[0:00]And Peter Mandelson's behavior was an insult to them and their suffering. And can I say, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I am therefore sorry
[0:11]that these events leave those victims with no choice but to relive their horrors with still too little justice being served.
[0:23]That is why there is, I think, Madam Deputy Speaker, a cross-party consensus in this house for full transparency and accountability.
[0:33]Why anybody with knowledge must cooperate with inquiries, whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere. And why the government is therefore committed to publishing all documents
[0:44]relevant to the humble address. Madam Deputy Speaker, the Prime Minister has taken responsibility for Peter Mandelson's appointment as
[0:54]ambassador to the United States. He has acknowledged it was a mistake and has apologized. Not least for believing Peter
[1:03]Mandelson's lies. As the government has said previously, there are specific documents that this government would like to have been able to disclose today,
[1:15]but which the Metropolitan Police have asked us not to do so yet in order to avoid prejudicing their ongoing criminal investigation into Peter Mandelson.
[1:26]We have agreed to that request. We will therefore publish these documents in the future as soon as the Metropolitan Police have confirmed it will no longer prejudice their investigation.
[1:37]The government, masters of the house already understands, also carefully assess the risk of prejudicing UK national security or international relations posed by the release of any official documents.
[1:47]Any such material will and is being referred to the Intelligence and Security Committee of this house. I thank the committee for their assistance in this matter and can confirm to the house that the
[1:58]committee has agreed with a limited reduction requested by the government in relation to one document that we are publishing today. Outside of this arrangement
[2:09]this process does not change the important and well-established constitutional principle that national security and international relations judgments are ultimately for the government.
[2:19]Madam Deputy Speaker, on today's release the documents specifically relate to the decision to appoint Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United States and the discussions that subsequently
[2:30]led to his dismissal. These include the Cabinet Office due diligence report which was passed to number 10 prior to Peter Mandelson's appointment. Information provided to my right
[2:42]honorable friend, the Prime Minister, regarding whether full due process was followed during Peter Mandelson's appointment. Papers relating to Peter Mandelson's appointment as His Majesty's ambassador to the United States
[2:53]and minutes of meetings relating to the decision to appoint him. And details of the severance payments made to Peter Mandelson after the Prime Minister instructed he be withdrawn as
[3:04]ambassador thereby terminating his employment by the Civil Service. Whilst the documents point to public reports of an ongoing relationship between Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey
[3:14]Epstein the advice did not expose the depth and extent of their relationship which only became apparent after the release of further files by Bloomberg and then the
[3:25]United States Department for Justice. After the Prime Minister reviewed the Cabinet Office due diligence that noted public reporting on Peter Mandelson's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein
[3:36]questions were put to Peter Mandelson by advisers in number 10. As right honorable and honorable members can see referred to on pages 8 and 94 of the bundle
[3:47]and Peter Mandelson responded. These are matters that are currently the subject of an ongoing police investigation. And we will publish this document when the investigation allows.
[3:59]When we do, the House will be able to see Peter Mandelson's answers for themselves, which the Prime Minister regrets believing. Peter Mandelson should never have been
[4:10]afforded the privilege of representing this country. And I reiterate for the House that the Prime Minister deeply regrets taking him at his word.
[4:20]It was a mistake to do so. I can, however, confirm to the House as agreed with Madam Deputy Speaker and Mr. Speaker that we have shared the documents that
[4:31]are with the Metropolitan Police with the chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee on terms agreed by the Metropolitan Police to ensure as much transparency to this House as is
[4:42]possible. And Madam Deputy Speaker, as soon as the truth became apparent following reporting by Bloomberg, the Prime Minister acted to withdraw
[4:52]Peter Mandelson from his role. I'm sure that right honorable and honorable members across the House will also read in these documents with interest how Peter Mandelson conducted himself
[5:03]after his withdrawal as ambassador. As the document show regarding his severance payment, Peter Mandelson initially requested a sum that was substantially larger than
[5:15]the final payment. Not just two or even three times, but more than six
[5:24]times the final amount. Despite the fact that he was withdrawn from Washington because he had lost the confidence of the Prime Minister.
[5:35]The government obviously found that to be inappropriate and unacceptable. The settlement that was agreed was to avoid even higher further costs
[5:46]involving a drawn-out legal claim at the employment tribunal given Peter Mandelson's employment as a civil servant rather than a minister.
[5:57]The House will know that ministers can be dismissed without recourse to the employment tribunal. Civil servants are treated differently. The government is committed to committed to complying with the humble address.
[6:09]Further work is ongoing to compile the rest of the information that is in its scope. The government recognizes the urgency with which this work must be completed, and the government will of course keep
[6:18]members updated as that work progresses. But we know that these documents also reveal that the due diligence process fell short of what is required.
[6:29]We have already taken steps to address weaknesses in the system and to ensure that when standards have behaved before short of the high standards expected that there will be more serious consequences.
[6:41]We have launched the ethics and integrity commission to promote the higher standards in public life. And we are changing the process for direct ministerial appointments, including politically appointed
[6:52]diplomatic roles so that where the role requires access to highly classified material, the candidate must have passed national security vetting before such appointments are announced or confirmed.
