out. More embarrassing revelations.
[26:11]>> Manson's past scandals, his links to Epstein were crystal clear by the time the prime minister spoke, rose to speak in PMQ's on last Wednesday. >> Would you give away on that point?
[26:21]>> I do. Yeah, I'm grateful that they're away. And is he aware of James Matthews, who's the Sky News reporter, who on the 27th of May even cornered Mr. Mandlesson
[26:30]to ask him specifically about staying in a flat. Mandles did not deny it. He simply said, "I regret having any connection with him." These are the kind of questions that should have been asked
[26:41]and were being asked by the member for Melton and many others in this house back in May of this year about the suitability of the ambassador. Does he agree that the prime minister should have looked into this further at that point? >> Yeah.
[26:52]>> Yeah. Exactly. >> In fact, earlier than that point, and I'll come back to that when I when I talk very briefly about the vetting process, you know, but what precisely did the prime minister learn from reading the Bloomberg emails that were
[27:04]not already known about Lord Matt from public information and vetting done before the appointment? Each day go each day that goes by, we not only see more shocking revelations about Mandlesson's
[27:14]misconduct, his links to Jeffrey Epstein and Epstein and the failures of both the vetting process and the political judgment of those at the top of government. And I will say the honorable member who intervened on me earlier, not
[27:26]just the political judgment but their moral standards uh and the equity of the moral the way they apply those moral standards across the board. Which brings
[27:36]us to the question, what happened to the vetting process? >> Most of what I'd described was in the public domain. It doesn't take James Bond. Google could do this. That which
[27:46]was not in the public domain was in the official records or known to the intelligence agencies. In other words, all available to the government. And
[27:57]there there was we know the propriety and ethics two-page briefing which should have flagged concerns but which merely triggered an unpenetrating email
[28:08]inquiry that goes straight to the point my honorable friend just raised which is where were the questions and you know you don't just send a threeline email and forget about you pursue the question
[28:18]you cross question the person who's under suspicion >> I will give way >> I'm grateful for my right right friend giving He will know the intelligence and security committee of this parliament.
[28:30]Its members are subject to extreme deep uh vetting. But there's also a double check and that is this parliament has to give agreement for the appointments uh
[28:41]to that committee once nominated uh by the prime minister. Does not the Mandlesson case strengthen the argument for preconfirmation
[28:51]hearings by the relevant parliamentary committees of this house in order that candidates can be cross questions. At
[29:01]the moment there are only around a thousand regulated public appointments that the cabinet office advises on for this house ahead of being appointed.
[29:12]None of them include a foreign or commonwealth development office appointment. Is it not now time to have that change whether they are political
[29:21]appointments or senior civil servants? >> Well, I think he makes a very good point. I certainly think that uh that would be the right way to go for
[29:31]political appointments. I think it would probably be the right way to go for the top dozen of the the embassies. I wouldn't be worrying about all of them. I mean without being rude to oh I won't
[29:42]pick a country um you know but I but because that would just be meaningless but the top dozen I think is well worthwhile doing but you
[29:51]know I give way thank the honorable member for giving way um he mentioned before the uh propriety and uh ethics um team within
[30:02]the cabinet office produced a report that was presumably handed to the prime minister and was certainly done so prior to the announcement. I wonder if he agrees with me that the minister must tell us whether or not the
[30:14]prime minister read that report whether it contained anything that parliament should have been aware of before he made that appointment. >> Well, he makes a good point. >> So to it in a moment uh but he's right
[30:26]and and I will reiterate the point because you know in addition to what my right honorable friend my honorable friend said you know there should have been a fully developed vetting process
[30:35]and it appears not to have happened. Normally speaking, there's a vetting unit in a in a foreign office. There's a vetting unit in the cabinet office. One of them should have been engaged on this. Now, there have been claims that
[30:46]the developed vetting happens after the appointment. >> No, it doesn't. >> No, it doesn't. Um the for existing ambassadors who are on a five-year vetting cycle,
[30:58]>> sure. >> Uh for uh ambassadors or or officers who are being read into a new class of material, sure. But for this an outsider coming into the most sensitive job in
[31:09]government, certainly not. >> Well, my right honorable friend. >> I'm being frowned at by the speaker taking so much time. I will give away the last time. >> Thank you. My honorable friend is very
[31:19]generous. At the weekend, the business secretary appeared to say the government believed it was worth the risk at appointing Lord Mandlesson from the outset.
[31:30]As I hear that, what the business secretary was saying that it was worth the risk of the positive qualities that Lord Mandlesson had as they see it worth
[31:39]the risk that he might be more involved with a convicted pedophile than they thought from the outset. If that's the risk the government were judging him by,
[31:49]isn't that shameful? There we go. >> I've already said it that my view is ethical risks, ethical standards are absolute. So they should not be a trade-off.
[32:00]>> But let's take this as maybe a practical decision for a second. Uh and take take Mson his own his own measure of himself. He loves being called the dark lord and all the rest of it. pres himself on
[32:11]being a master of the dark arts and spin spin message management political tactics manipulation of the truth a repertoire of things most people would not be proud of now if the government
[32:21]thinks that these actually make up for in some way in a skill make up for for for his sins well no I mean firstly he's not as good as being cracked up to be
[32:32]frankly and is being measured remember this against Karen Pierce the officer in place >> that probably the best ambassador. Certainly the most revered. Yeah. And
[32:44]and and and after her, Tim Barrow, who was our ambassador to to the European Union during Brexit and and was the NSA, was a national security adviser, knows
[32:55]all these things, the tips of his fingers that better than them. Pull the other one. Right. So, I'm coming to the end, Mr. Speaker, before you frown
[33:04]anymore. Um, number 10 claims Manslson was economical with the truth. Manels claims he told
[33:13]the whole truth. Both statements cannot be true. So the questions I pose to the minister are will the government rule out Mandlesson being brought back into
[33:23]government. Number 10 refused to rule him out uh giving him another job >> uh earlier this week or last week. If Mandlesson withheld information during the vetting process, is he going to lose
[33:34]the Labour whip? I'm looking at Mr. Bergen when I say that. >> Is he going to have to resign from the House of Lords? >> Will Lord Man be receiving compensation as some reports to the media suggest
[33:45]he'd be paid £100,000 of taxpayers money? >> What >> will the prime minister, his chief of staff, his cabinet secretary, and the permanent secretary of the foreign office appear before the select committees of the house to give
[33:56]evidence? And will the minister provide the house with the documents required to answer our questions as to who knew what and when? >> That is the propriety and ethics team
[34:06]report, the development vetting report if it exists. And I say this to the minister. There are many quotes in the newspapers from his own party about their horror regarding his decisions and
[34:17]processes. >> No, no, I I really am coming to an end. Uh I I may quote just one of them. This is a a long-standing senior Labor member, but he's anonymous. I care that
[34:28]this culture of turning a blind eye to the horrendous behavior is endemic at the top of society. And I agree with him. So when individuals with these associations are ushered back to the
[34:39]heart of government, are we right to ask what standards now governance to public life? Impunity is not a right.
[34:49]Impropriety is not a technicality. and survivors of crime should not have to do the heavy lifting of holding the powerful to account. >> Now, I mentioned at the beginning, Mr.
[35:01]Speaker, a bill is being put to the House later today. Well, it's been put to the house already, uh, imposing a duty of cander on public authorities and
[35:10]officials. My last and single question to the minister is, will his government now live up to the words in that bill?
[35:21][Applause] Just to say can I just gently say as a senior member obviously he's taking the time he felt required it's long time long father than 50 minutes just to say
[35:32]when we are naming other members it should be by constituency by not by name right now then the question is as on the order paper I now call Dame Emily
[35:44]Thorner of the committee >> thank you very much Mr. Speaker, my committee first asked for the opportunity to question Lord Mandlesson at the end of last year when rumors
[35:54]first surfaced of his appointment as ambassador to the United States. And we continued to ask after his appointment was confirmed. Indeed, the minister may remember our exchange on the 14th of
[36:06]January in this chamber when I asked him to allow Lord Mandlesson the time to come before my committee before he leaves for the United States to allow my colleagues to hear directly why the why
[36:17]the prime minister has appointed him. These requests were made uh more often and privately after that and in the eight months since um and they have been
[36:29]turned down. I understand that we've had a little bit of Chinese whispers going on because um I understand that uh the it's claimed that the foreign office has
[36:39]been telling journalists that we had the opportunity to meet and question Lord Mandlesson when we were in Washington. Now obviously there's been a break in that chain because um because the reality is of course that we had a
[36:51]15minute interaction over breakfast while receiving a formal briefing from the diplomatic staff about other meetings that we were having that day. Obviously quite materially different to
[37:02]the type of formal uh evidence session required to conduct meaningful scrutiny. Mr. Speaker, I but I do want to make it clear that we have not sought to
[37:12]question Lord Mandlesson out of a desire to frustrate the government of or its diplomatic agenda. In fact, quite the opposite. It's our responsibility to scrutinize the Foreign Office to prevent
[37:24]exactly the sort of mistake from damaging Britain's reputation on the international stage. We want to make the Foreign Office the best that it can be. And in so many ways, it is doing an
[37:34]absolutely excellent job. And it is fantastic to see the way in which Britain's reputation has been so enhanced. However, mistakes can be made and obviously have been made because
[37:46]while the shocking revelations of the last week were were not in the public domain in December, um Lord Mandlesson's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein was
[37:56]very widely known. And had my committee had the opportunity to question Lord Mandlesson, I'm confident that our members would have raised a range of questions. but these questions as well
[38:07]just as journalists particularly those at the Financial Times have tried to do. Now it's quite possible that in answer to those questions we may have uh provoked evasive answers or possibly not
[38:19]true answers or maybe even the same sort of response that were that was uh met u by the uh by the journalists particularly those from the Financial Times but it would have all been in the
[38:30]public sphere. It would have been on the record. Lord Mandlesson would have had the opportunity to tell the truth before the House. Mr. Speaker, having failed to convince the government to permit us to
[38:41]question Lord Mandlesson, I wrote to the foreign secretary on Friday, posing a number of questions about the apparent failures in due diligence and vetting processes conducted before and after the
[38:52]announcement of Lord Mandlesson's appointment. And these questions included what concerns were raised by any agencies undertaking security clearance ahead of Lord Mandlesson's
[39:03]appointment? What decision was a decision taken to dismiss any such security concerns? If so, was such a
[39:12]decision taken by the FCDO or number 10? Was any decision taken to suspend or alter the usual veshing requirements or the usual time t time frame for vetting
[39:23]procedures? May I thank the foreign secretary for her prompt response to that letter which I received this morning. And in her reply, she informs me that the due
[39:34]initial due diligence process was carried out by the cabinet office propriety and ethics team before the announcement of Lord Mandlesson's
[39:43]appointment as has been widely reported. She assures me that the foreign office did not contribute to this process, nor
[39:52]were any issues raised by the FCDO as a result of the I I think this is quite important and I'd like to have the opportunity to to to inform the house of
[40:02]this with clarity so that we all know where we stand because I do believe that this contribution to the debate is an important one. It's not a party political one. It is just trying to make
[40:13]sure that we learn from what we've learn what from what we've heard. So she assures me that the foreign office did not contribute to this process nor were
[40:22]any issues raised by the FCDO as a result of this Cabinet Office process. So the question is this, did the Cabinet
[40:31]Office miss the glaring red flag of Lord Mandlesson's relationship with with Epstein or did it fail to pass those concerns on? And if so, why?
[40:42]>> The foreign office. >> I genuinely, guys, just give me a chance to put this before you. The foreign office the foreign secretary's letter states that
[40:54]I genuinely hope that the honorable gentleman will give me an opportunity to to to put this before the house. And I apologize for for for speaking to them
[41:04]as guys. The foreign secretary's letter. >> Keep going, Emily. The foreign secretary's letter states that cabinet office due diligence was followed by the
[41:15]usual develop vetting or DV process carried out by national security vetting on behalf of the FCDO after the announcement of Lord Mandlesson's appointment. This was the foreign
[41:27]secretary says conducted to the usual standard set of developed vetting. Now, career civil servants are regularly subject to such tests, and many have stories of their appointments being
[41:38]delayed or even prohibited because they've studied abroad, because they've married an Iranian or because they were simply born in Belfast.
[41:47]So the question is this. Does having suffici suff significant information in the public domain about your relationship with an internationally
[41:57]prolific child sex offender not raise more red flags than simply being born in Belfast? Is a civil servant a greater risk to
[42:08]this country because they are married to somebody who was born in the Middle East or because they were close friends with Jeffrey Epstein? Did the foreign office vetting process
[42:18]miss a glaring national security and reputational risk or was it told to overlook it? Mr. Speaker, my committee's duty is to scrutinize the Foreign Office
[42:30]to make it the best that it can be. Neither the Foreign Office nor the Cabinet Office has shown itself to be the best it can be in the process surrounding this appointment.
[42:42]If I'll get to the end of this paragraph and then of course I will give way. That is why my committee asked yesterday for the foreign office permanent under secretary and the cabinet office head of
[42:52]propriety and ethics to appear before us and to explain what went wrong. >> We have been told that no one is available before the recess and we will
[43:02]continue to push for prompt and public answers. I give way to the honorable >> grateful to the right honorable lady for giving way. She speaks powerfully. Does she think if her committee had been
[43:13]allowed to interview Lord Mandlesson that they would have come up with a recommendation not to approve the appointment? And in such a situation, does she does she think her
[43:24]recommendation would have been listened to? >> I think that the I think this is slightly more subtle than that. I think the point is this is that if if Lord Mandlesson had appeared before the
[43:34]committee, he would have faced a range of questions which would have highlighted issues that needed to be considered properly and couldn't in the rush to appoint him perhaps have been
[43:45]overlooked in the way that it would seem to have been. It is a it's to put a break on it and we would not as a committee have the >> uh the power to say the government can't
[43:55]appoint but we would shed light on the on the on the nature of the appointment and be able through our questions to be able to examine whether or not it was the wisest thing to do. I give way to
[44:07]the honorable. >> Does the honorable lady agree with me that if we are to salvage anything positive from this whole sorry episode at all then it has to be that in the
[44:17]future parliament is put at the role of this process and through the select committees and does she does not her experience illustrate that the question
[44:28]of who is in charge of that has to remain with the select committee and not with the executive. Yes, >> members. >> I don't quite put it like that. I think
[44:39]that the executive does in the end make the decision. They are the executive. But I think that we should as a as a select committee have a role in this, particularly when it comes to political appointments. It did happen before when
[44:50]there were political appointments, the right honorable gentleman may remember to the um ambassador to South Africa and to Paris and it has happened in the past and particularly when there are
[45:00]political appointments then I do think in those circumstances, Mr. speaker that that the that the that the select committee should have a have a role in it and we can make the decisions better as a result.