[7:03]Ministers will now be expected to forego severance payments following a serious breach of the ministerial code. And we have given the independent advisor the power to initiate investigations into ministerial
[7:13]misconduct without the need to seek the Prime Minister's permission first. The Prime Minister has also strengthened the ministerial code with stricter rules on gifts and hospitality. And we have asked the Lords Conduct
[7:25]Committee to review the conduct the code of conduct to consider what changes are required to ensure that peers can be removed when they brought the House into disrepute in the other place.
[7:36]We are also exploring whether the committee can tighten rules on lobbying and paid advocacy to bring the Lords in line with the Commons procedures. Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to note that the vast majority of individuals
[7:47]who apply to public service do so with the best of intentions. However, it is right that following the Peter Mandelson case, we ask questions about how we can further strengthen the rules
[7:59]and processes that underpin the operation of government. And we have appointed Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent in the other house to support this work on standards and constitutional reform as a new minister
[8:10]in the Cabinet Office. I can also announce that the Prime Minister has asked the Ethics and Integrity Commission to conduct a review of the current arrangements relating to financial disclosures for ministers and
[8:20]senior officials, transparency around lobbying and the business appointment rules. And we are conducting a review of the national security vetting system to ensure we learn the lessons from the
[8:30]policy and process weaknesses related to Peter Mandelson's case. Madam Deputy Speaker, let me conclude by reiterating that the whole house will agree that Jeffrey Epstein was a disgusting
[8:42]individual and Peter Mandelson's decision to put their relationship before his victims and the vulnerable is reprehensible. As the Prime Minister has said, the victims of Epstein have lived with
[8:53]trauma that most of us can barely comprehend. They've had to relive it again and again. And they have had to see accountability
[9:03]delayed and too often denied. We must all learn this hard lesson and under culture which dismisses women's experiences far, far too often
[9:14]and too easily. Peter Mandelson should never have been appointed and the government will comply with the humble address. I will update the house further in due course and Madam Deputy Speaker, I
[9:25]commend the statement to the house. >> I call the Shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. >> Uh thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, and thank you for your remarks
[9:36]at the outset of this statement. Um I do thank the Minister for advanced sight of the statement that I received at 1:30. But I will note that this whole business
[9:46]is really about transparency. And the fact that the fact is that the government's had to be dragged to do this by members of this house, by members on both sides of this house. And
[9:55]so to produce a 135-page document and put it online 23 minutes before this debate is really not acceptable at all. And I do respect the Chief Secretary
[10:07]coming and doing this himself, but it really ought to be the Prime Minister sitting there. Because all of this is about the Prime Minister's judgment. And so it's very
[10:17]convenient that this document was published after Prime Minister's Questions today, when the man who made the decision, the man whose judgment is in question, could have been put under
[10:28]scrutiny by honorable members. There are very many questions that arise from the documents published right now. I will put a few on on record and then I will return to the central theme.
[10:39]Um the There is the issue of severance pay which the Chief Secretary uh Prime Minister referred to. Uh why did ministers agree to any severance pay given what had happened? I think a lot
[10:49]of our constituents will be disgusted that Peter Mandelson received 70,000 pounds. Will Peter Mandelson's full declaration of interests that he is supposed to have handed over when he was appointed be
[11:01]published? I don't believe that they are included in the trust today. Is this because of a police request or is it for some other reason? Uh will the Chief Secretary publish a register of withheld and delayed
[11:12]documents so that the house can be aware of what is being held back? Uh and will he give us a little more information either now or in the future on redactions? It is important that this
[11:22]house understands who is deciding on what will be redacted. This awful saga involving Jeffrey Epstein continues. I understand that as
[11:32]this house meets one of his ranches in New Mexico is being investigated because there are reports that bodies are buried there. At the center of this scandal is a very
[11:42]rich and powerful man who despicably abused his position and he was helped to become rich and powerful by his associates. One of those associates was
[11:52]Peter Mandelson. So while of course I associate myself with the remarks made by the Chief Secretary about Epstein's victims, it's very clear that those victims were not in the Prime Minister's
[12:03]mind when he appointed Peter Mandelson. The Prime Minister has already admitted that he knew Mandelson had maintained his friendship with Epstein even after the latter's conviction for his ter- for
[12:13]his terrible crimes. That was a bad choice and it's a choice that we can now read about in black and white, Madam Deputy Speaker, on page 11 where the Prime Minister was told after Epstein
[12:24]was first convicted of procuring an underage girl in 2008, their relationship continued across 2009 to 2011 beginning when Lord Mandelson was
[12:34]Business Minister and continuing after the end of the Labour government. Mandelson reportedly stayed in Epstein's house while he was in jail in 2009.