[45:12]>> On that would my honorable friend >> uh I thank >> I thank her for giving way. Uh I'm a Mr. Mr. Speaker, I'm a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee. So, uh, with that in
[45:21]mind, our committee has a proposal that there should be a greater role for us in scrutinizing the appointment of the US ambassador given that they're one of the highest ranking members of the
[45:32]diplomatic service and to help the government avoid this situation in the future. Does she agree with me that the government should consider this proposal seriously? >> She may she may be that my my honorable
[45:42]friend may be surprised to hear that, but I agree with her completely and I think it is very wise. Yes, I will. Yes, >> chairman of the select committee giving way. I've made my early comments about
[45:54]pre-confirmation uh hearings, but adding on to that, does she agree with me that where senior civil servants, whether from the foreign office or elsewhere, are asked to come
[46:05]to select committees on important matters and find some excuse not to attend those select committees? that select committees should at least have the power of summons in order that
[46:17]somebody gives an account and also where those select committees have privy counselors such in the right honorable lady's case that at least a briefing if
[46:27]it security or classification is used either truthfully or should we say exaggeratingly uh as an excuse not to give uh evidence to a committee that they can be heard on
[46:39]privy council terms. gentleman raises some very important points and the power of select committees to summon witnesses is a has been an ongoing debate. Um and I I
[46:50]suspect we haven't resolved it yet. um the the difficulty in relation to privy and we I within within our committee we have myself and and and uh and another
[47:00]uh privy council member and and if we were offered privy council briefings as we are sometimes it's quite difficult because what we want to be able to do is to do these things in public and to be
[47:10]able to inform the public of the work of the foreign office to ensure that they they understand and that and when difficult decisions are being made that the public understands why those difficult decisions are being made and
[47:21]all the factors that are involved in that which is fine. We need to trust the public more than I think that the sometimes that we do and we certainly need to trust backbenches more than sometimes we do. >> Will the right
[47:32]>> I will the chairman of the select committee for giving way. is being very generous and she's elegantly describing due process and she's implying at least I think she
[47:43]is that due process may have been set aside for other purposes in this case but we know due process was done because the prime minister stood at that
[47:53]dispatch box last Wednesday and said it had been done unless he is using the Bill Clinton defense and it turns out that due process was done but set aside
[48:05]where does that leave the prime minister. >> I think it's difficult to have answers to all of his questions at the moment, but I think that it is >> but I think I think the most important
[48:16]thing is that there are lessons learned and and even if all due process was followed and the inquiries were were were were were proceeded with to the
[48:27]letter, they clearly aren't good enough and we need to change them. So either due process was not followed or it was and we need to change it. Either way, we
[48:38]need to work together to ensure this never happens again because something went very wrong. >> Yes, I will give way to for a final time and then I'm then I will finish
[48:49]>> very grateful for her to generously give way. Um as MPs, we put the interests of the country above all else. What does she make of a decision to appoint an
[49:01]individual to represent our country in difficult negotiations in the knowledge that that country had compromising information on that individual?
[49:12]I mean clearly we all think that it was a mistake and the the question is how did that mistake occur and how do we make sure that it does that sort of this sort of thing does not happen again
[49:23]because because something went very wrong because when Randolson was appointed red flags were obviously missed or ignored and on the day that
[49:33]the American president lands in Britain for a state visit the government is materially worse off because we don't have an American president. And I really
[49:43]am finishing. Mr. Speaker, if we do not have the opportunity to scrutinize this kind of failure, then how can we make sure that we stop it and we stop it from
[49:54]happening again? We do need to improve our scrutiny and our decision-m. [Music] >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for granting
[50:06]this important emergency debate today. And I congratulate my right honorable friend for having secure uh having secured it. He made a series of excellent points as did the chair of the
[50:16]foreign affairs select committee and I agree with all of those points. It is extraordinary extraordinary that on the eve of the president's state visit we
[50:25]are talking about the US ambassador who's been sacked in scandal and there are as many questions uh that we all have as our unanswered questions. There are many questions I will also ask today
[50:37]Mr. Speaker, but the prime minister, the prime minister needs to do three things. The prime minister needs to come clean about what he knew and when he knew it,
[50:47]not send his junior ministers to cover for him. The prime minister needs to publish the Mandlesen Epstein files in full. >> The prime minister needs to take
[50:58]responsibility for the appointment of Lord Mandlesson as ambassador to Washington. >> But the prime minister, Mr. speaker is not here because he is hiding from
[51:08]parliament, hiding from questions and I know that he is a busy man but confidence in him and in his government rests on him being able to account for
[51:17]what happened and so far no one is taking any responsibility. >> We have our ambassador in the US sacked over his relationship with a man
[51:27]convicted of child sex offenses. What's more, and this tells you everything you need to know, this was an appointment apparently forced through by the prime
[51:36]minister and or his chief of staff. We see a political ally pushed ahead of qualified candidates because the prime minister and Morgan Mweeny admired his
[51:46]talent for mixing with the rich and powerful despite his known links to a man who was publicly publicly known as a convicted pedophile and a convicted sex
[51:58]trafficker. It is now very clear given the speeches that we've heard before, Mr. Speaker, and everything in the public domain. It is now very clear that Peter Mand Peter Mandlesson should never
[52:10]have been appointed. >> And it is now also clear that the prime minister knew that there were major concerns when he came to this house just last Wednesday,
[52:20]>> but instead of taking action, he expressed confidence in him. Why on earth did he do so? Was he poorly advised or was it just his own poor judgment?
[52:30]>> In every single one of his government scandals till date, far from being the decisive man of conscience he promised to be, he has shriveled from leadership. He has dodged responsibility. He has
[52:42]hidden behind others just as he's doing today. And he has come to this house and hidden behind process and lawyerly phrases. >> The prime minister has shown no courage,
[52:53]no judgment, no backbone. And if he can't see it, if they can't see it, I can assure them that the British public can. >> Prime Minister has turned out to be
[53:03]everything he claimed to appall. >> This is a government of slease and scandal, and Labour MPs know it. I'll be interested to see how many of them actually stand up to defend their
[53:14]government. >> Mr. Mr. Speaker, the British public and especially the victims of Jeffrey Epstein deserve that for once the prime
[53:25]minister be straight and honest with us. >> Yes, >> he must immediately do three things. As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, he must apologize to the victims of Jeffrey
[53:35]Epstein for ever having appointed Peter Mandles as ambassador. How is it that this has still not happened? No apology. >> Second, as I said, he must publish the Mandlesson Epstein files in full. all
[53:47]the information that he had at his disposal both when he made the appointment and when he came to the house last week expressing full confidence and third he must make sure
[53:57]that someone takes responsibility. >> Everyone now agrees that Peter Mandlesson should not uh have been appointed. We've heard so much from my right honorable friend about endless
[54:08]scandal, conflicts of interest with China and indeed with Russia. So why was he appointed? Was it a failure of vetting? Was it that the advisers hid information from the prime minister or was it that the prime minister knew and
[54:19]made the decision anyway? Someone needs to take responsibility. I give way to my right honorable friend. >> I'm grateful to my right honorable friend. And does she agree that we've
[54:29]seen a rapid transformation from the prince of darkness into a groing lord
[54:36]yum yum? But one has to ask, why was the British prime minister surprised? Had he never heard the tale of the turtle and
[54:47]the scorpion that meet at the side of the river? Shouldn't the prime minister have realized that the poor old scorpion
[54:56]simply can't help what's in its nature? >> I completely agree with my right, honorable friend. I think the story is the frog and the scorpion. It's one of my favorite uh childhoods childhood
[55:07]stories. Everyone knows, everyone knew what Lord Mandlesson had been up to. It is simply not tenable for anyone on those benches to hold the line on this one, to bury their heads in the sand and
[55:18]hope it goes away, least of all the prime minister. But we now know that the prime minister was aware of the compromising emails last Wednesday at prime minister's questions. And yet he came to the house and said that he had
[55:29]confidence in his ambassador and many of them cheered. Now they're all looking at their phones. Most of them don't have the courage to look me in the eye. They were cheering last week. Now they are full of shame. Why on earth did he do
[55:40]that? At any point did he ask his staff Oh, sorry. Are they proud? Are they proud? No, >> I'll continue. At any point did he ask his staff what more information might
[55:51]surface? Because that morning uh Lord Mandlesson was saying more information would surface. Did he receive a briefing about this ahead of Prime Minister's questions? It is inconceivable that he
[56:01]did not. Inconceivable. Ministers are now claiming that new information subsequently came to light, new information that they didn't have. The story is all mixed and messed up and
[56:11]they know it. What information appeared that was not in the original vetting? We'd like to hear that when the minister gives his statement. And there are still more questions to uh to answer. When did
[56:22]the prime minister's chief of staff speak with Peter Mlesson last week and what did he discuss with him? Do they have the courage to tell us that? We are told that Morgan Mweeny spent hours on
[56:32]the phone to the ambassador. Hours on the phone at the same time that Lord Mandlesson was dodging calls from the foreign office. What were they talking about? Those are questions about what
[56:42]happened just last week. But how did all this come to happen last year? I think the chair of the foreign affairs select committee has asked some e excellent questions. But I ask the minister this.
[56:53]What led to Lord Mandlesson's appointment in the first place? How was it that a man with known links to a child sex offender came to be appointed? I'll give way to the honorable gentleman
[57:04]>> for giving way. Um an additional question is was there any external influence? Did Tony Blair or any of his um friends Mandelson's friends have
[57:14]anything to do with this appointment? >> The right the honorable gentleman asks a very good question and I hope the minister is able to provide an answer because all of us in this house across parties want to know. We want to know
[57:25]how it was that Lord Mandlesson's appointment happened in the first place. Because as I see it, there are only three possibilities. First, that there was a failure of vetting. But are we really supposed to believe me, Mr.
[57:37]Speaker, are we really supposed to believe that this is the security services fault? I don't think so. >> Did they not drag up the intimate relationship with uh uh with Jeffrey Epstein, which was discussed last week?
[57:49]The second possibility, a bit more likely, is that the prime minister's advisers kept information from him. If that happened, that would be incredibly serious. >> My honorable
[58:00]>> Yes, I give way to the right hand. >> On that particular point, does she agree with me that no matter what happened or didn't happen that a prime minister, a leader has to shoulder the
[58:11]responsibility? And it it's absolutely appalling the idea that they would then blame the staff around them. It is their responsibility. They answer to the
[58:21]house. No excuse. >> My right honorable friend makes an excellent point. This is a prime minister who hides behind everybody else. Whether it's his advisers or whether it's his junior ministers or his
[58:32]backbenches. That's what he does. And and if he does want to if he does want to blame uh advisers, which one was it? Who kept it from him? Why have they not apologized and resigned? no one taking
[58:42]responsibility. And thirdly, which my right honorable friend alluded to, the most likely but most worrying reason of all is that the prime minister had plenty of information to suggest that
[58:54]Lord Mandlesson should not be appointed. Plenty of information, but he chose to appoint him anyway. >> Even at the time, Mr. Speaker, eyebrows were raised about this appointment.
[59:04]There were very many critics. I remember it at the time. Now we're reading in the papers that the prime minister overruled security advice not to appoint Lord Mandlesson. Is this true? The minister
[59:16]should tell us. It is time, Mr. Speaker, for the prime minister to come clean. He needs to come out of hiding. This issue will not go away, Mr. Speaker. The government cannot play for time. We will
[59:26]be back here again and again until all of these documents are published. We will be back until someone takes responsibility. Yeah, >> this is a political crisis on top of an
[59:37]economic crisis. All of the government's own making. They are distracted now, but they came into office with no plan for the country. No idea what they stood for and no vision for what they wanted to
[59:48]achieve. And because of this, they have been lurching from disaster to disaster. Winter fuel, tax rises, welfare chaos, scandal. The prime minister's failing leadership rebooted after just one year.
[59:59]The only plan that they came into office with was a promise they made again and again to the British public that they would restore honesty and integrity to government. That was their defining mission. That was their grand plan. And
[1:00:11]it is in tatters. So far in a year, we have had an anti-corruption minister sacked for corruption, a homelessness minister sacked for evicting tenants, a housing secretary sacked for dodging
[1:00:23]housing tax, a transport secretary sacked for fraud, a director of strategy. The speech writer apparently lost only yesterday in scandal. The minister can shake his head. It should be shamed that he's shaking his head in.
[1:00:34]I have not said anything that is not true. >> And now finally, we have a US ambassador sacked for his links with a known child sex offender. They claim to care about
[1:00:46]violence against women and girls until they actually have to do something about it. Where is the apology to those victims? I know the prime minister doesn't like difficult questions, Mr. speaker, but it is his judgment, his
[1:00:57]judgment that is being called into question and he owes it to this country to come clean. >> Florence say
[1:01:07]>> thank you, Mr. Speaker. First and foremost, I I want to acknowledge the many victims of Jeffrey Epson's really appalling abuse whom for
[1:01:19]many of them, this story is not a political one. It's a personal one. And I think no one could be moved by listening to her brother and her sister on the news this Sunday, their first
[1:01:30]interview in the UK and that void that's that that family will now fill from losing her. So I think let's not detract from them and
[1:01:41]the many more victims who still probably haven't come forward caught up in this scandalous and horrific abuse. Mr. Speaker, I'm going to keep my
[1:01:51]remarks short. I've just recently returned from a trade envoy visit to Nigeria and what struck me on that visit was the hard work and dedication of our civil servants.
[1:02:02]>> I met with a British deputy high commissioner and all our diplomats working across many missions across many countries. >> They do not make the headlines but they
[1:02:12]are representing the UK with distinction week in week out. >> And I know that this has been replicated across many countries >> and Mr. Mr. Speaker, this includes the
[1:02:22]deputy ambassador in Washington who has since taken over from Lord Manderson and he's been described as a highly regarded diplomat. So we wish him well in his new
[1:02:33]temporary role. The chair of the my right honorable friend, the chair of the select committee has rightly highlighted a number of important questions and I hope
[1:02:45]that the government will be listening and will take full consideration of some of the I'll give way on that. >> I'm very grateful to my wife for giving way. She is aware that I am too listed
[1:02:56]in this house as an independent not for matters relating to conduct or duty of calendar but for voting with my conscience to scrap the two child limit policy. A policy supported by the former Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown and
[1:03:07]the Children's Commissioner and my suspension from the Labour wos applied over a year ago within minutes of my vote. Does she agree with me that myself and the mother of the house and others
[1:03:17]appear to be held to some standards? while Lord Manderson appears to be uh held to another. >> I thank the honorable member for making
[1:03:28]her point and I think about sadly the number of abuse that many parliamentarians in this chamber face
[1:03:36]particularly many BME members for just their mere existence. I know the horrific domestic abuse that my honorable friend has also faced and I
[1:03:47]hope that with time that the lady leadership will look at some of the issues around suspension. She will know that that's not an issue that I'm privy to but I know that um I know that these
[1:03:57]are many issues that many of us continue to raise with the leadership. I just wanted to finish Mr. speaker by highlighting some of the many questions which I hope the minister when he stands
[1:04:07]up on his feet will respond to but I think the key question that we are all asking and many people including many of my constituents are asking is around the recruitment process going forward can
[1:04:19]the minister assure the house and the foreign secretary who's not here in terms of that recruitment process going forward that it will be
[1:04:30]strengthened and so that in future our ambassadors ers will boister the standing of our civil servants on the global stage.