[12:45]Now the Prime Minister claims that he was lied to. He wasn't lied to by this due diligence document. And it may be that Mandelson denied these claims and if so, maybe the Prime
[12:56]Minister was lied to. But he was lied to by an inveterate liar who had been fired twice before and we're supposed to believe, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the Prime Minister who was once the Chief Prosecutor in
[13:08]this country couldn't see through this nonsense. It beggars belief. Yeah, over the coming hours and days we'll see whether these documents reveal why the Prime Minister's judgment failed
[13:20]so badly. But we must suspect that it was because his then Chief of Staff was Mandelson's protege. And Morgan McSweeney had set up Labour Together, the Prime Minister's private
[13:31]campaigning organization. And Peter Mandelson had advised Morgan McSweeney on the establishment of that organization. And that organization had been responsible for breaking electoral
[13:41]law so that it could hide the sources of its funders from the public and from the Labour Party. And then Labour Together had sought to intimidate and smear journalists who revealed that
[13:52]wrongdoing. And it provided hundreds of Labour MPs and many of the top brass in the cabinet with free money and free services. This, Madam Deputy Speaker,
[14:02]was the ultimate job for the boys. The Prime Minister knew all he needed to know. It was on him. It's on him now. He let his party down. He let his country
[14:13]down. And I very much doubt that either will trust him again. >> Um, thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The um, Shadow Chancellor of the Duchy asked
[14:24]me uh, a number of questions which I will take in turn. Um, the first was on severance payment. He asked me, Madam Deputy Speaker, why that payment had been made um, and who approved it. Uh,
[14:36]as I set out in my opening statement, uh, Peter Mandelson was employed as a civil servant, not as a minister. Uh, that meant that on his summary dismissal
[14:46]by the Prime Minister, he had the right to take a claim to the employment tribunal. As you can see in the documents, uh, Peter Mandelson asked for a much larger sum
[14:57]uh, with the implied threat that that would be taken through legal proceedings with associated uh, legal costs. Uh, we, the government,
[15:09]wouldn't have wanted to pay £1 to Peter Mandelson. But in contrast to the cost to the taxpayer of employment tribunal legal fees and maybe a payment that in the
[15:19]advice would have been higher than the that was given. The government reluctantly agreed to that award. The Prime Minister has since said
[15:29]that Peter Mandelson should either return that money or donate it. On the question of on the question of who approved this
[15:40]severance payment, uh the House will see from the documents that the request from the Foreign Office was made to the Treasury. The payment was approved in line with Treasury
[15:51]business rules, albeit reluctantly and with an express condition that a non-disclosure agreement was not allowed in these circumstances. And for the sake of uh completeness,
[16:01]there is reference in the bundle to that business case requiring my approval, and I can confirm to the House I did not sit receive that request or indeed approve it. Uh the Shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of
[16:13]Lancaster asked me then about some of the documents, namely about redactions and a register of withheld documents. On the question of a register of withheld documents, with permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would need to
[16:25]take that away to take advice from lawyers in the Metropolitan Police uh to be able to say whether these documents are being held for their criminal investigation or not. I hope that the
[16:35]House uh is somewhat reassured by the the mechanism we have been able to establish with the um with the chair of the Select Committee who has sight of these documents, albeit
[16:44]in a contained and controlled way. Uh redactions in the documents that are made by government are only to protect the names and contact details for junior civil servants as is due practice.
[16:55]Other redactions that relate to international security and international relations are done with the approval of the Intelligence and Select uh Committee. Uh he lastly asked me about the report
[17:07]from the Cabinet Office to the Prime Minister. Uh as I've said in my opening statement, uh the Prime Minister did ask subsequent questions of Peter Mandelson following that report being submitted by the cabinet office.
[17:18]These questions were undertaken by his advisers in number 10. And whilst this is a document that we can't publish at this time, the Prime Minister is very clear that he regrets having believed the lies that Peter Mandelson put before
[17:29]him. >> Rachel Maskell Madam Deputy Speaker Clearly Peter Mandelson's associations bring a real stench to the appointment
[17:41]processes, but I want to know about the business associations and the way that they are scrutinized within the process because clearly we know that Peter
[17:50]Mandelson's PR company Global Counsel had strong associations, a client in fact, Palantir, who has won lucrative contracts from successive governments. I
[18:01]want to understand if the papers demonstrate those associations and the associations that Peter Mandelson then brought into government.
[18:13]>> My honorable friend will see from the documents being published today that those commercial interests were raised by the cabinet office and established processes were put in place where new
[18:23]members of the civil service have to remove those commercial interests before taking office. And there is some commentary in the bundle about the conversation with Peter Mandelson in
[18:34]advance of his appointment as ambassador to the United States specifically about that question. Having said all of that, part of the review that we are now taking forward is another look at the business appointment rules to make sure
[18:45]that the processes that were applied in these circumstances are robust enough in the in the in the situation in which we're discussing. And if we need to further strengthen them, we stand ready to do so. >> The leader of the Liberal Democrats, Sir
[18:57]Ed Davey. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and can I thank the Chief Secretary for advance sight of his statement. This is a stain on our nation that we're
[19:08]even having to go through this. It's right that we keep Epstein's victims, survivors, and families at the front of our minds.
[19:17]Today, Madam Deputy Speaker, marks the first day of Britain's own Epstein files. For a close friend of Epstein to have been made Britain's ambassador to the
[19:27]United States is a shameful part of this affair that is the Prime Minister's responsibility. It is disappointing that he is not here
[19:38]now to answer for that and his catastrophic failure of judgment with respect to Mandelson. Peter Mandelson's close relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and the fact that
[19:50]it continued long after Epstein's conviction for child sex trafficking have been reported by both Channel 4 Dispatches in 2019
[20:00]and the Financial Times in 2023. Has the Prime Minister told the Chief Secretary personally how those reports made him feel and why
[20:11]he still felt it was right to appoint Mandelson anyway? Mandelson's 70,000 payout is an insult to Epstein's victims
[20:21]and if he had a shred of decency left, he would donate it to charity. But the Chief Secretary's explanation as to why the government made that payout
[20:30]simply won't wash. Madam Deputy Speaker, with a very limited number of documents being released today, the way goes on for the rest of Britain's Epstein files.
[20:41]That includes the documents related to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor required by the humble address our party passed a fortnight ago. I very much hope the government will get them out as quickly as possible.
[20:53]It has taken 5 weeks from the Mandelson humble address to publication today. So can the Chief Secretary guarantee that the first Andrew papers will be
[21:02]published within the same time frame by the 31st of March at the latest. Thank you madam deputy speaker.
[21:14]As I've said to the house, the prime minister regrets having appointed Peter Mandelson as as ambassador to the United States. It was the wrong decision he's apologized for it.
[21:26]On the question of severance as I say the government would not have wanted to give one pound to Peter Mandelson. But it was the quickest it was the quickest way
[21:38]to remove Peter Mandelson as ambassador and a member of the civil service. And as the leader of the Liberal Democrats says and the government agrees with him, the honorable thing to do would be to donate that money to an
[21:48]appropriate charity. On the question of the humble address, the one that was brought forward by the Liberal Democrats has been managed by the Department for Business and Trade. I know they're working on that now and will come forward with updates in due
[22:00]course. And as I said in my statement, the cabinet office will come back with a further tranche of documents in relation to this humble address as soon as possible. >> Justice matters.
[22:11]>> Thank you madam deputy speaker. If one of my constituents came to see me and told me that they had lost their job or been sacked because they had lied during the application process and wanted compensation, I would tell them that
[22:23]they had absolutely no chance of doing that. So I I really struggle to understand why we paid a penny. I understand what the chief secretary has said about not wanting to do that but really the risk
[22:34]of an employment tribunal claim in these circumstances is minuscule. He's absolutely right that money should have been paid to a victim's charity. So will he now press Mandelson to do the right thing and give that money to to the
[22:46]victims of of abuse? >> I thank my honorable friend for his question. He and the house will see from the bundle of documents today that the government acted on the basis of legal
[22:57]advice in awarding that settlement payment but I agree with him wholeheartedly and repeats uh, from the dispatch box that the honorable thing for Peter Mandelson to do would to donate it to an appropriate charity.
[23:09]>> Mr. Speaker, I beg to chair Simon Hughes. >> Deputy Speaker, and I I acknowledge um, what the Chief Secretary has said with regards to my role as the chair of the committee looking at documents sort of
[23:20]pro tem on behalf of the house. And that will be done, as he knows, um, properly. Now, just following on the point that the honorable gentleman has just raised, um,
[23:30]the Chief Secretary is of course right that under the civil service uh, rules, Mandelson could have made a
[23:38]claim to a tribunal. He's right on that. But the honorable gentleman is also right. Anybody who has secured a position by deception would find
[23:49]themselves standing on the thinnest of thin ice with no chance at all. And the approach that Mandelson has shown in the in the original claim that he made just underscores the shamelessness
[24:00]of the individual in question. So, my direct question to the Chief Secretary is this. On the point that because he's admitted that the Prime Minister was
[24:10]lied to, that is a deception, was legal advice sought as to the likely outcome of any employment tribunal case brought
[24:21]by Mandelson? If it was, what that advice was, and if it wasn't, why not? >> Um, the advice, Madam Deputy Speaker, is
[24:33]in the bundles that have been published today. Uh, the honorable gentleman has to forgive me for not being able to frame precisely to the right page at this moment, but they are in the documents today.
[24:43]Uh, and now, whilst it is not for me um, to defend the claim that Peter Mandelson was making against the government, I would just say to the house that one of the issues would of course been the
[24:54]legal fees in actually defending that claim at the employment tribunal itself a cost to the taxpayer even if in the end the government would have been successful and it was those considerations that were put to the
[25:05]government in advice which is why that settlement figure which was a much lower figure than the legal fees and potential settlement being asked for was the case. >> Lewis
[25:16]>> Mr. And some of the points were very relevant. But this isn't just about technicality. It's about lapses of judgement. This is
[25:26]about a wider rotten political culture. A 30-year project where proximity to wealth and power
[25:37]isn't a means to an end, it is the end goal. That's what Peter Mandelson represented and he wasn't just about him being the ambassador or selected to be ambassador. He was at the heart of the
[25:48]political project around number 10. That has to change. Does the government understand out there? This isn't just about one bad set of decisions. It's about a political culture that he
[26:00]represents and that is destroying party politics, mainstream party politics in this country. Do we get that? Do we understand that? Will we change? >> My honorable friend and I are members of
[26:12]the Labour movement because we share the same values. We're here to represent the voices of working people and those that have no power and no access across this country. That is what our movement was
[26:22]created to do and we share that ambition. But do I recognize that we are still operating in a system where power and wealth can lead to these types of outcomes? Absolutely. Do we have a
[26:33]shared ambition of tackling that? Yes, we do. >> Dr. Keir Starmer >> Mr. The minister will know that at the moment the government is putting through a bill about the duty of accountability and candor. One of his ministerial
[26:44]colleagues sat just down from him will confirm that requires ministers to answer questions with candor. Three members of this house asked the minister what the payoff was for Mandelson several weeks ago, and he refused to answer. So, I'd ask him to reflect on
[26:55]whether he acted with candor. And coming back to this question of whether he deserved a payoff, isn't actually the truth, that the government knows this tissue, this story, this suggestion that that we're lied to and there's no possible way they could have found out
[27:06]the truth, would be torn apart in employment tribunal, and that's why he didn't want to go to tribunal. >> Um that was not the rationale in the documents. Those will speak for themselves. >> Rachel Blake.