[1:04:40]>> To the leader of the Liberal Democrats, Sir Ed. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think this debate finds the House at its best, holding the government and the prime
[1:04:51]minister himself properly to account. >> And as the leader of the opposition said, we may be rising for recess, but this issue will not go away. And I want
[1:05:02]to pay tribute to the right honorable and gallant member for Ghoul and Pockington for securing this debate and for laying out the series of questions
[1:05:11]which need to be answered so we can properly hold this government to account. I'm not going to repeat all his many questions. Uh he made a long speech uh and we will be read rereading it no
[1:05:22]doubt uh over the next few weeks. Uh I also want to pay tribute to the chair of the foreign affairs select committee the right honorable lady the member for visiting south and finsbury. I thought
[1:05:33]her speech showing that her committee had tried to bring Lord Mandlesson to their committee to be scrutinized and were prevented from doing that raises
[1:05:44]some very serious questions about how select committees are being ignored by this government. And I think we need to get serious about confirmatory hearings.
[1:05:55]I think the house, the public needs to know what a select committee that is specializing subject thinks about such an important public appointment before
[1:06:05]that public appointment is confirmed. And I hope we will reform the processes of this house to to build on what the honor right honorable lady rightly said. And the leader of the opposition made
[1:06:17]some very important points about the need for disclosure from the government. We need those documents to be published if we're going to have a transparent process where we can properly hold the
[1:06:28]government to account. If they have answers, let us hear them and then we can do that analysis. I give way to gentlemen to >> the right jumper for giving way. Um he's
[1:06:38]much has been said about the process itself. Um but does he agree with me? It clearly was never worth the risk
[1:06:48]>> to appoint Peter Mandles. >> Never. >> Uh but does he go further than that in terms of the professionalism of the role
[1:06:58]and we've heard from my honorable friend about the reputation of our ambassadorial officials across the world. Would we be better served in the future if we looked
[1:07:09]to professionals to fill that role rather than politicians? >> I think the honorable gentleman makes a very strong point. The previous ambassador to the United States was held
[1:07:21]in very high regard and many people think she should be appointed for the uh vacancy. Um uh but I also want to
[1:07:30]mention the the immediate speech before myself, the honorable member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green, because I want to take on from what she said. Um yes, we have all these questions to be
[1:07:41]answered and disclosures to be made, but we must remember the victims in all this. And I want to focus on the victims
[1:07:49]today because they deserve uh answers. Um, when we've read those sickening messages, we think of Epstein's victims and their families. Girls as young as
[1:08:01]14, groomed by Epstein, sexually abused by him, trafficked by him, being sexually abused by other
[1:08:10]powerful men. I've been thinking about the trauma they have gone through not just then but since as they saw the man responsible for such
[1:08:22]horrific crimes escape justice for so long. They saw him convicted in 2008 but spend
[1:08:31]just 13 months in jail thanks to his powerful connections. >> Would my honorable friend give way to my friend >> the um I thank my honorable friend for
[1:08:42]giving way. Um we know that the trauma of um sexual violence and sexual abuse can last a lifetime and for many people can be too much to bear as we've seen um
[1:08:52]with Virginia Grey and victims of sexual violence are often silenced, often ignored and always let
[1:09:00]down by a system that um sometimes often sees powerful men protecting each other um to diminish these crimes. Would my honorable friend agree that the prime
[1:09:12]minister should never have appointed somebody who was had known links with a convicted pedophile? >> I completely agree with my honorable
[1:09:22]friend. Can I pay tribute to her for the work she has done to protect vulnerable women in her career? Uh we salute her for that work. And as we remember uh the
[1:09:33]victims, Madame Deputy Speaker, how must it have felt for them to see Donald Trump, one of Epstein's closest friend and a man found liable for sexual abuse
[1:09:44]himself, become president of the United States? How must it have felt for the victims to see another of Epstein's closest friends made British ambassador
[1:09:54]to the United States? How must it have felt for the victims to hear the prime minister defend Lord Manson last week even after we'd seen those appalling
[1:10:05]messages? How must it felt for them to hear minister say even after Manelsson was sacked that his appointment was a risk worth taking? I think that is quite
[1:10:17]shocking. I give way to >> on that point. I thank the right honorable member for giving way. Um the right member has turned down the opportunity to dine with Donald Trump in the next couple of days and he's been roundly criticized for that by some
[1:10:29]people um who may well still be attended. Does he agree with me that this is an ample opportunity for those who are still attending to ask President Trump about his entry in that horrific
[1:10:39]book um of birthday wishes for um uh Mr. Epstein. And when they do ask him about his thoughts, I can you ask them to report back to us about what he said?
[1:10:50]I'm grateful to my honorable friend. The truth is at these state banquetss very few people get to speak to the visiting head of state. Um however the prime minister does. I wonder if the prime
[1:11:02]minister will be asking uh the president about his uh friendship with Epstein. Uh I think he should and I think this house
[1:11:10]thinks uh he should. Uh, Madam Deputy Speaker, for decades, the victims and their families have seen powerful men escape responsibility for what they did
[1:11:22]and what they knew. It should be a source of deep shame to ministers that the British government is now part of that story. >> Will my right honorable friend give way? >> Yes, I
[1:11:34]>> thank my right honorable friend for giving way. Um, does he agree with me that the one of the reasons that Epstein escaped justice for so long was because he was protected by other powerful men
[1:11:45]and if we are truly to protect young people from predators, we need to ensure that the protectors of pedophiles have absolutely no place in public life.
[1:11:56]>> I couldn't agree more with my honorable friend. I know she has worked for victims of the domestic violence and abuse uh as well and uh I can do no better than actually quote the words of
[1:12:06]Sky Roberts the brother of Virginia Grey. She said about Lord Mandlesson he should not have been given the position in the first place. It speaks to how
[1:12:16]deep the corruption is in our systems. And Madame Deputy Speaker, not only must we hold the government to account for this, but we need to fix our systems, whether it select committee hearings or
[1:12:28]holding the powerful to account. Uh, our constituents lose trust in our institutions when they fail to hold people to account. And I'm proud, my party, I'm sure others in this house
[1:12:40]wish to see those reforms. Not least, madame speaker, for the survivors, for the victims, for their families. We must hold the powerful to account. And in
[1:12:50]that regard, will the minister, when he gets to his feet, apologize to all of Epstein's victims and their families. We need apology from the
[1:13:01]minister today. But beyond that, will he say whether he agrees with me? the prime minister himself owes them a personal
[1:13:11]apology to >> we've got a substantial speaking list and this limit is debate is time limited to 3 hours so the backbenches are on a
[1:13:21]sixinut speaking limit six minute speaking limit and I call John Slinger >> thank you madame deputy speaker I wish to express my sympathy with all the
[1:13:31]victims of Jeffrey Epstein and put on record my respect for the family of Virginia Gibbre who spoke so movingly about her on the BBC at the weekend.
[1:13:41]Madame Deputy Speaker, listening to the debate here and in the media over recent days, I am struck by the similarities to the debate that took place over many
[1:13:51]years concerning the appointment of Mr. Andy Coulson as the director of communications in Downing Street. from the point of his resignation in 2011 to
[1:14:02]his conviction for phone hacking in 2014, an appointment which David Cameron consistently said he would not have made if he had known at the time the
[1:14:14]information that subsequently came to light. But for that reason, the question was constantly asked in this house and beyond.
[1:14:25]Why did the security processes Mr. Coulson went through prior to his appointment not uncover his past involvement in phone hacking.
[1:14:34]Some people pointed to the fact that unlike previous occupants of his role, Mr. Coulson had not gone through developed vetting until long after his
[1:14:44]appointment and indeed had to resign before completing that process. But when this issue was directly discussed at the Leverson inquiry, this
[1:14:55]was the exchange between Lord Justice Leverson and the former cabinet secretary Lord O'Donnell, which it is important to recall today. Lord
[1:15:05]O'Donnell said, I think some people have different understandings of what developed vetting would me would reveal. It wouldn't have gone into enormous detail about phone hacking, for example.
[1:15:17]Lord Justice Leverson replied, "No, it's concerned with whether you're likely to be a risk." Lord O'Donnell then said, "Yes, whether basically you're
[1:15:28]blackmailable." David Cameron relied on that exchange in this house after Andy Coulson's conviction on the 25th of June 2014 when
[1:15:38]he said firstly and I think correctly that Coulson's security clearance was a matter for the civil service not for the prime minister and secondly
[1:15:50]that even if Coulson had been fully devied it would not have uncovered evidence of his involvement in phone hacking
[1:15:59]And I mention this issue now not to reopen the issue over Andy Coulson's security clearance or Dominic Cummings for that matter,
[1:16:10]but simply to remind honorable members opposite that it is not new to have these kind of questions raised around the vetting of
[1:16:20]senior appointees. It is certainly not an issue that is specific to this government or the particular appointment
[1:16:29]of Lord Mandlesson. And they would do well to remember that before they get too high on their horse in today's debate.
[1:16:41]>> I won't give away. >> I will give up. I will give >> I thank the honorable member for giving way, but this really isn't hard.
[1:16:52]Isn't it enough knowing that Lord Mandelson enjoyed the patronage of a convicted child sex offender by staying in his houses? Wasn't that enough to
[1:17:03]prevent his appointment as our most senior ambassador? >> I thank the honorable lady for her intervention. What I am doing in my
[1:17:12]speech is is setting out for the house very useful context within which this debate within which this it is useful honorable members can chant for senator
[1:17:24]position but it is useful context and finally no I won't give away I'm coming to my uh the conclusion of my remarks madame deputy speaker
[1:17:35]madame deputy speaker the right honorable member for Ghoul and Puffington spoke somewhat not mockingly of the strange coincidences of politics given the presentation of the public
[1:17:46]office accountability day uh bill earlier today. Now my right honorable friend the prime minister is a man of integrity. He has shown that he believes in accountability and he acts on it.
[1:17:58]>> The leader of the opposition can reel off a list of ministers who have been sacked. But that rather proves my point. Frankly, this is a welcome change and no
[1:18:09]matter how uncomfortable recent events have been, we are seeing under this prime minister that public officials,
[1:18:17]ministers and yes, ambassadors are being held to higher standards than previously and I welcome that.
[1:18:27]>> Right. I call the father of the hacker. [Applause] Well, that speech we've just heard was absolutely visible, frankly.
[1:18:38]>> And I just give him some advice, you know, don't do the whips office dirty work for them. >> Oh, well, of course I gave way to him. >> I we Thank you. I thank the right
[1:18:48]honorable gentleman. Um, I'd like to give him some advice. Please, please do not patronize me. >> I just trying to give him some helpful advice, but there we are.
[1:18:59]>> Oh, well, of course. Actually, it's advice for the the member oppos. >> Those that lick the feet of the unworthy
[1:19:10]gain them for themselves nothing but a dirty tongue. >> But joking apart, this is really a very
[1:19:22]serious moment for our country and and for parliament. Whether you like him or not, President Trump is of incredible importance
[1:19:33]>> to our country. He's just about to arrive here. He he just must think that we in this country are complete plonkers, frankly, for the way that
[1:19:42]we've handled all this. First of all, he had a very good relationship with the previous ambassador. >> Yeah. >> She she was just swept aside. And then a man was appointed who had
[1:19:54]produced him in the past. All right, that man is a skilled operator and has built up a relationship. President Trump himself probably is rather embarrassed about his
[1:20:04]relationship with Epstein. And then he finds all over the media which is dragged up a day before one of his most important visits which is of great importance to his country and our
[1:20:16]country. And he knows that they're going to be very difficult questions in the press conference. The president of the United States must be absolutely furious about what is
[1:20:26]going on. So this is a very serious moment for us and we have to take it extremely seriously and I hope and I'm sure the government does. Now I'll just repeat what I said in the urgent
[1:20:37]question on Thursday. I've seen so many of these scandals and it's usually not the original scandal or alleged scandal that is the problem. It's the cover up
[1:20:48]>> and therefore to try and be helpful to the government. We've already heard from the chair of the foreign affairs select committee. It is just an absurd part of
[1:20:57]our processes that if there is a monumental scandal then we have a public inquiry and officials, ministers, everybody must be dragged, every document must be produced the public
[1:21:08]inquiry but governments can just brush aside a select committee. So I I just tell them I'm generally trying to be helpful. Now obviously a bad mistake was
[1:21:19]made but an even worse mistake is being made if you're not honest with parliament and you don't release every single document. And there are so many
[1:21:28]questions that need to be asked and could be answered if the government the foreign office was honest in these questions. Why was Madison chosen given
[1:21:40]his no known past associations with Epstein and his previous sackings? Were the risks merely misjudged or did the existing vetting process fail to assess
[1:21:50]them properly? And the prime minister claimed he didn't know the full extent of the emails. We've no reason to not to take him at his word. Obviously, he tells the truth, but this raises serious
[1:22:01]questions about what assurances or information he received from whom and whether that constituted adequate due diligence. What exact checks were carried out at appointment
[1:22:12]stage? What was known by whom and when? If some of the unsavory aspects of the former ambassador's friendship with Mr. Epstein were known but deemed worth the risk, what criteria were used to make
[1:22:23]that decision? Was the cabinet offic's propriety and ethics team sufficiently rigorous? Was any personal, institutional or political bias exhibited in how risks were weighed? The
[1:22:35]government has stated commitments on transparency, integrity, and protecting victims of abuse or sexual violence. Having a senior representative like an ambassador whose past communications
[1:22:45]appear to mitigate, defend, or minimize a convicted child sex offender must run counter to these values. And was that considered at that stage of the vetting
[1:22:55]process? How does a government reconcile this incident with its stated positions? Why was the appointment made knowing there were links without understanding their full extent? Why was the prime
[1:23:06]minister publicly defending Lord Manson up until the revelations emerged only to sack him less than a day when the media pressure rose? Was he sacked for the
[1:23:17]content of what was revealed or merely because the situation became embarrassing? Lord Manson was appointed to arguably the most important diplomatic role in
[1:23:26]her majesty's diplomatic service. This is a time of intense international pressure. So as I've mentioned al already, President Trump is operating the levers of power in a way that we
[1:23:37]have rarely seen the post-war world. What assessment has a government made of the damage done to Britain's diplomatic standing by having such an important ambassador removed abruptly under
[1:23:48]scandal? Light is the best disinfectant and the public have a right and this house through its select committee has a right to be informed.
[1:23:59]>> Ministers must ensure us that the full record of Lord Manson's communication with Epstein be disclosed and soon we must also be told whether any of the information the prime minister of the
[1:24:10]foreign secretary or any other minister have provided the public has turned out to be inaccurate whether intentionally or in good faith. While the ambassador's been sacked, this incident, Madame
[1:24:22]Deputy Speaker, is far from over. There are too many questions which remain unanswered. It is the obligation and the responsibility of government to ensure
[1:24:33]that parliament and the public are given a full and frank exposition of this matter. >> Steven Flynn. Madam Deputy Speaker, I
[1:24:43]often think it's a a grave pity in this house that the cameras tend to just be trained on the individual speaking because it meant that the public did not get the opportunity that we did earlier
[1:24:53]on to look at the faces of the Labor MPs as this debate began to see the glum serious look on their faces as they
[1:25:02]recognize the significance of the situation that faces their prime minister here and now. And I'm sure it's a glum, angry, serious look that's
[1:25:13]shared not just by the Treasury front bench in the building here today, but those who are flogged in the public domain across broadcasting stations throughout the course of last week. And
[1:25:24]if I may, the the chief whip is no longer in his place, but I would like to think that on Sunday that was the first occasion where he was happy to be in his new role. So he did not have to appear
[1:25:35]on the Sunday media rounds as the business secretary to defend the indefensible to tell us all in the public domain that Peter Mandolson has
[1:25:45]singular qualities that nobody else on these aisles, nobody else on the planet possibly have that make him fitting to
[1:25:54]be the ambassador to the United States of America. What a pitiful state to find ourselves in. What a pitiful state for
[1:26:05]the prime minister to find himself in. And this is mired in politics, I hate to say it, because this is a political
[1:26:14]decision by the prime minister. He chose to stand at that dispatch box last week and not tell us, but tell the public
[1:26:24]that there was nothing to see here. that he had absolute confidence in Lord Mandolson. It is the prime minister. It
[1:26:34]is the prime minister who chose to ignore the facts that were plainly in front of him not for weeks, not for hours, not for days, but for months. He
[1:26:46]was the man who appointed Peter Mandolen to be the ambassador to the United States. the man who said to an FT journalist earlier this year to off
[1:26:56]because it was being his quote, not mine, because he was being inquired about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. That was what Lord Mandlesson
[1:27:08]said. He said it was an FT obsession. Well, guess what? It's our obsession now. And we are going to make sure that we get to the bottom of this. The prime
[1:27:18]minister is not above the scrutiny of the House of Commons. Neither is he above the scrutiny of the public at home. But the greatest scandal of all,
[1:27:30]the greatest scandal of all is the fact that the prime minister of the United Kingdom appointed a man to that role,
[1:27:40]knowing that that man had maintained a relationship with Jeffrey Epstein despite the fact that Jeffrey Epstein
[1:27:52]had been convicted in 2008 in Florida >> convicted convicted for having 14-year-old girls
[1:28:03]masturbate him and the prime minister of the United Kingdom thought it was fitting for the best friend of that individual to hold the highest
[1:28:13]diplomatic office >> in the United States of America on behalf of the people of these isles. What a complete disgrace. And the only
[1:28:24]the only thing that seems to have caused any constonation for the prime minister in any of this is not that that happened, but the fact that for a short period Peter Manderson appeared to think
[1:28:35]Jeffrey Epstein was innocent. >> Yeah. >> Which draws us to the conclusion that if Peter Manderson had thought that Jeffrey Epstein had maintained the friendship but thought he was guilty, he would
[1:28:46]still be imposed. What has happened to the moral compass of this place of the office of prime minister where we can
[1:28:55]simply accept a rationale such as that? How can any victim of child sex abuse in these aisles or elsewhere have
[1:29:05]confidence in the structures that we put in place when the prime minister of the United Kingdom and the minister shakes his head. Is is there an intervention that he wants to make? Is there
[1:29:17]something that he disagrees with in that assessment of those facts? Or does he want to present the additional detail to this house which makes any of that untrue whatsoever? No. I notice he's not
[1:29:29]shaking his head now, but I tell you who is shaking their head, the public at him and his prime minister >> for the decisions that they have taken. Now, Madame Deputy Speaker, we're going
[1:29:40]into recess. All of us are mindful of the fact that this house is shutting down. But when we come back, we expect answers. >> The prime minister of the United
[1:29:51]Kingdom, he hopes that this is going to going to go away. >> But I and every other member who is sitting in this house right now can
[1:30:01]assure him that it is not. >> Here, here. >> Just for a moment, please be seated. Colleagues, there are children in the gallery. Let's keep our langu language
[1:30:12]tempered. make sure that we're being moderate in everything that we say and I'll call Sir Alex Harbrook. >> Um, thank you Madame Deputy Speaker and it's a a pleasure to follow on from the
[1:30:23]honorable gentleman the speech he's just made and indeed the very fact that my rightful friend the member for Gou and Plington was able to outline so clearly what today is about Madame Deputy
[1:30:33]Speaker and what today is about is an exceptionally serious matter. We are talking about the appointment of somebody who would have to have the highest security clearance higher than a
[1:30:45]lot of ministers having sensitive information um go across his desk at the same time and yet at the same time in the public domain was known that this individual was
[1:30:56]severely compromised and that should raise a question for everybody. The Labour backbenches, the government backbenches have been following today's
[1:31:07]dis debate in a state of despair and I actually admire them for that because they understand the gravity of the
[1:31:16]situation we are talking about. And as the honorable gentleman just drew on, the minister sat on that front bench for Brighton, Kemp Town, and Peace Haven has
[1:31:27]done nothing but treat this debate so far with contempt. He was smirking at my right honorable friend, the leader of the opposition. He has been shaking his
[1:31:38]head against some of the allegations made which are in the public domain. And madame deputy speaker, that speaks to apparent attitude going on at the heart
[1:31:48]of this government. You know, I have a huge amount of respect for the minister who's going to have to respond to this debate. We work closely together and he is a good man, but he has been sent to
[1:31:59]the slaughter today. This is a decision that was made around the cabinet table. This is a decision where the minister last week had to come to this house and announced that the prime minister had
[1:32:10]instructed the foreign secretary to withdraw the ambassador. Where is the foreign secretary, Madame Deputy Speaker? This is one of the most serious issues this house has debated in this
[1:32:21]parliament and they've sent the minister once again to answer these questions. And to be fair to the minister, many questions can be put and he's not going to be able to answer them. And that's
[1:32:32]why he's been sent here today because he can push it off into the distance. And I say again, Madam Speaker, I have nothing but respect for the minister. We work closely together in international affairs and the work on NATO. and he's
[1:32:43]always been honest up front and I know he must be dreading this today because on Thursday on Thursday he came to this house and literally and maybe he can tell us when he actually did know um
[1:32:54]that the ambassador had been withdrawn because beforehand he certainly looked like a man who was slightly worried about what he had to go into this house and do. I give way to the honorable gentleman.
[1:33:05]I talked to my constituents and it is a fact that the last few days they've talked about little else. Now, alluding to what the leader of the S&P in this place said, this issue is not going to
[1:33:15]go away. I hope politicians realize that because it'll get bigger and bigger as time goes on. And to take up the point made the honorable gentleman, these questions are going to have to be answered. There's no two ways about it.
[1:33:26]And when the general public speaks so firmly to me in that way and to all of us, we know they speak the truth. I'm grateful to the honorable gentleman and I think madam deputy speaker let's
[1:33:36]not shy away from what this is about. This is about a man who defended a convicted pedophile which most people know would fail any vetting process because you be
[1:33:48]compromised. The person could be compromised when defending someone of those serious criminal offenses. We know in the public domain how much he was in hawk to this convicted pedophile and yet
[1:33:59]protesters were overridden. Madame Deputy Speaker, the honorable member for Rugby raed up the past and said things which quite frankly the resignation of a
[1:34:09]director of communications is very different to the withdrawal of an ambassador with top secret access. But let me let me say, Madame Deputy Speaker, that when we were in government, we didn't exactly not have
[1:34:20]our scandals and heartaches that we had to go through. And may I remind the house that what did Boris Johnson as a prime minister was not all the allegations that used to be thrown from
[1:34:32]that side of the house. It was when he said to this house that he was not aware >> of any of the allegations made against Chris Pincher and then it turned out
[1:34:41]that he had evidence that he was aware. Now we know that this prime minister stood at that dispatch box on Wednesday and said he had not been made aware and he did not have any documents when we
[1:34:52]now know that his office had them. So he the question has to be answered when did he know and how can that be shown that he didn't know beforehand because this
[1:35:02]party moved against that prime minister when it became apparent that he did know and I look at those Labour backbenches and those who are giving um opinions in the press and say to them do you have
[1:35:13]the courage now to move against a prime minister who has done exactly what the former prime minister Boris Johnson did in this country and this party moved against him when those allegations
[1:35:25]became clear that it wasn't correct. You know, he said, Madame Deputy Speaker, that the buck stops here. Well, the buck really needs to stop here. I give way to the honorable member. >> I thank the honorable gentleman. He
[1:35:36]refers to the previous prime minister as uh having conducted himself in certain ways. One of those ways was not actually having an independent ethics adviser for
[1:35:46]a period of time. Whereas this prime minister has an has an independent ethics adviser and acts on their advice. Madame Deputy Speaker, the reason I took that intervention because I know the
[1:35:57]honorable gentleman won't be able to help himself and and the reality is is that the prime minister made out all this thing about I've appointed an ethics advisor. I've done this and yet
[1:36:07]when asked the very straightforward question by the BBC, would you sack a minister >> who's broken the ethics code? He couldn't answer.
[1:36:17]>> He offiscated as he always does. This is smoke and mirrors, Madame Deputy Speaker. And this is exactly the situation we find ourselves in today. It
[1:36:26]is not good enough to say we didn't know. I come back to it. Madam Deputy Speaker, we are talking about people who were subject to a pedophile who watched
[1:36:37]somebody who defended that pedophile get put to one of the highest offices in the world carrying some of the greatest secrets of state.
[1:36:47]And yet this prime minister said that's all fine. We override it. I don't want to um go beyond the six minutes I was allowed madam deputy speaker. So I will
[1:36:56]just I will just ask um these questions to the ministers but you know some of them have been implied but um
[1:37:07]>> well I'm afraid I won't I I don't want to um test the patience of um the house as a lot of people want to speak. Um the question that the minister has to answer
[1:37:15]today is decisively who knew what when. Yeah, >> he has to answer who made the decision to award the ambassadorship to Peter
[1:37:27]Madison. What lobbying took place to do that? Why was such a distinguished ambassador such as Karen Pierce who any of us who have been to America working in international affairs when they met
[1:37:38]Dame Karen knows she was one of the most respected and capable >> yes >> ambassadors and that it cannot be true to say that she would not have been able
[1:37:48]to carry out the task which members sitting around that cabinet table today feels the man was worth the risk. Thank you ladies. Sir John Wittingale.
[1:38:01]>> Um thank you madame deputy speaker. Um there have been some very powerful speeches in this debate from both sides of the house and one of the things which is apparent is that everybody is agreed
[1:38:12]that Peter Mandelson should never have been appointed as ambassador to Washington. It matters because ambassadors are critically important to
[1:38:22]our nation. They are the leaders in projecting our soft power. uh they are viewed as embodiment of the United Kingdom. Uh and it is them who influence
[1:38:33]very largely how the UK is perceived. As has been said, we have had some really good ambassadors to the United States going back to the late Sir Christopher Mayor who I knew well who did a terrific
[1:38:44]job, Lord Kim Darrick and as been said Dame Karen Pierce and even sometimes there have been good political appointments. There was a certain amount of controversy when uh Peter Jay was
[1:38:55]appointed US ambassador. Uh he was the son-in-law of the prime minister, but he did a reasonable job. Um Ed Llewellyn became our ambassador in Paris and now
[1:39:07]Rome and has done a terrific job. But as the chair of the select committee pointed out, when Ed Lulean was appointed, because it was a political appointment, he was interrogated by the
[1:39:17]select committee. Um, as the chair has said, uh, the committee of which I serve have attempted several times, indeed numerous times, uh, to have Peter
[1:39:29]Madison appear. Um, we are told that by the foreign office in their most recent letter to the chair of the committee over the committee did have an opportunity to talk to him on a visit to
[1:39:40]Washington. >> Well, I can say because uh, I was at both meetings. The first was a briefing about the state of American politics when we first arrived and the second was a breakfast where he hosted opinion
[1:39:52]formers to discuss with us what was happening uh in the US capital. At no stage did we have any opportunity to cross-examine or ask Peter Mandlesson the questions which we would wanted to
[1:40:04]ask had he appeared before the select committee. And it is ridiculous to try and suggest that that somehow is compensation for his failure to appear. Of course I could. >> I'm grateful to the right honorable
[1:40:15]member and having been there with him at those foreign affairs committee meetings. We should also say that there was no opportunity for us to quiz Lord
[1:40:24]Mandlesson in a public setting. >> He he is absolutely right and it would have been important that we had that opportunity. Maybe had we done so, some of the questions which are now being
[1:40:36]asked could have been asked then uh and we could have explored rather more uh why the decision was taken to appoint him which I have to say is still causing bewilderment to a large number of
[1:40:47]people. Um but as has been said it is now apparent that he should never have been appointed. But I'm not going to recap what my right honorable friend, the member for Ghoul, and many others
[1:40:57]have said about uh his record, about his previous resignations, about his unsavory links, all of which should have rung every alarm bell. But of course, I get wet.