[27:17]Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. This statement has truly been sickening. Does the Chief Secretary agree with me that the sickening behavior and conduct of Mandelson is in part a symptom of
[27:28]structural misogyny? And will he use his office to drive out structural misogyny from Whitehall and Westminster? >> My honorable friend is right to
[27:39]raise the bigger issues that are in question around the process of appointment and disclosure and uh deceit and
[27:50]the rules that are in place. Above and beyond all of that, unfortunately, is a country and a world in which the voices of women who are
[27:59]subject to male violence and the abuse of power and privilege is still rampant. And all of us, I think in any party, in any part of
[28:10]this house, would want to suggest that that is not the way in which we wish the world to operate, and we should all do that we what we can to change that. That's why this government is committed to issues around
[28:21]halving violence against women and girls. That's why we talk about how we tackle structural misogyny, whether it's at the heart of our political system or in business or elsewhere. Uh and I know that my honorable friend
[28:31]and I share those ambitions and we'll do all that we can to make that a reality. >> Stephen Flynn. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. If I listened to the Minister correctly, which I think I did, he said that his
[28:43]victims must be our first priority. Let's be clear. For the Prime Minister, they were not.
[28:53]Because on the 11th of the 12th, 2024, he received advice which says, and I state, "Epstein was first convicted of
[29:03]procuring an underage girl in 2008." The following sentence says, "Mandelson
[29:11]stayed in Epstein's house in June 2009." I repeat, the victims were not the Prime
[29:20]Minister's first priority. So, that being the case, how can the Minister with a straight face stand at that dispatch box and say, "We must learn
[29:30]this hard lesson and end the culture which dismisses women's experiences when it was the Prime Minister who chose
[29:40]to ignore those experiences, ignore those facts, and appoint Peter Mandelson in the first place?" >> Uh the honorable member uh will have
[29:51]heard from my, forgive me, the right honorable member uh will have heard from my statement uh that in response to the reported allegations that are listed in the
[30:03]Cabinet Office due diligence, these were of course at the time uh allegations. Uh questions were put to Peter Mandelson by number 10 advisers.
[30:13]His responses to those questions are part of documents that we are not yet able to publish, but that we would have liked to have been able to publish today. Since then, the Prime Minister has made
[30:25]it very clear that Peter Mandelson lied to him. He regrets believing those lies. Uh and if the depth and extent of that relationship, with no which nobody in
[30:36]this house understood until the Bloomberg republication of documents and the US Department of Justice disclosures, he would never have appointed him in the first place. >> Eve Widowdon.
[30:46]>> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The release of documents outlining what was known about Mandelson's association with Epstein is welcome. Mandelson's avarice,
[30:58]his business connections, and his malign influence within the Labour Party are simultaneously why he was made ambassador and why he
[31:08]was useful to Epstein. Does my right honorable friend agree that we should be seeking to distance ourselves from flawed democracies that are drifting towards authoritarianism,
[31:19]such as the United States, rather than using those associated with sex offenders in order to strengthen such relationships? >> My honorable friend will know from the
[31:32]statements of the Prime Minister and the documents being published today that he regrets having ever appointed Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United States and that in our country
[31:43]we rightly respect the rules that are in place that need to be observed, that there must be clear consequences for people who breach them. And as I've said in earlier answers, that even in our
[31:54]country we have much further to go to tackle violence against women and girls and structural misogyny and that we should all have a shared ambition for tackling that as quickly as possible. >> Sir Julian Lewis.
[32:05]>> The Chief Secretary deserves our admiration for always being calm and courteous, even in the most trying circumstances, but he really mustn't
[32:15]take us for fools. Peter Mandelson had a reputation as one of the most slippery and sleazy characters in modern British politics.
[32:27]The Chief Secretary confirms that the Prime Minister was warned about what Mandelson had done in continuing a
[32:37]relationship with Epstein after he had been sent to jail for abusing a young girl. He's saying that, well, the Prime
[32:48]Minister didn't know the depth of this relationship. Is he really expecting us to believe that a shallow relationship with a
[32:57]convicted pedophile is okay? >> Um I would just say to the right honorable gentleman that at the time of the appointment
[33:08]there were public comments from Peter Mandelson, I think in a Financial Times interview, where he had said that his relationship had ended much earlier
[33:19]than documents now show was to be the case. On the back of the Cabinet Office reports about those newspaper stories, the Prime Minister had further questions
[33:31]put to Peter Mandelson, documents for which we will be able to publish in due course, and that's why the Prime Minister says that he regrets having believed Peter Mandelson's lies and wished he'd never appointed him in
[33:42]the first place. >> Dear Furn. >> Thank you. >> The appointment of Lord Mandelson was not just a catastrophic error of judgement that has caused profound
[33:51]damage to this government's reputation. It was the result of a clique at the top of the party as we have seen with the Morgan McSweeney Labour Together scandal, for which I and colleagues on these
[34:01]benches have called for the Prime Minister and General Secretary of the Labour party to launch an independent investigation into. So, can the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister outline what structural
[34:13]safeguards are being implemented today to ensure that cronyism never again overrides the national interest in high-level appointments? >> I'll certainly
[34:25]Um I refer my honorable friend to uh list of changes that the government is undertaking from my statement earlier, from the work of the ethics and integrity commission to a review of the
[34:37]business appointment rules, to looking at the role of lobbying and transparency to make sure there are consequences for the few people who do seek to breach those rules. And together,
[34:48]alongside with the Duty of Candor Bill, which has been mentioned in the debate so far, this will be the widest range of changes to our ethics and standards framework in
[34:58]many many years, if not a generation. I will just reiterate, as I did in my statement, that the vast majority of public servants serve the public for the right reasons and adhere to the rules.
[35:10]But evidently, when there are those that seek to evade them, we need to ensure that we're more effective at catching that in the future. >> Mr. Corbyn. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I find
[35:20]this faux outrage about Mandelson really astonishing. He was a man that was closely involved with the current Prime Minister, the leadership of the Labour Party, ever since
[35:30]ever since Tony Blair, and very closely since 2020. They must have known his character. They must have known what he was like. When in the documents that the
[35:40]government is now producing, will we know every piece of advice that was given to the Prime Minister by his officials and by the Foreign and by the
[35:51]Foreign Office? And specifically, will there be a record of any verbal briefings given to the Prime Minister before he made his calamitous decision
[36:01]to send Mandelson to Washington? I think the public need to know why the Prime Minister, despite all the knowledge about Mandelson, felt the need to go ahead
[36:11]with this appointment. >> Um to answer the right honorable gentleman's question, the tranche of documents today that relate to the appointment and then the dismissal of Peter Mandelson as ambassador are
[36:22]inclusive of all of the documents held by government bar those which have been held back by the Metropolitan Police for their criminal investigation. There are no other further documents that have not been published.
[36:33]>> John Slinger. >> Madam Deputy Speaker, the Prime Minister rightly called for the removal of peerages from disgraced peers. So, can the Chief Secretary set out to
[36:43]the house when we might have an update about the proposed legislation in that regard? >> Um can I thank my honorable friend for the question as the house knows from previous
[36:53]statements on this issue, we want to ensure that where people break the rules, there are consequences for that behavior. One of the areas where this was not the case was the appointment of life peerages in the other place where there
[37:05]were no provisions for taking a peerage from somebody in any circumstance, which has been a problem in the past in relation to criminal convictions and other disreputable behavior. It's right
[37:16]therefore that the government is working with the other place to bring forward legislation to give the authority and powers for that happen in the future and will be coming forward with those proposals in due course. >> Sir Judith Smith.
[37:27]>> Mr. Speaker, two Global Counsel clients benefited from direct government defense awards. There were Global Counsel staff flying
[37:37]to Washington parties to join Peter Mandelson. Uh could the Minister confirm that either in this bundle or in future
[37:46]documents, there will be a rigorous view and report to Parliament of the background to those awards and to all of the parties that will be guest list for those parties just so that Parliament
[37:57]can see what happened and how we improve things and make sure that never happens again. >> Hear, hear. >> I can confirm that all other documents that are in the scope of the humble address that are not being published
[38:08]today will be subject to the Metropolitan Police and clearance from the Intelligence and Security Committee published in the next tranche. >> Richard Burgon. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. And I'm
[38:19]holding in my hand the advice that was given to the Prime Minister before he made the decision to appoint Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the USA. Reading this advice document, it's clear
[38:31]that the Prime Minister wouldn't have given the go-ahead for this individual Peter Mandelson to stand as a Labour candidate for town council, but instead he was elevated despite what's in the
[38:42]document, despite what was known to this most important of positions. There's a whole section in title relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.
[38:53]The question that has to be asked is, how did it even get to the stage where the Prime Minister was interviewing Mandelson for this job and considering
[39:02]him for this job? The simple answer is political. It's because it suited the interests of a tiny faction in the
[39:11]Labour Party funded by big business who wanted Mandelson at the heart of things in order to shift a Labour government
[39:21]away from the agenda that the real Labour government should have. That's why Mandelson was popular with these people. That's why he was one of their favored sons, and that's why, despite
[39:32]his despicable character, despite his greed and his avarice, he was put in this position despite what was known. Isn't that the case? >> Um it's not for me, Madam Deputy
[39:45]Speaker, to speak on behalf of uh Peter Mandelson, but evidently he put himself forward for this role, which is how he ended up in the process in the first place. To the question of his
[39:56]appointment, as I've said to the house, the Prime Minister regrets his appointment and apologizes for it, and had he known what the house now knows, he would never have appointed him in the first place. >> Lisa Nandy.
[40:08]Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. In his remarks, the Chief Secretary mentions policy and process weaknesses in our political system, and he's right to do so, but surely the real failure is one of the Prime Minister's
[40:20]judgement. He also talks about the depth of Mandelson's relationship with Epstein not being known, but Mandelson's character was and it was known for a long time. There was a long-standing
[40:31]interview exercise when somebody was applying to be a press officer for the Liberal Democrats. Peter Mandelson has resigned in disgrace again, draft the press release.