[1:41:06]>> I friend he's making a very important intervention. Does he not agree though there is a tendency to say, well, this debate is about what we can do in the future. This debate is about what has
[1:41:17]gone wrong in the past and the government's role in that. and for the prime minister to shoulder the responsibility and take us through what
[1:41:27]he knew. >> I think my rightful friend is absolutely right and actually the two are related because lessons learned and what we do in the future. We can only determine the
[1:41:39]lessons and decide what to do in the future if we know what went wrong this time and in order to know we have to obtain the answers to the questions. Now the chair of the select committee
[1:41:49]actually set out a number of very important questions and she ran through those in her contribution and we have now had an answer from the foreign office. Uh she referred to the letter
[1:42:01]that was sent to her. What we know from the letter and it doesn't tell us much. What we know from the letter first of all is the foreign office had nothing really to do with it. uh they say to us
[1:42:11]uh that the appointment was carried out uh following the propriety and ethics committee uh investigation which was carried out in the cabinet office. Uh the foreign office was then told of this
[1:42:22]uh they were instructed to appoint uh the uh uh Lord Mandlesson as ambassador and after his appointment after his
[1:42:31]appointment was announced the SDO FCDO started the ambassadorial appointment process including national security vetting. Now national security vetting
[1:42:43]deep vetting has been referred to. We need to know what that says. However, we are told by the foreign office that
[1:42:52]the process of national security vetting is independent of ministers who are not informed of any findings other than the
[1:43:02]final outcome. So essentially what appears to have been the case is that the foreign office is saying well we told he's passed but we're not going to be told anything about what was
[1:43:12]uncovered about the questions that were asked what his answers would they be. And yet this is somebody who already had very serious um offenses against him
[1:43:22]that had caused him to resign twice where there were real question marks about his record both as a European commissioner about some of his friendships. All of these one assumes
[1:43:32]must have been asked at deep vetting and yet he passed. The final outcome was fine. He can be appointed and the foreign officer told that and they're not given any other detail. I mean,
[1:43:43]frankly, I find that completely astonishing. Uh, and it does raise the questions even more seriously that we must find out what that process was and
[1:43:54]what the deep fetting showed and and why if it really is the case that ministers were not given any detail about what the process uncovered, they didn't actually ask any questions about it. And that is
[1:44:06]something which I look forward to the minister uh addressing uh when he responds. If I give way to my another of my fellow members of the committee, >> I thank the honorable member for giving
[1:44:15]way and he's right to highlight the uh repeated requests that the committee made to meet with L law Manderson um before his appointment. He also raises
[1:44:25]the various uh responses that we've got from the foreign secretary and uh the important fact that there are questions over the suitability of the appointment. There must also be questions over the prime minister's judgment. Did he ask to
[1:44:37]see the pet report before making the appointment? Did he ask to see the security vetting report? Did he read them? Did he go ahead despite their content?
[1:44:46]>> The gentleman asks very valid questions and we do need to have the answers to all of those. And he and I I know he will join me in pressing for the foreign
[1:44:56]affairs committee to continue to press this case. But it may well be that another body, perhaps the liaison committee that does have the opportunity to interrogate the prime minister will
[1:45:06]also pursue these matters because as has been said several times in the debate, this is not going to go away. There is real anger out there on across this house and in in the country and people
[1:45:18]will demand to know answers. We attempted today to try and begin to put those questions by summoning two members uh from a foreign office and from the cabinet office and the committee was
[1:45:28]told that neither was available. Well, I can tell the house that I have some experience at summoning people who don't wish to attend before select committees and there is a procedure and I hope that
[1:45:38]when we return after the recess, the committee will pursue these matters that we we will require ministers to appear and if they don't do so or if others uh refuse, then we will look to see what
[1:45:50]other actions can be taken. But I've finished by saying these are very serious matters. The questions have been asked. The answers so far have not been forthcoming and we will go on pursuing
[1:46:01]this until they are. >> Marvelous. I assume that's everybody that's wishing to contribute is actually bobbing. There seems to be a lot of movement in the chamber. Okay. Rachel Gilmore.
[1:46:11]>> Thank you, speaker. And I would like to congratulate the right honorable member for G and Popington for securing this debate. Like all of us in this chamber, our thoughts are first and foremost with
[1:46:23]the victims of that dreadful man whose name I refuse to mention. >> A week is a long time in politics and last week saw the prime minister stand
[1:46:34]at the debate dispatch box to back and then sack the now former ambassador to the United States. In prime minister's questions last week,
[1:46:45]my party leader, the right honorable member for Kingston and Serbbertton, questioned the pri the prime minister on Lord Mandlesson's appointment and the prime minister stood by it, confirming
[1:46:55]that rigorous background checks had taken place. This entire situation has left a nasty taste in the mouth. To put it mildly,
[1:47:07]that the ambassador to the US, the most coveted ambassadorial position in the United Kingdom by many metrics, was seemingly okay with the moral turpitude
[1:47:18]of the ban I will not mention. Even following his conviction, this casts a long shadow on Britain's place in the world.
[1:47:30]The timing and nature of this, not that it could ever be anything other than terrible, is catastrophically bad. The optics are dreadful.
[1:47:40]While we should be demonstrating moral leadership in an increasingly volatile international climate, our own emissary emissary to our closest ally has been
[1:47:50]discredited by scandal. The president of the United States lands in this country today for his unprecedented second state visit. Whilst
[1:48:01]the prime minister whines and dines him, will he be taking a principled stand on the matters of great importance to the meter of this country? Will he be pressing on Gaza?
[1:48:13]Will he be making progress on our long-awaited bespoke trade deal to insulate ourselves from Trump's tariffs? Will he be supporting our NATO allies in
[1:48:23]making the case for better US engagement with the defense of Ukraine and shoring up Europe's eastern flank to Russian incursions in Poland and Romania?
[1:48:35]As if not already bad enough, this murky affair has been thickened by the fact that a source from MI6 has reportedly claimed that they failed to clear
[1:48:45]Mandlesson and warned that his links to to the man I still refuse to name would quote compromise him. Downing Street pressed ahead with the appointment.
[1:48:56]Anyway, it is vital that the Civil Service Commission now investigates whether the ambassador broke the diplomatic service code by failing to come clean over these
[1:49:06]regulations sooner. If it is true, it raises wider questions about what other advice from the Social Security Services was neglected.
[1:49:17]Why did Downing officials, Downing Street officials fail this most basic duty? Why did the team in number 10 send
[1:49:27]the prime minister out to bat sticking to the line of com confidence in Manston only to defenisten him a few hours later?
[1:49:37]Why was the prime minister not on top of his brief? And if it is the case that key details and information were withheld from the
[1:49:48]prime minister, why has no one been outed and swiftly given the boot? In the late 1920s, Madame Deputy Speaker, there
[1:49:57]was a famous German philosopher called Carl Pauper and he famously said that those who cannot remember the past are
[1:50:07]condemned to repeat it. It is my sincere hope that this is not the case for this government for whom I have usually a
[1:50:16]degree of some respect. There are so many questions and we on these benches and my
[1:50:26]constituents of Tiveton and Rinhead demand answers. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. >> Duke Evans. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. And uh
[1:50:36]I must admit when we heard that this debate was granted I thought long and hard about what I could add or what I could say or what I could do to take part in the debate whether I even should
[1:50:48]and already as we've gone through this debate many of the questions that spring to mind have been asked the process questions about where when why etc um
[1:50:59]far more eloquently and far more in detail than I could put down because in essence it does come down to the fact that this was a political appointment and so the PM is the person who should
[1:51:09]carry the risk. That's the job. If it's someone else's, then we need to know who that is. So, stepping back a little bit, I thought about, well, what would the
[1:51:20]man and woman on the Hinky High Street say if I talked to them about it? Because they do talk about it and it does hit hard to them and they have many of the process questions that we have as
[1:51:30]well. And I reflect on the fact that stepping back this to me seems a bit of a pirate victory if I'm being honest. I'm acutely aware that the sword of hypocrisy has a blade on both sides and
[1:51:40]swung heavily in this house can hit both sides equally. But it's not the wound that can kill. It's the subsequent infection
[1:51:52]>> afterwards cover up. >> That is the problem that we're seeing here today. And so when the member for rugby stands up and points in the past and talks about context, he is right.
[1:52:04]Context is important to the public in this debate and we are paying the price on this side of the house because of some of the decisions that have happened before us. >> And it wasn't the fact that a previous
[1:52:14]prime minister ate cake. It was about the fact that it was then covered up >> and we had to come to this house to say there was a report that we felt the
[1:52:23]prime minister lied. Now the new prime minister came in saying there will be change. There will be something different.
[1:52:35]That was his words. It was even on the lectern time for change. Here lies the problem.
[1:52:46]Because when the minister who was transport secretary was found out to have committed fraud, when the anti-corruption minister was investigated for corruption, when the
[1:52:56]homelessness minister had to resign because of making people homeless and the deputy prime minister and h housing secretary hadn't paid their tax, it wasn't because the prime minister pushed
[1:53:07]them out there. It was because the media in this place did its job to hold them to account. And that's the difference that I'm looking for today. >> My honorable friend.
[1:53:17]>> I will >> grateful to my honorable friends. Building on that point, does he find it absolutely vital that if our right honorable friend, the lead with the opposition, hadn't taken down the prime
[1:53:29]minister step by step last week that we may be going to a recess with this scrutiny still not happening? >> Spot on. And I think it's a a a
[1:53:41]respect should be given to many people who've raised this, including the leader of the opposition, but many in the media, many people on the backbenches on both sides of the house who have also raised concerns. And this is my primary
[1:53:51]point because the prime minister said he wanted to do something different. Well, what could he do different? He could come to this house >> and tell people the truth, answer those
[1:54:02]questions. There is nothing stopping him from delivering a statement himself, putting himself up in front of scrutiny to answer those questions. He could convene a committee for the house. I'm
[1:54:14]sure many would be happy to attend to answer the questions that are put before him. >> I will. >> Yeah. It's a point that keeps being raised time and again. We talk about
[1:54:23]this 3W week gap now, but the reality is key select committees can continue through the recess to investigate this issue, which they should do, and call
[1:54:33]the prime minister to give evidence so that we don't wait 3 weeks in the hope that it dies. That's the key. He >> my rightful friend is absolutely spot on. But there is a key difference actually I would say because the prime
[1:54:45]minister said he would do things differently. the leadership means he could come forward himself to be here at the dispatch box cuz I have a huge amount of respect for the minister who's
[1:54:55]going to have to defend this but he is not the decision maker he is not the riskholder when it comes to this debate and this decision and therein lies the
[1:55:06]point and this is why I'm sad today because I think this is what the public will see they will look on and say that a new prime minister came in on a landslide majority saying thing He's
[1:55:17]going to do things differently by his own standards that he set and has chosen not to. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> He's ignored the questions. He's answered the media and his one outing to
[1:55:28]it says, "I wouldn't have made the decision if I knew the information." That isn't good enough for the public to understand. >> So, I finish where I started to say I
[1:55:39]really do think today is a pirick victory, a hollow victory. But I do live in hope. Madame Deputy Speaker, I live in hope that on the day that the government is introduced in the public
[1:55:49]office accountability bill, I'm hopeful that the prime minister could still lead the change that he set out, he could still live by his own standards that he
[1:55:59]set for himself and his government and he could still now clear up once and for all exactly what happened. And I live in hope that that might be the case. >> Yeah. >> Richard Ty.
[1:56:11]>> Thank you, Madame Deputy Speaker. Well, the reality is that the prime minister personally decided to appoint Lord Mandlesson as the ambassador to the
[1:56:22]United States. And in so doing, he has humiliated and embarrassed this nation on the international stage because this Lord Mandlesson is someone
[1:56:33]who described himself as the best pal of a pedophile. someone who advised that pedophile when in prison to use that
[1:56:43]time in prison as an opportunity. Truly shocking. And there are two separate issues here that require proper
[1:56:52]examination. Firstly, the judgment of the prime minister and then secondly, did he inadvertently mislead the house last Wednesday in
[1:57:04]responding to the leader opposition? And let's look at the judgment of the prime minister. We know now that he received a two-page document
[1:57:14]as he made the personal decision to appoint Lord Mandlesson outlining some of his links to the pedophile. And yet
[1:57:24]he carried on with that decision to appoint him. So he made that appointment in that knowledge. That is woefully
[1:57:34]woefully incompetent judgment. He then made the judgment last week in the knowledge that there was a cache of emails
[1:57:44]about Lord Mandlesson's links to this pedophile. He made the judgment as a lawyer who supposedly is forensic not to ask the questions about what was in the emails.
[1:57:55]>> That seems to me an absolute failure of judgment. And then he made the judgment to come to this house and say that he
[1:58:05]had confidence in the man over whom he knew there was a cache of emails that he thought it was inappropriate to ask the detail about. The whole point of lawyers and barristers is they they do that DD
[1:58:17]that diligence. But no, not our prime minister. Which brings me on to the critical issue of whether the prime minister inadvertently misled the house.
[1:58:27]He said two things to the leader of the opposition. Firstly, twice he said he had confidence in Lord Mandlesson and yet he knew the day before there's a
[1:58:39]cache of emails that he didn't want to know the detail of about Lord Mandlesson's links to Epstein. And then the day after he fired him. How is it
[1:58:50]credulous to believe that you can have confidence in a man given those two facts within a 24-hour period? Even more significantly,
[1:58:59]the prime minister said that full due process had been followed during the appointment.
[1:59:08]We now learn that this is not the case >> because actually the due process was carried out after
[1:59:19]the decision by the prime minister to appoint Lord Mandlesson and after it had been announced to the world at large and therefore those two things cannot be
[1:59:28]true. Either full due process was carried out before the decision to appoint or it was carried out afterwards, it was not carried out
[1:59:39]during. And for that reason, I regrettably conclude personally that the prime minister inadvertently misled this House
[1:59:49]of Commons and the British people. And I think therefore that this prime minister needs to come to the house and give
[1:59:56]absolute clarity on what he knew when why he made those decisions and why he
[2:00:05]chose not to ask the detailed forensic investigations at the appropriate time. >> Just remind members to temper their
[2:00:16]speeches and we do not at any point accuse other members of dishonesty. And I know the next member will get that right. Sarah Bour. >> Thank you, Madame Deputy Speaker. There
[2:00:26]are rare moments when both sides of the house come to this chamber with the same question on their minds. How did it get to this? The prime minister is very
[2:00:37]proud of his record as the director of public prosecutions, his skills to prosecute, to interrogate, and to investigate. Skills that are absent
[2:00:47]here. The prime minister will also be more than familiar with the basic legal principle caveat mTor buyer beware. This can be translated across the board to
[2:00:58]many scenarios and essentially means you are to do your research and ask pointed questions. Madame deputy speaker on this point the prime minister in interviews
[2:01:07]exposed himself yesterday. He claims he did not know the content of the Bloomberg emails but yet he knew they existed. Where was the inquiry?