[40:41]It is difficult to legislate out poor judgement, but the Chief Secretary has talked about legislating for policy and process weaknesses. When does he plan to
[40:51]bring forward this legislation? >> There are a number of changes that can be made without legislation and I'll be able to update the house on that in due course. That will of course be quicker
[41:01]to implement as a consequence of it not requiring statute. Where we specifically need statutory changes, which I think at this stage will predominantly relate to the removal of peerages from those in the other place that bring their house
[41:13]into disrepute. As I say, we'll bring that forward in the coming months. >> Dr. Poulter. >> I I thank I do thank the Minister for his statement and also for the tone in which he's brought it here today. I
[41:24]think it's been quite an open statement in terms of the discussion, but I think as a government we're serious about the whole agenda of violence against women and girls and I cannot I just cannot conclude that given
[41:35]Mandelson's 75,000 pounds is compatible with that. So so I do hope that he repays it. I mean and I think constituents in Epsom and Ewell are really really concerned about Epstein's links into the British
[41:47]establishment, really concerned. And so and you particularly given the allegations against both Mount Batten-Windsor and also Mandelson himself. Now I know there's a live court case and investigations underway. But
[41:58]can the government commit to a public inquiry into Epstein's links into the British state once these court cases are over? >> My honorable friend will know that there's an ongoing criminal
[42:09]investigation in this country and of course there's investigations in the United States in Congress and and elsewhere. As the Prime Minister has said, anybody that has any relationship
[42:19]or had any relationship with Jeffrey Epstein or any connection to um the events or organizations that he hosted should be readily putting themselves forward to answer any
[42:30]questions and try to help bring justice to the victims who've been waiting for too long. >> Yeah. >> Mr. Speaker, when will the government release Mandelson's declaration of
[42:40]interest, and why is it not included in the documents released today? >> Uh all the documents that are available in relation to Peter Mandelson's appointment and dismissal are published
[42:51]in the tranche today subject to those which have been held back by the Metropolitan Police. All further further documents that relate to Hamble address will be released in the second tranche, uh which will be in the coming weeks. >> Jeff Powell.
[43:02]>> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Chief Secretary rightly referred to a wider set of reforms on openness, accountability, and transparency that will now be considered. And I do welcome Baroness Anderson's appointment to
[43:13]support that work. Um can he assure me that lobbying reform writ large will be in scope of the Ethics and Integrity Commission review, and that will include
[43:24]looking at previous PAC Act reports, including the PAC Act recommendations on the Greensill David Cameron lobbying scandal uh that still haven't been responded to. Um and does he also agree
[43:35]that the antidote uh to the distrust that we've seen in politics can be better public participation. So, I do want to acknowledge the launch of the
[43:44]Citizens' Assembly yesterday. And I I And I And I personally believe I personally believe that more citizens' assemblies is the way to put power
[43:54]closer to the people and away from power and wealth in this country. >> Um can I thank my honorable friend for his question, and also pay tribute to
[44:03]him uh for his years of work on this issue. Um I can confirm that the wide-ranging set of reviews that are taking place today will happily receive submissions from
[44:15]him and others in this place and the other place should they wish to make them and we'll be looking at current and previous reports from the relevant committees in the normal way.
[44:25]>> Okay. On the 11th of December, 2024, just 9 days before the Prime Minister confirmed Mandelson as the new ambassador.
[44:37]These papers showed that he was specifically advised of the JP Morgan report from 2009,
[44:48]which expressly said that Mandelson, after Epstein's conviction for soliciting prostitu- pros- prostitution of a minor, quote,
[45:00]"maintained a particularly close relationship with Epstein after that." Yet, the Prime Minister, a former chief
[45:10]prosecutor, chose in those circumstances, with that information, to believe the lies
[45:21]of Mandelson. How could that be? And given that it is, what does it say about the judgment of our Prime Minister? >> The Prime Minister has said that he
[45:36]regrets believing the lies of Peter Mandelson, and had he known the depth and extent of the relationship that we now all know and have confirmed, he would never have appointed him in the
[45:48]first place. That's why the Prime Minister has apologized and acknowledged that his appointment was a mistake. >> Madam Deputy Speaker, Epstein was a
[45:58]truly despicable criminal and Mandelson's lying and actions with Epstein shamed the nation. But does the Chief Secretary agree with me
[46:09]that what we must not do right now is to compromise criminal investigations that the Met are currently undertaking
[46:18]because to do so would be to fail the victims of Epstein and their families. But can the Chief Secretary also reassure the house that as and when
[46:29]documents do come available, they are published in a timely manner? >> Well said. >> My honorable friend is absolutely right. The victims of Jeffrey Weps of Jeffrey
[46:40]Epstein have for too long had justice delayed or denied. And the the very worst that we could do is to undermine a criminal investigation
[46:51]that may at last bring some justice to the horrors that they had suffered. That's why the government is working closely with the Metropolitan Police to make sure that we do everything we can
[47:00]to not prejudice that investigation. It is why there are some documents, even though we might like to publish them, that we've chosen not to do so at the request of the Metropolitan Police. But
[47:11]I am grateful to the Metropolitan Police for agreeing to allow us to put those documents before the chair of the relevant select committee so that in some way on behalf of the house there
[47:22]can be independent verification that we are not misusing that process in any way to withhold any documents when we are completely to full transparency.
[47:32]>> Chris Law. >> Deputy Speaker, like all statements, it's not just what's in but what's left out. We learn today that the due diligence, which has not been spoken about in any detail in the statement
[47:44]provided to Prime Minister Keir Starmer before Peter Mandelson's appointment as a US Ambassador, warned in a quote a general reputational risk.
[47:55]So it's not just him sitting down on a chat with Mandelson not believing him. He was warned it was a general reputational risk. So, my question to the Minister is very simple. Which feeling does he think the Prime Minister
[48:06]suffers from? Ignorance, arrogance, or both? >> The Prime Minister has apologized for appointing Peter Mandelson as the
[48:17]Ambassador to the United States. He believed the lies that Peter Mandelson put to him in response to questions about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and as soon as all of us, including the Prime Minister, became
[48:29]aware that those were indeed lies with the publication of documents from Bloomberg and the United States Department of Justice, he was dismissed promptly. >> Thank you, Madam Speaker. In my
[48:40]investigations into Palantir, it's been brought to my attention that 20 years ago Peter Mandelson was lobbying the government very hard to take on board a strategic supplier from the States that
[48:52]was not an obvious choice at the time. That sort of decision is something that a financier like Epstein would have made advantage of and made money from.
[49:02]We see the same things with influence and persuasion from Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. Will the government commit to following the money and following the money trail
[49:13]to see that we are not continuing to pay into Epstein's estate through the deals that we are doing with large American contractors such as Palantir?
[49:24]>> Um Madam Deputy Speaker, I'm not um familiar with the details of the case the honorable gentleman raises, but if he wishes to write to me with those details, I can commit to him that we will look at them.
[49:35]>> Final question, Stephen Gethins. >> Madam Deputy Speaker, Madam Deputy Speaker, the um the Minister has said that he wants to be open with us. Now, I put down a series of parliamentary
[49:45]questions about when Peter Mandelson ceased employment at the Foreign Office and I never got a response. They were first tabled on the 4th of February. Now, there was a flurry of emails on the
[49:56]4th of February without any context to them at all. Will he provide the context? Is it a coincidence? Why couldn't you answer Why couldn't the Minister answer my question previously?
[50:08]And if he does want to be open, then let's try another one. He said that Peter Mandelson was fired because he told lies. In that case, he's been given
[50:17]a £75,000 payoff. £35,000 of that was a special severance payment. £30,000 of that was tax-free.
[50:28]Why in F was it tax-free? >> Oh, my >> Um Madam Deputy Speaker, in relation to the tax-free treatment for payments
[50:39]following dismissal without recourse to the employment tribunal, those are the tax rules that exist in all circumstances in this country. The government did not have the legal
[50:48]powers to override them. On his question about parliamentary questions, I think the documents he's hoping to see are being published today, and they of course speak for themselves.
[50:59]>> That is the end of the statement on Lord Mandelson humble address motion update. Point of order, Gregory Stafford. >> On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, during Cabinet Office questions
[51:10]on the 5th of March, the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister informed me that the appointment of the new Director General of the Propriety and Ethics Team was made on an interim basis and in line with the rules. However, I have now
[51:22]received a copy of the Civil Service Recruitment Framework, which states that a temporary promotion, managed move, or the appointment of a single applicant within the senior Civil Service must
[51:31]require ministerial authorization either from the Prime Minister or the relevant Minister before an appointment can be made without an external competition. Given the importance of the transparency
[51:43]and confidence in this government's propriety and ethics system, could you please advise the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, on how members can seek clarification when there appears to be a discrepancy between a minister's
[51:54]statement to the House and the provisions set out in the Civil Service Recruitment Framework 2022? >> I thank the honorable member for his point of order. He will know that I am
[52:05]the chair not responsible for the answers given by ministers. But the minister, as I can see, the Chief Secretary is already here. I think he wishes to respond. Go ahead, Chief Secretary. >> I'm happy to do so, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not recognize the
[52:17]discrepancy. Um as I've said to the House previously, there was a temporary appointment to the role in question within the rules. Uh permanent appointments to that role will be subject to the normal recruitment
[52:27]processes. Uh but if he wishes to write to me with more detail, I'll happily respond to him in writing. >> Hopefully that enables the member. Otherwise, he can obviously pursue this even further. Point of
[52:39]order, Lisa Roberts. >> Has the Speaker received any notice of a statement from the government following the question from my honorable friend, the member of Arbroath and Broughty
[52:51]Ferry, to the Prime Minister this morning regarding the contents of a memo from the Prime Minister to cabinet members advising them to disregard opposition from devolved governments to
[53:02]direct interventions by Westminster ministers? Could she advise me how the long-standing Sewel Convention, which enshrines the protocol that Westminster
[53:12]governments do not intervene in devolved matters in Wales, Scotland, or Northern Ireland, has been respected in this matter? And could you direct me to which bin this has been filed by the government?
[53:24]>> I thank the honorable member for giving notice of her point of order. I have received no such indication from the government, but I can see that the Chief Secretary wishes to respond in person once again. >> Uh
[53:37]thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The issues raised in the cabinet note that's been uh I understand leaked to journalists are important and the government takes them seriously. The Sewel convention is
[53:48]an important framework for the role in which the UK government respects the devolved responsibilities of devolved governments, one for which I am the responsible minister, which is why I have repeated engagement with the First and Deputy First Ministers of the
[53:59]devolved governments about our relationship working together. However, I will just remind the House that devolved governments are important, but in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland there are two governments, the UK government and the devolved government.
[54:11]That's why we were saying the right to deliver for the people of Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland as well as in England. >> Point of order, Stephen Gethins. >> Point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can I firstly apologize to you that I've
[54:23]not been able to give you notice of this, but this is in reference to the response and to the documents. I put down a written parliamentary question about when Peter Mandelson left his
[54:32]employment on the 4th of February. The emails on the 4th of February show that officials knew the answer to that question the 16th of October. Yet, not only was my question late when it came
[54:44]back and I had to put down a second question, but no answer was forthcoming. Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, we have a role here and a job >> Mhm.