[2:01:17]He knew an investigation was launched by the foreign office, but not the content. Where was the inquiry? He was waiting for answers from the disgraced ambassador, even though his chief of
[2:01:28]staff, we understand, was in contact with him for much of the previous day. Where was the inquiry? In the knowledge there were outstanding questions unanswered, anyone, and not just a
[2:01:39]lawyer, would have drawn breath and paused before giving such a vote of confidence in the former ambassador during PMQs. It is willful ignorance at
[2:01:49]best, political belligerance at worst. >> The prime minister now says, "Had I known," and I quote, "Had I known then what I know now, I would never have
[2:01:59]appointed him." But the former foreign secretary has said, "The truth is all the issues were weighed and in that time it was known that Peter Mandlesson had a relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. But
[2:02:09]the scale and extent of that was only known last Wednesday evening when the prime minister surveyed those emails. But we understand that the foreign office contacted number 10 on Tuesday
[2:02:19]and an investigation was opened. So something doesn't add up. There is such a lack of clarity on this matter. And where there is a lack of clarity, we
[2:02:29]need transparency. A proper due diligence exercise relies on the disclosure given as he will be well aware from practice. It is time to
[2:02:40]disclose. So I am sure therefore that the government will oblige with a request from the leader of the opposition to provide the house with all correspondence and documents on the
[2:02:50]Mandlesson files. The matter however goes beyond judgment calls of both the prime minister and the foreign sec former foreign secretary given that both are involved in the
[2:03:00]appointment of ambassadors. It is also a matter of ethics. What is deemed acceptable behavior when in positions of power? Now, the Nolan principles are integral
[2:03:11]to all of us who serve the public. Selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty, and leadership. Principles that apply as
[2:03:22]much to the former ambassador as to the prime minister. Now, under leadership, it states that holders of public office should, I quote, actively promote and robustly support the principles and
[2:03:33]challenge poor behavior wherever it occurs. Given the known record of Peter Manderson even before the details of the Bloomberg emails came to light, does the
[2:03:44]prime minister believe that this principle has been met? On this basis, will the prime minister be referring himself and others involved in the appointment process to the independent
[2:03:54]ethics adviser? >> The role of ambassador in Washington is a crucial one. entrusted with the most sensitive information and shaping our
[2:04:04]reputation on the world stage. It is not too much to ask that its appointee embodies the highest standards. >> When we
[2:04:14]speaker, let's be absolutely crystal clear. This is an emergency debate about honesty, integrity, and the credibility of this Labor government. It's about what the prime minister knew and when he
[2:04:26]knew it regarding Lord Mandlesson's links to Jeffrey Epstein. The public deserved the truth and instead they've been treated to evasion, delay and as my
[2:04:37]constituents have been very clear, a cover up. The decision to appoint Lord Mandlesson as Britain's ambassador to the US was extraordinary. The links between Mandelson and Epstein were well
[2:04:48]known. We've heard it this afternoon. The vetting process surely should have raised red flags. And yet the prime minister, yes, the prime minister oversaw the appointment. And where is he
[2:04:59]today? More happy to talk to the BBC perhaps than at the dispatch box. He told us himself he had confidence in Lord Mandlesson even as the questions
[2:05:10]mounted and the damning Bloomberg emails were about to surface. That surely was not an accident. It was a choice and one that goes to the heart of the prime
[2:05:20]minister's judgment. So let us remind ourselves what those emails revealed. Mandelson offering words of support to a convicted pedophile. These were not
[2:05:30]casual contacts, but sustained and deeply troubling links. Yet, when pressed on what he knew, the prime minister's story shifted. First, perhaps ignorance, then awareness of media
[2:05:42]inquiries, then the claim he had not seen the contents until the last moment. And all the while, the prime minister's chief of staff was in touch with Lord
[2:05:51]Mandleston much of the day before PMQs. So which is it? This house deserves answers to the most basic questions
[2:06:01]about a scandal engulfing the prime minister and his own ambassador or ex ambassador. But this is not an not an isolated lapse. We saw two of the prime
[2:06:12]minister's most senior appointments unravel in recent weeks. It seems to me that Labour likes to lecture us all about integrity. But in little more than
[2:06:22]a year in office, they are mired in scandal, putting loyalty to insiders ahead of the basic decency the public rightly expects.
[2:06:32]>> And while the government is tying itself in knots, our country faces grave challenges. Last week, Russian drones crossed into Polish airspace, testing
[2:06:42]NATO's resolve. Bond rates here at home have hit their highest in 30 years. Illegal migrant boat crossings reached record numbers in this year 2025. And in
[2:06:53]the mid West Midlands, bin strikes roll on into their sixth month while Labor MPs from the city and the region sit silent. And in my own constituency,
[2:07:03]swaves of our precious green belt are under siege because of Labour's planning reforms. These are the issues my constituents expect this place to be focused on. But instead, the prime
[2:07:14]minister is distracted by a scandal of his own making. So let's just get back to the central question. What must now happen? I think the answer is simple.
[2:07:25]The Mandlesson Epstein files must be released in full, urgently, and without caveats. That means the two-page vetting document and the evidence behind it.
[2:07:35]That means all correspondence between the chief of staff and Lord Mandlesson. That means the communications between the foreign office. number 10 and our embassy in Washington about the
[2:07:45]Bloomberg files and that means any other documents presented to the prime minister in making the appointment. This house and the public that we serve have
[2:07:55]a right to see them. Recess will be upon us within literally hours, but this scandal cannot and it must not be sent into recess in the hope that this
[2:08:06]failing government can sweep it under the carpet. Because the longer that Labor refuses to publish the files, the more damning the conclusion becomes and
[2:08:15]the more damaging to democracy in our country and to the trust of the public. >> Madame Deputy Speaker, the opposition, well, benches rather, went into last
[2:08:26]year's election on the slogan of change. Well, every day they're demonstrating it that it's change for the worse. At a moment when we should be projecting
[2:08:35]clarity, strength, and integrity on the world stage, we are instead led by a prime minister distracted by scandal and paralyzed by poor judgment. It's time to
[2:08:46]end the rumor, publish the files, and finally put his country before narrow party interests. Nothing less will do. Thank you.
[2:08:57]>> Jim Alistister, >> Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to use the few minutes that I have to focus on how it could be that the prime minister of
[2:09:06]this country just last Wednesday came to tell this house that he had confidence in the friend of the pedophile, Lord
[2:09:17]Manderson, in his role as the key ambassador for this government. He said that not once but twice when the leader
[2:09:27]of the opposition rightly asked him. He declared himself I have confidence in him. I have confidence in the ambassador
[2:09:37]that were those were his ringing endorsements of Lord Mandlesson. Now I want to examine the circumstances that
[2:09:46]then prevailed when he said those words that he has confidence. What is confidence? Confidence is that you trust someone. Confidence is that you have
[2:09:56]faith in them. Confidence is that you believe in them. So that is what he was telling this house in respect of Lord Manderson. That was on Wednesday. And
[2:10:06]yet on Monday we know as a matter of public knowledge that the Bloomberg uh emails had been published. Prime
[2:10:17]Minister since has made some startling claims. He has said that when at Prime Minister's question he was answering, he
[2:10:29]knew that questions were being asked. He told us that at Prime Minister's questions, he only knew of media
[2:10:40]inquiries about the emails and he knew that questions have been put to Lord Manderson.
[2:10:49]Now our prime minister is a KC. The natural instinct of a lawyer is to interrogate.
[2:11:00]The training of a lawyer is to equip them to interrogate. And yet this house is being told that when the prime minister stood at that
[2:11:11]dispatch box and said, "I have confidence in Lord Mandosen," though he knew that questions were being asked, he didn't
[2:11:22]interrogate and himself asked about what. When he was told that he knew there were media inquiries about emails, if we're
[2:11:33]to believe this, he didn't ask what emails, what do they say? >> Would he give way? >> Yes. >> The honorable is making a fantastic speech. And the prime minister said he
[2:11:45]had confidence in he didn't say pending investigation or a suspension or I'll look into it or I'll follow process. He said I had confidence. Why does my
[2:11:55]honorable friend think that he didn't say I will look into these situations seriously and said I had confidence specifically at the dispatch box? I think that is the most troubling thing
[2:12:06]about this that equipped with the knowledge that he inevitably had Monday night's publications knowledge that questions were being asked knowledge
[2:12:17]that there were media inquiries about the emails and yet the credibility of this house is to be stretched to be asked to believe that he
[2:12:27]a trained lawyer never interrogated any of that. never asked what emails, what do they say? What questions have we
[2:12:37]asked? He came to this house blind. We are asked to believe to all of that. Now, not only in the appointment of Lord
[2:12:49]Mandlesen do we see serious flaw in the judgment of the prime minister, but if that is truly the situation that he came
[2:12:58]to this house with a limited but uninterrogated knowledge of these matters, then it raises further questions about the prime minister's
[2:13:10]judgment on all this. I fear this house has many answers yet to receive. It's a matter of regret to me as it is to others that prime minister is not here
[2:13:21]today to answer those demanding and alarming and yet simple questions. Questions that go to the very heart
[2:13:31]>> of not or the prime minister's confidence in Lord Manderson but to the very heart of whether this house and
[2:13:42]this people can have confidence in the prime minister. >> Richard Ford. >> Madam Deputy Speaker, the UK has a proud tradition of appointing career civil
[2:13:53]servants as ambassadors. Our senior diplomatic service is respected worldwide and traveling with the foreign affairs committee this year we've heard
[2:14:02]high praise for our quote Rolls-Royce civil service professional reliable globally respected and one strength of
[2:14:12]the British civil service lies in the clear separation between politicians and officials since the North Coat and Trallion report of 1854. Civil service
[2:14:23]impartiality has been a sinquanon of a permanent civil service. The reputation of the British government depends on it. That rigid distinction has served us
[2:14:34]well across the decades and applies in the staffing of our most senior diplomatic posts. And yes, there have been occasional exceptions. Baron
[2:14:44]Llewellyn of steep was one, the former chief of staff of Baron Cameron of Chipping Norton when he was prime minister. uh he was appointed first as ambassador to France in 2016 and now
[2:14:56]serves as his majesty's ambassador to Italy. He had gained experience with uh Baron Chris Patton in Hong Kong and later Lord Ashdan Patty Ashdan when he
[2:15:06]was high representative in Bosnia. So plainly somebody with enormous international experience. But crucially crucially this political appointment of
[2:15:17]Baron Klewellyn gave evidence. He was called to the foreign affairs committee in 2017 to give evidence shortly after he had been appointed.
[2:15:29]Contrast that the British way with how the United States makes its ambassadorial appointments. It is common for American presidents to reward political donors or political allies
[2:15:40]with ambassadorial posts. Donald Trump's po uh Donald Trump's choice for the U ambassador to London is a case in point.
[2:15:50]The ambassador to London is an investment banker, a donor to the Republican party and not a career diplomat. As of the 3rd of September,
[2:16:00]Donald Trump had appointed 67 ambassadors in his second term. 61 of them are political appointees, more than 90%.
[2:16:10]Yet in the United States, such appointments are subject to public scrutiny. Every US ambassador must first appear before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, submitting detailed
[2:16:22]disclosures on their background, their finances, and their potential conflicts of interest before facing direct questions in a public hearing. in the United States. Only after this
[2:16:34]confirmation hearing does the nomination proceed to the full Senate where a confirmation vote is required. It ensures a level of transparency and
[2:16:43]accountability that is absent from the US from from this system here in the UK. Our system is set up for the appointment of senior civil servants who receive
[2:16:53]vetting on a rolling basis. The foreign affairs committee was not afforded the opportunity to question Lord Mandlesson either in public before
[2:17:03]his appointment or subsequently. We saw this with with this appointment of Lord Mandlesson neither the professionalism of the appointment of a British civil
[2:17:13]servant nor the scrutiny associated with the political appointees in the US system. We should also look hard at what has
[2:17:23]happened in USUK relations since Lord Mandlesson took up his post in December on Ukraine. Lord Mandlesson's line was closer to the US than the UK arguably prior to his appointment as ambassador.
[2:17:35]He spoke frivolously on the Coonsburg program about whatever happens on the fringes of Ukrainian territory. That was not the British government's position. After being appointed in March this
[2:17:47]year, Mandlesson said that President Silinski should be quote more supportive of US peace efforts. These remarks were so out of step that ministers were forced to clarify these comments did not
[2:17:58]reflect British government policy on the Middle East. We know that the UK and US governments have taken different approaches to the conflict and it leaves us wondering what uh in in what
[2:18:08]circumstances the UK position has not been portrayed correctly in Washington DC. Trade is another area of concern. On the 1st of April this year, I gave the first
[2:18:20]reading of the USUK trade agreement, a 10-minute rule bill arguing for stronger parliamentary scrutiny of any trade deal. And while parliamentary scrutiny
[2:18:30]of any transatlantic partner uh partnership with the United States is essential, so too it is with appointments to the role of ambassador.
[2:18:40]My instinct is that the UK ambassador to the US should be a professional British civil servant or an official >> on on that point. >> I will um thank member.
[2:18:51]>> Does he not agree? I mean, he's made the theoretical argument, the general argument, but the actual argument that Karen Pierce was a brilliant ambassador, would never have made the mistakes he he alludes to that Lord Manderson made and
[2:19:03]should not have been replaced. >> I agree with the right honorable gentleman wholeheartedly and commend him for for calling this debate in the first place. Uh he's right. It was rumored
[2:19:14]that Karen Pierce wanted to stay in or at least was willing to stay on in post for another year. uh and she would have represented us in an excellent manner that that we know was characteristic of
[2:19:25]her. The prime minister has extensive powers to appoint senior officials. Usually the civil service commissioners lead this process to ensure that the
[2:19:34]selection is on the basis of merit. The constitutional reform and governance act or crag allows the prime minister to bypass that check on his power and in
[2:19:45]this case it has had disastrous consequences. Madame deputy speaker as I conclude I have two questions for the minister. One will the government commit
[2:19:56]that in future any political appointment to a senior diplomatic role will go before the foreign affairs committee for scrutiny before the appointment is
[2:20:05]confirmed. and two, will the government amend clause 10.3 of the crag to ensure that diplomats like senior civil servants are appointed on the basis of
[2:20:16]merit and on the basis of fair and open competition. Thank you, >> Lincoln. >> Thank you, Madame Deputy Speaker, and I
[2:20:26]would like to thank and congratulate the member for Ghoul and Pockington for securing this emergency debate. Uh the focus of the debate thus far has
[2:20:36]primarily been in three areas. The victims of Jeffrey Epstein's appalling crimes, the conduct of Lord Mandlesson
[2:20:46]prior to him being appointed, and then the judgment of the prime minister in both appointing and then firing Lord Mandlesson as the British ambassador to
[2:20:56]Washington. And quite rightly the House in this debate has focused on those three areas. But I want to add a fourth which I personally find as chilling as
[2:21:07]the other three. It is this that since December last year, our ambassador in Washington has been potentially subject
[2:21:18]to leverage blackmail >> because someone and we don't know who had politically fatal compromat on Lord
[2:21:29]Mandlesson throughout his whole time in office. And I'm amazed that the Foreign Office has not gone into full lockdown
[2:21:39]and damage limitation mode, having found out that potentially Lord Mandlesson could have been being blackmailed this entire time.
[2:21:50]>> And if it had turned out that he had been an agent of a foreign state, they would have done that. All they do know now is that someone had and we don't
[2:21:59]know who politically fatal compromat on him that whole time. So I don't know if the uh the minister is
[2:22:09]aware. Um and and the the member for Hon did talk about some of the behaviors of Lord Mandlesson in office and that's the bit I'm concerned about. Um, I don't
[2:22:20]know if he's aware that uh, Sir Ben Wallace gave an interview to Times Radio recently in which he said that
[2:22:31]Lord Mandlesson had been lobbying number 10 Downing Street on behalf of a single defense manufacturer
[2:22:40]for Britain to buy an unmanned military uh, set of equipment, a major buy without competition
[2:22:50]bypassing UKmemes and expertise. Now, I'm not going to put two and two together, but it does seem extraordinary
[2:23:01]to me that someone who is meant to be promoting British interests overseas is instead promoting US defense capability
[2:23:11]to number 10. And don't get me wrong, we buy a lot of good kit from America, >> but it is the absence of a competition
[2:23:21]which ensures that um uh that skews the pitch and is odd behavior. And so I would hope that when the minister gets
[2:23:30]an opportunity to speak, he will talk about what measures the number 10 and the foreign office are
[2:23:38]taking to examine every single thing that Lord Mandlesson did when our ambassador in order to establish the
[2:23:49]extent to which the politically fatal compro compromat had you had skewed his judgment and driven his behaviors. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
[2:23:59]>> Final backbench contribution, Ben Objecti. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The now former UK ambassador to the United States has been sacked due to the nature of his relationship with a convicted
[2:24:09]pedophile. A relationship that has come as no surprise to anybody except it would appear the prime minister. The prime minister knew of Lord Mandelson's relationship with Epstein, the former foreign secretary too. And yet his
[2:24:20]appointment was felt to be worth the risk even despite warnings from President Trump's co- campaign manager Chris Lasiva who criticized the replacement of the former ambassador Dame Karen Pierce as replacing a
[2:24:30]professional universally respected ambo with an absolute Even the foreign affairs select committee chairusive in her praise for Lord Mandlesson asked for him to come before her committee to allow my colleagues to hear directly why
[2:24:42]the prime minister had appointed him with her face pressed up against the cabinet room window like Tiny Tim out in the cold. I'm surprised she could be heard, but the Minister for the Overseas territories, looking sheepish in his
[2:24:52]place on the front bench, was emphatic. "We are absolutely convinced that Lord Mandlesson will do an excellent job as our representative in Washington," he stated. And yet, that whole time, the government was aware of the security warnings that Lord Mandlesson's
[2:25:04]relationship with Jeffrey Epstein crossed the line of what is acceptable and failed to meet the standard expected of what is arguably our most critical ambassadorial appointment. The president of the United States arrives for his second state visit
[2:25:15]tomorrow. Yet we now suffer the embarrassment and indignity of having had to sack our ambassador for his proximity to a man found guilty of soliciting prost pro prostitution from a child whose girlfriend was convicted in
[2:25:25]2021 of sex trafficking, conspiracy, and transportation of a minor for illegal sexual activity. Indeed, an aspect of this that remains unclear is the nature of Lord Mamson's relationship with Gileain Maxwell.
[2:25:37]The New York Times has described it as a stinging embarrassment that cast a shadow over the planned state visit. How has the prime minister allowed this to happen? Ignoring the advice from his security assessment to appoint him
[2:25:48]anyway, embracing the risk, then having it blow up in his face. >> Prior to entering parliament, I worked for Barclay's Bank. And in 2021, the bank CEO, Jess Staley, resigned amid a regulatory probe into whether he
[2:26:00]mischaracterized his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. >> I actually raised a complaint with my managers that was roundly ignored, never advancing beyond managing director level, such as the squeamishness that surrounded the story. I was furious that
[2:26:11]Barkley still paid Staley his £2.4 million salary and 120,000 pension contribution whilst being defenestrated for his relationship with Epstein. This isn't privileged information. It was
[2:26:22]widely reported. And yet, whilst the financial world saw fit to wash its hands of Staley, this Labour government welcomed Lord Mandlesson with open arms. Those linked to Jeffrey Epipstein, who had maintained a relationship with him
[2:26:33]after his conviction, had visited his island many times where the crimes took place, had long since been deplatformed, deemed too toxic to hold positions of power. And yet, the hubris of the prime minister saw him ride rough shored over
[2:26:44]such glaringly obvious concerns. >> Being the prime minister is to take the mantle of the UK's decision maker and chief, to own the responsibility of not of making not just difficult decisions,
[2:26:54]but the most difficult decisions. Appointing an ambassador to the United States is not the political ban banana skin that should bring down the government. And yet here we are. The government is teetering on the brink.
[2:27:05]Yesterday, the prime minister gingerely began climbing down over his handling of the Mandlesson sacking. When he came to the chamber last Wednesday, he robustly defended Lord Mandlesson, playing to the Baying crowd. He even had the hutspur to
[2:27:16]claim that the Conservative party has a leadership contest going on. Interesting to see him in the smoking room last night between votes, wasn't it? Last Wednesday, the prime minister stated that full due process was
[2:27:27]followed during this appointment. >> He said it twice. >> If that is true, then the prime minister knew the full scope of Manson's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. If he didn't know and new information subsequently came to light, then either
[2:27:37]the vetting standards of the government are incompetent or the claim of full due process is inaccurate. I have confidence in the ambassador. He said that twice too. The prime minister's explanation yesterday stated that there were three
[2:27:49]reasons for his toizivization. the nature and extent of the relationship being far different to what I'd understood the position at that point of appointment. The questioning and challenging of the conviction which
[2:27:59]as I say goes to the heart of and cuts across what this government is doing on violence against women and girls and the unsatisfactory nature of the responses from Peter Manslson last week to the inquiries made of him by government
[2:28:09]officials. I took the decision to remove him. So can the government lay out precisely what the full due process that was followed? The prime minister claims he didn't learn the content of the Bloomberg emails until after his robust
[2:28:20]defense of PMQs. So, did Lord Mandelson fail to disclose this information during his vetting interview? Was there even a vetting interview or did Lord Mandelson disclose everything and the prime minister is displaying willful
[2:28:31]ignorance? >> I will give way. >> I'm very grateful to gentleman for giving way. His speech reminds me of an earlier episode in UK US relations when
[2:28:41]Donald Rumsfeld referred to known knowns unknown unknowns and known unknowns. And whilst the government might be forgiven for not holding uh Peter Mandles to account for those unknown unknowns, does
[2:28:52]he not agree with me that it's unforgivable that they have traded and staked Britain's diplomatic relationship with the US on known unknowns?
[2:29:03]I have a party with the honorable member and I think it's incredible that such uh such lacks vetting has taken place uh from this government with regards to what is such an obvious uh conflict of
[2:29:14]interest. The nature and extent of the relationship. We knew about Mandelson's closeness to Jeffrey Epste when the notorious birthday book was published where Lord Mandlesson described the convicted pedophile as his best pal and
[2:29:25]signed off his many pages of anxious praise with the line yum yum. What else did the prime minister learn beyond that? He claims he only knew of his association. That would appear to be questionable. The questioning and
[2:29:36]challenging of the conviction. Was Lord Mandlesson asked about his opinion of the conviction of his best panel during his vetting interview? Did he disclose that he felt or had ever felt that the conviction was unjustified? Either he
[2:29:47]wasn't asked incompetent vetting. He didn't disclose not a suitable appointment or he did disclose and it was ignored by the prime minister. >> Exactly. >> Which is it? >> Y very good. >> The unsatisfactory nature of the
[2:29:57]responses. The only aspect in the investigation we are yet to learn. The prime minister must publish this new information so that this house can fully understand if his answers are unsatisfying now but not before. That would suggest that full due process was
[2:30:09]not followed in contradiction to what the prime minister claimed last week. This whole sorry episode looks set to derail the visit of the president of the United States tomorrow. We are a long way from the chummy bonomy of the prime minister feeling he'd stuck the landing
[2:30:20]when his perfectly managed stage managed hand delivery of the invitation letter to President Trump. I wonder how he's going to explain this all to the president tomorrow. The prime minister knows his days are numbered. The new shadow cabinet know his days are
[2:30:32]numbered. The backbenches know his days are numbered. Perhaps the prime minister should try talking to them on a regular basis and not just greasing up to them in a smoking room when he needs their support. If the prime minister cannot exercise the judgment required of the
[2:30:44]office, then he must resign. [Music] >> That is the end of the backbench contributions. Colleagues who have spoken should be making their way back to the chamber. I call the minister, Minister Dy.
[2:30:54]>> Well, thank you, Madame Deputy Speaker. And on Thursday, I came to this house to announce that the prime minister had asked the foreign secretary to withdraw Lord Mandlesson as the UK's ambassador to the United States. And can I at the
[2:31:05]outset, Madam Deputy Speaker, just say that I know and there were many comments to this effect from across the house know that all of us are appalled by Epstein's crimes and all of those who have suffered as a result and I think
[2:31:16]they need to be at the forefront of our minds today. And I also want to thank um madame deputy speaker um the uh genuine I think uh suggestions were made by a number of honorable and right honorable
[2:31:27]members about um scrutiny processes um in relation to um ambassadorial appointments and um I can say mad deputy speaker that the government have listened to particularly the chair of the foreign affairs committee uh on this
[2:31:38]matter and we will consider all options to support the committee in their work in the future. Um, the prime minister uh took this decision, madam deputy speaker, after new information. I'm not going to give away the first. I really
[2:31:50]do think I need to respond to many of the points that have been made in the debate and then I'll happily take some interventions. The prime minister took this decision after new information showed the nature and extent of Lord Mandlesson's relationship with Jeffrey
[2:32:01]Epstein was materially different from what was known at the time of his appointment. And in particular, Madame Deputy Speaker, Lord Mandlesson suggested that Epstein's conviction was wrongful, encouraged him to fight for
[2:32:13]early release, and said that he had been through years of torture. We know the only people tortured, Madam Deputy Speaker, were the women and girls whose lives were destroyed by Epstein's heinous crimes. And I do want to
[2:32:23]associate myself with the remarks that were made by a number of honorable and right honorable members on that point, both about the crimes and the victims. Madame Deputy Speaker, the prime minister has just been I will give very way on that very specific point.
[2:32:35]>> Very grateful to the minister for for giving way. So is he effectively telling the house that on the basis that Lord Manden had retained friendship with
[2:32:46]Jeffrey Epstein despite him being a pedophile that was fine. The only problem was that he thought the Jeffrey Epstein was innocent. So if he had said to the prime minister, hadn't sent those
[2:32:58]emails and had said that Jeffrey Epstein was guilty, this wouldn't have been a problem. Is that the is that the message he's conveying to the public? >> The prime minister has been explicitly
[2:33:08]clear that the new that the new he has been explicitly clear that the new information is and was not compatible with the duty that we owed the victims of Jeffrey Epstein's horrendous crimes
[2:33:19]against women and girls and with this government's clear commitment to tackling that kind of violence and abuse. And as such, madame deputy speaker, the prime minister took decisive action to withdraw Lord
[2:33:29]Mandlesson as ambassador. And he has also been clear and he undertook a number of media interviews yesterday that Lord Mandlesson would not have been
[2:33:38]appointed if all the information we now have was available at the time and I point you I'll just complete this this reference then I will give way. Um I point you to the reference mand deputy speaker to what the prime minister had
[2:33:49]to say yesterday and I quote he said had I known then what I know now then I'd never have appointed him. So following Lord Mandlesson's departure and in line with standard diplomatic practice the
[2:34:01]deputy head of mission James Rosco an experienced and capable diplomat has been put in place as the charge defense. will give you >> one simple question to the minister because he's doing a fair job is why is
[2:34:12]he here and not the prime minister answering those questions cuz he clearly can't answer them and that's no disrespect for him the prime minister said he didn't know something now he knows something could I ask where is the
[2:34:24]prime minister and why is he not at the dispatch box >> madam deputy speaker I'm I'm here responding to the government and the minister for North America and he will also understand that there are very important matters taking place today that the prime minister and foreign
[2:34:35]secretary are involved with and of Of course, we've seen the launch of the new Hillsborough Law today as well, which was referenced during the debate. But, Madam Deputy Speaker, I do want to say I will give away to the honorable gentleman in short short order, but I I
[2:34:46]do want to just say something about um our excellent diplomats and officials across the world because Madame Deputy Speaker, we have an excellent team at the British Embassy in Washington. Um indeed, we've had many excellent uh
[2:34:57]former ambassadors and we have a wide network in the United States, across the United States, not just in Washington, um and in King Charles Street. and I want to pay particular tribute uh to them and all the work that they're doing particularly in supporting the outcomes
[2:35:08]of this week's important and historic state visit and I totally associate myself with the remarks made by uh my honorable friend from Vauxhall and Campberwell Green on their professionalism and I know that's been experienced by many members across the
[2:35:20]house and I think that's important that we have that on the record madam deputy speaker this is a crucial moment for UK US relations and together we are focused on delivering on jobs on growth and
[2:35:30]security for people on both sides of the Atlantic I said I would give way. >> I'm very grateful to the minister and because he is such a a decent minister and because he does enjoy respect on
[2:35:41]both sides of the house, I'm tempted to repeat the advice that Lloyd George gave to Churchill during the Norway debate of
[2:35:50]1940, which is not to make himself an air raid shelter to protect his colleagues, in this case the prime minister, from the splinters. And if in
[2:36:00]fact the prime minister's case is as strong as he makes out, can he explain why, if I remember correctly, only a single backbencher made a speech from his own backbenches in the prime
[2:36:12]minister's favor? >> With respect, this was an emergency debate obviously, Madame Deputy Speaker, that was secured by uh the opposition. um I am here setting out the case very
[2:36:24]very clearly and we've had a number of contributions on on this side of the house but he knows I have affection for him as well across the house and the work that he does and included role chairing many important committees in this house before um madam deputy
[2:36:36]speaker many honorable and right honorable members have asked a number of specific questions including about vetting process and security clearances that applied in this particular case and I fully understand the interest in doing
[2:36:46]so and undoubtedly other questions will be raised in the course um of of discussions in this place Madam Deputy Speaker, um as you will know, including precedents from the last government, it
[2:36:56]is the practice of successive administrations not to comment on which officials have access to confidential information and that remains the case today. And I do want to pay some particular attention to this mad deputy
[2:37:08]speaker because this is important and there have been very sensible questions raised by uh members here. The national security vetting process is confidential and the UK government's vetting charter includes an undertaking to protect
[2:37:20]personal data and other information in the strictest confidence and I am not therefore going to depart from that approach here today and release personal information about an individual's
[2:37:30]confidential vetting. However, while I will not talk about the confidential details relating to this case, um I can provide details of the overall processes that were asked about by a number of people um including the honorable
[2:37:40]gentleman who initiated the debate. Uh prior to the announcement of Lord Mlson's appointment as ambassador, the propriety and ethics team in the cabin office undertook a due diligence process and after Lord Mandlesson's appointment
[2:37:52]was announced on the 20th of December 2024, the FCDO started the ambassadorial appointment process including national security vetting. That vetting process was undertaken by UK security vetting on
[2:38:03]behalf of the FCDO and concluded with clearance being granted by the FCDO in advance of Lord Mandlesson taking up his post in February. I will give way to him. I I am grateful to the honorable
[2:38:15]gentleman and accepting that private data cannot be disclosed. But I wonder whether there was a mechanism that he could ask the ISC whether they would
[2:38:24]look into if somebody had been known to have had a close association with a convicted pedophile and they were a civil servant etc. would they have
[2:38:34]passed the vetting process to have such a sensitive position? That could be something he passes on to the IC to look at because this goes to the heart of the situation. I very much doubt, madame
[2:38:44]deputy speaker, that people with that sort of association would be given the high security clearance. >> Minister, >> speaker, I know um the honorable gentleman makes that point um with
[2:38:55]sincerity. Um but I am not going to comment on the national security vetting process. It wouldn't be appropriate. It's been consistent from government to government. And Madam Deputy Speaker, I'm not going to give away the honorable gentleman was not here in the debate and
[2:39:06]he's popped up now trying to intervene on me. Madam Deputy Speaker, national security vetting is a long-standing formal process undertaken by UK security vetting on behalf of individual departments and reporting back to them.
[2:39:18]National security vetting helps departments to identify and manage risks where individuals have access to sensitive assets or sites and there are established processes madam deputy speaker within national security vetting
[2:39:29]to consider any security concerns raised and manage such risks appropriately. And this is very important, madame deputy speaker. The national security vetting process is rightfully independent of
[2:39:39]ministers who are not informed of any findings other than the final outcome. Exactly the same procedures on that were followed in this case. Um I will make a little bit more progress and then I'll happily give way. As I said at the
[2:39:50]start, madam deputy speaker, but returning to the fundamental question that have been has been asked by many honorable and honorable members in light of new information, the prime minister made the decision to withdraw Lord
[2:40:00]Mandlesson as ambassador. The prime minister took decisive action on these issues and now the government's focus is seizing the opportunities of our US partnership as we look forward to the
[2:40:12]next phase of government moving from fixing the foundations to driving forward growth and national renewal. And a lot of honorable and right honorable members asked very sensible questions about uh the relationship with the United States, our economy, our
[2:40:23]security, the state visit that is happening this week. And I I would point the House Mad Deputy speak to the fact that last week we secured and announced a 400 million pound contract with Google Clouds, boosting secure communications
[2:40:35]between the UK and US and building new intelligence capabilities for the UK armed forces. On Sunday, Madam Deputy Speaker, we announced over 1.2 billion of private US investment in the UK's
[2:40:46]worldleading financial services sector. And that new investment is going to create 1,800 new jobs across the UK and boost benefits for millions of customers. And just yesterday, Madame
[2:40:56]Deputy Speaker, we announced a new UK US partnership on civil nuclear power as part of our drive to put billions of pounds of private investment into clean energy and I look forward uh to further
[2:41:08]announcements over the coming days. >> Sure. >> I can barely hear the minister. Minister >> Well, well, thank you, Madam Speaker. I have, Madam Speaker, and I think you, you know, I've taken a number of
[2:41:19]interventions. I do want to make some points and make some progress here. Um honorable and honorable members asked about the US UK relationship. I can tell them that it's strong, it's thriving, and it's growing. Madam Deputy Speaker,
[2:41:30]um these steps for are going to make sure that our two nations continue to lead the world in innovation. We have trade worth over 315 billion last year and the US and UK economies are
[2:41:41]inextricably linked. And through the state visit, we will take that relationship even further, making trade investment deals that will benefit hardworking families across these
[2:41:50]countries and regions. Um I will I will happily give way. >> I'm most grateful to the minister giving way. Last week the prime minister expressed confidence in Lord Mandlesson.
[2:42:00]This week does this minister express his confidence in national security vetting. >> Madam Deputy Speaker, of course I have confidence in our national security vetting staff. They do incredibly
[2:42:12]important work keeping this country safe and I am not going to comment on individual case. I've been very very clear about that. But can I like to return to the fundamental question that he and others others asked. Madam Deputy
[2:42:23]Speaker, um I will happily go to the chair of the committee. >> I wondered if the honorable gentleman might might help us with this. In the letter that uh that the new foreign secretary wrote to me, um she told us
[2:42:33]that the proprietary and ethics team in the cabinet office conducted a due diligence process prior to the announcement of the appointment at the request of number 10. the FCDO was not asked to contribute to that process and
[2:42:45]no issues were raised with the FCDO as a result of that process. Is it is the right honorable gentle is the honorable gentleman now that he's heard that was he surprised that the foreign office
[2:42:54]were not involved in that? >> Madame Deputy Speaker, I've set out the process very clearly and um I I note the chair has had that letter. does set it out very clearly um in in the letter and
[2:43:05]she she may have missed just slightly at the start of the debate the commitment I made to her and indeed members of her committee um about considering all options to support the committee and their work in the future in relation to uh pre-scrutiny processes I think was a very important and sensible point that
[2:43:17]she made um mad deputy speaker I'm going to um I'm going to uh conclude because I do I do want to get back to the fundamental question here madam deputy speaker which is that the prime minister
[2:43:27]has made clear that Lord Mandlesson should not and would not have been appointed appointed as ambassador in light of the shocking information that came to light in the past week and the argument madame deputy speaker that
[2:43:38]we've heard today from members opposite is that this was clear all along but madam deputy speaker if the full depth and extent of this relationship had been
[2:43:47]so obvious I hardly think that Lord Mandlesson would have been one of the leading candidates to become chancellor of Oxford University but he was and
[2:43:57]madly speaker I highly doubt that he would have been offered a job as presenter on Times Radio, but he was and Madame Deputy Speaker when he appeared on BBC News Night, Madame Deputy
[2:44:07]Speaker, a program that's done very important work um investigating the crimes of uh >> order. Is it is it really a point of order?
[2:44:18]>> It is a point of order. Point of order, Desmond Sway. >> Am I mistaken in my belief that there is a convention in the house that when the leader of the opposition puts her hand on the dispatch box and seeks to
[2:44:30]intervene, the minister gives way? >> This is not a matter for the chair and it's entirely up to the minister if he wishes to give way. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
[2:44:40]>> Minister Dy, >> Madam Deputy Speaker, I was making an important point about um the scrutiny that BBC News night had done on Jeffrey
[2:44:50]Epstein. And I'd expected such serious questions would have been asked of him, but to my recollection, none were. And indeed um I well I'm glad that the leader of the opposition wants to intervene on me because I have a
[2:44:59]question for for her. uh she she she and the shadow foreign secretary indeed other people who've been speaking on the other side um have regularly raised
[2:45:10]questions today but I I would ask them have did they raise a word in this house uh about Lord Mandlesson's appointment before last Wednesday uh because I don't have any records of that and in fact
[2:45:20]actually um the uh uh uh the the record shows that they didn't didn't raise that um they didn't raise questions and the reality is is that In light of new
[2:45:31]information, the prime minister has acted decisively. I will give way. >> Madame Deputy Speaker, we didn't need any new information to know that this
[2:45:41]was an unsuitable appointment. And the minister is, you know, making a doubty doubty defense of uh Lord Mandlesson. The truth is this debate has been about the prime minister's judgment. When I
[2:45:52]was a secretary of state and I and questions were asked about judgment, I didn't send junior ministers to answer my questions. I faced the house and I explained what had happened. The prime
[2:46:02]minister is not doing so. So will he now uh commit to answering all the questions which I asked in writing and also will he take this opportunity to apologize to the victims? He has not done so. The
[2:46:14]government has not done so. The debate is nearly over. Will he take this opportunity to apologize to the victims for the appointment of Lord Mandlesson? Um, well, Madam Speaker, I mean, perhaps
[2:46:25]the lead the opposition wasn't in her seat at the start of the debate because I made very clear our position on Epstein's victims and our horror at the revelations and all of our thoughts to be with them. And I made that point in
[2:46:37]sincerity in response to the points that have been made across this house. And I say it again, Madame Deputy Speaker, but she couldn't answer the question. She didn't raise this issue before last Wednesday. And if it was also obvious,
[2:46:47]why didn't she do that? So, m >> order. I I hope it's a proper point of order. Dr. Luke Evans point of order. >> Mr. Speaker, I raised myself an example in during the debate. So I hate for the
[2:46:59]minister to mislead the house inadvertently using the example of the sky news and the member for Melton who talked about uh exactly as raising concerns about Mr. Mandlesson. So even in the debate we had evidence of what
[2:47:10]this side had been doing back in May talking about the inappropriateness of this ambassador. >> Heard enough. That is not a point of order. Minister Dy, >> Madam Deputy Speaker, I was referencing
[2:47:21]whether this had been raised in this house by the leader of the opposition and others. Madame Deputy Speaker, the prime minister has acted decisively in response to this new information, which is exactly what should have happened.
[2:47:33]The former ambassador has been withdrawn. The prime minister and this government are focused on deepening our special relationship with the United States in the interests of people um
[2:47:44]across the Atlantic for jobs, for growth, for prosperity, for security uh for our defense. And that relationship with the United States, Madam Deputy Speaker, is a relationship that has
[2:47:55]endured, is enduring, and will endure for the prosperity and security of our peoples well into the future. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. >> I come to David Davis to wind up David.
[2:48:06]Thank you. Thank you very much, uh, Madame Deputy Speaker. I'm I'm going to pause for a second. Firstly, I'll say to the the minister, the I think everybody who spoke in the House, everybody, uh,
[2:48:18]remembered the victims. Yeah. >> And after the sound of this political gunfire is long forgotten. >> They will still be suffering the scarring of what happened to them as a
[2:48:28]result of uh, Mr. Epstein's behavior. uh and I would say to him that without U-turns or whatever he should say to his
[2:48:40]prime minister that the next possible opportunity at that dispatch box he should apologize to those victims for what the government has done to date. >> So that's the first thing I'll say to
[2:48:50]him. The second thing is he is of course highly respected in this house. >> Yes. uh you know I see him there almost as sort of the last spark thermopoli
[2:49:00]full of arrows as he uh as he stands there trying to defend an impossible position and uh that's you know it's a position a number of us have been in
[2:49:11]ourselves so I have some sympathy for it but the simple truth is I found it really hard to reconcile what he said
[2:49:19]>> about this clearance process with what I know >> was known known by the agencies as long ago as 2008
[2:49:29]about Mandlesson's behavior, connections and the like and the possibility. One of my honorable friends talked about compromat
[2:49:39]possibility of compromat. So I find it very difficult to reconcile that with with what he said and all I can say to him is that there seems to be two possibilities. One is that as often
[2:49:51]happens with um uh direct vetting that the agencies produce to the minister a series of risks. >> Yeah.
[2:50:01]>> And the minister in this case the prime minister I assume decides >> those risks are worth taking. So that's one possibility. The other possibility is that the vetting process was
[2:50:12]completely broken and somehow or other it did not detect all of these things that were in plain sight. And that strikes to me as implausible. So I'm
[2:50:22]afraid what he's told the house doesn't seem to figure particularly when it adds it's added to the chairman of the select committee's comments about the propriety
[2:50:31]and ethics team's um uh report being produced effectively without the FCDO's input which again is absolutely
[2:50:40]astonishing. Now the house itself um has been remarkably unanimous I think with one exception. he's sitting over there.
[2:50:48]Um uh in the the the the leader of the opposition made her characteristically sharply focused speech but and she said something a number of things which
[2:50:59]almost uniquely the leader of every other party here agreed with which is that we need we need the information we need the accountability and what does
[2:51:10]that mean? What does that mean? uh um my honorable friend the member for Aldridge Brown Hills uh really highlighted we need we need to release all the documents and not to hide behind
[2:51:21]security. There is no security issue here uh in in terms of the national interest. The issue is is this system working and we cannot know unless we see
[2:51:32]those documents. We need the ministers involved and the advisers involved to appear before the relevant select committees and answer questions on this matter. And frankly, if he wants to hide
[2:51:44]behind security, they can even do that in camera so long as it's done properly and and that they have uh the opportunity to to test some of these
[2:51:54]assertions. Uh, and he got he and others got a a good deal of good advice from a number of people, most notably the the father of the house, uh, but others but
[2:52:06]others too, when they said that these problems are bad enough when they're in the original era, but they get worse in the cover up. >> They get worse if you don't actually
[2:52:16]admit what's happened. And so honesty is uh not just important in this, it's also a survival characteristic for the ministers involved. So I have to say to
[2:52:28]him today that we he as I said he's the last part of the thermopoly. He's he's not been sent here with the weapons to deal with this. He's not been sent here with the answers to the questions that
[2:52:39]we all properly have. Um and so I'm I'm going to going to figure it finish as I started by reminding him about that bill that they announced today. Yes. You know, the first words of it say or the first words of the on the order paper
[2:52:50]say a bill to impose a duty on public authorities and public officials to act with cander, transparency and frankness to make provision for the enforcement of that duty in their dealings with
[2:53:01]inquiries and investigations and to require public authorities to promote and take steps to maintain ethical conduct within all parts of the
[2:53:11]authority. Well, that's what we expect. And frankly, if we don't get the answers, and by the sounds of it, we're not going to get the answers. We will return to this matter. I suspect the entire opposition will return to the
[2:53:22]matter. I suspect some opposition within his own party will return to the matter. And when he eventually passes that bill, I guarantee I'll be seeking to make sure that ministers are covered by it too,
[2:53:32]not just and then next year, look what happens. Thank you. >> The question is as on the order paper as may opinion say I. I
[2:53:44]>> the contrary. No. The eyes have it. The eyes have it. I'll give the front benches a few moments to swap over as we prepare for the
[2:53:53]10-minute rule motion. Colleagues need to leave quietly and quickly.