[0:00]embassy spy hub but failed to secure Jimmy's release. So, can the minister have some backbone now and tell us exactly what details were discussed
[0:09]between the prime minister and she? Did he call for Jimmy to come back home? Did he demand access to the health care he needs? The official readout of the meeting published from Downing Street on the website didn't even mention Jimmy
[0:21]Li's name. So, we need answers, Mr. Speaker. Jimmy's family and the whole country want to know when will this weak and pathetic Labor government finally
[0:32]stand up to China and show some backbone and will the foreign secretary actually do something such as summon the Chinese ambassador and prepare a list of diplomats to expel in response to
[0:42]China's refusal to free Jimmy Lie will the government revoke the planning permission granted for this embassy the super embassy spy hub will China now be placed on the enhanced tier of furs at
[0:54]long ask and will the UK holding the presidency of the UN Security Council actually take some ep steps now and ask what diplomatic steps will be taken to
[1:05]escalate this case put some pressure on China for once and secure global support for Jimmy's release Jimmy must be freed now and I have to say this is a day of
[1:15]shame for this weak Labor government and its failure to stand up for Yeah. Uh let me uh thank the shadow foreign
[1:27]secretary uh for her comments, but to also say that she will know that this is a situation that has been ongoing
[1:38]uh before we were in government and that we continue and that we continue to seek the release of Jimmy Lie immediately.
[1:49]She will know that we we assess Jimmy Li's prosecution to be politically motivated and she will know that in order
[2:00]to have the conversation with the Chinese government, you need to be in the same room. That's why
[2:10]that's why the prime minister raised this on his visit and we continue to raise this at every level of government and at every opportunity to do so.
[2:22]The honorable lady, right honorable lady will also know that on the instruction of the foreign secretary, the British council general also attended the
[2:32]sentencing and that we continue to keep in regular touch with the family. She will also know [clears throat] that we continue to do all that we can
[2:43]publicly and privately to secure the release of Jimmy Lie and that is what we will continue to do so. >> Rachel Blake.
[2:53]>> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I can see that the whole house is angered by this sentencing, but no one is more devastated than Jimmy Liy's family.
[3:04]Jimmy is a British citizen. There must be a every single international pressure must be put on the Chinese government now to secure a humanitarian response to
[3:15]the situation we find. Can the minister tell us how that we will be building an international coalition to restore that pressure to to secure a humanitarian response?
[3:26]Minister, >> I thank um my uh honorable friend for her um uh for her comments and indeed for the work that she has done on behalf
[3:38]of her constituent and I can confirm that we are in discussion uh with our allies including the uh US and uh
[3:47]Australia and uh Canada and the EU on doing what we can internationally to continue to advocate and secure for the release the immediate release of Jimmy
[3:59]Lie >> Lisa Smart Liberal Democrat spokesperson. >> Thank you >> very much Mr. Speaker. I know that the whole house shares my horror and disgust at the politically motivated imprisonment conviction and sentencing
[4:09]of Jimmy Lie. Last week following his trip to Beijing, the prime minister suggested that he could change outcomes for Jimmy Lie and Hong Kongers by speaking softly with President Xi. >> It's clear now that the prime minister's
[4:21]trip to Beijing failed spectacularly to secure Mr. lies released. Has the government summoned the Chinese ambassador to make clear this house's shared outrage? >> Jimmy Liy's experience is the most
[4:33]visible example in terms of Beijing's efforts to suppress any and all criticism of the CCP, but it is far from the only one. Pro-democracy Hong Kong activists living in the UK continue to
[4:43]face intimidation, repression, and threats from Beijing. Could the minister provide any guarantees to those Hong Kongers that they will not face further persecution or intimidation at the hands
[4:54]of the CCP? >> Minister, >> um thank um [clears throat] the honorable member for her comments and if
[5:02]I can uh um also uh share that um uh that we continue to uh raise Jimmy Li's case publicly and privately with the
[5:13]Chinese government. And it is important also to uh to uh note that uh in December when we uh did summon the ambassador at the verdict, senior
[5:25]officials in the FCDO summoned the Chinese ambassador to convene the development in the strongest terms and there is a public readout of those
[5:34]representations made uh during uh that meeting. Uh and what is uh continuing to be the case is that any attempt by any
[5:44]foreign state to intimidate or to harass or harm individuals in the United Kingdom will not be tolerated. Uh and we have taken uh action uh to do more to
[5:55]support law enforcement and training in this country to make sure that that is the case. >> Um Mr. Speaker, many of Jimmy Li's family, including his son, Sebastian,
[6:07]are my constituents. Uh they are devastated by today's sentence. Uh that risks been a death sentence for a 78-year-old British citizen, a much
[6:18]longer sentence than any of the codefendants and the longest ever under the National Security Law. Um, can the minister reassure this house that it is the government's position that now this
[6:29]sham trial is over, that there are no more phony procedural reasons for us to work with our international allies to negotiate Jimmy's release? >> Minister,
[6:41]>> I thank my honorable friend and indeed for the work he has done to support uh the family. And let me be clear that we see this as a uh as a politically
[6:52]motivated prosecution and we believe and we continue to state that he should be released immediately and we will continue to work directly with the
[7:03]Chinese government raising our concerns and our views in public and in private. continue to engage closely with the
[7:12]family and indeed continue to work with our allies as I have uh already uh mentioned and she he will also know that
[7:22]this is a case that the foreign secretary has also discussed with Secretary Rubio and officials are also in regular contact on the matter with the US government.
[7:34]>> Tom Chandar. >> Thank you Mr. Speaker. Um Mr. Speaker, many of this in this house was sanctioned by China and the prime minister went over and managed to sell
[7:44]somehow the partial unsanctioning of a few of us as a victory. I would have welcomed a victory which would have been the release of Jimmy Lie, but sadly the
[7:54]prime minister conceded all of his cards before getting on the plane, leaving himself nothing to negotiate. >> Couldn't the minister find anything else that maybe China wants that he could
[8:05]negotiate with? Maybe the prime minister could offer them the aisle of white or perhaps the outer heedes. He's trying to give away everything else anyway and at least the job of the prime minister would then be to protect a British
[8:16]citizen and one who as we all recognize has now been given a death sentence by the Chinese not the Hong Kong authorities. >> Lovely minister.
[8:28]>> Uh thank you Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I can answer the substance of that question with a more serious response, which is this, which is that it was important to
[8:37]see progress that was made on lifting the ban of parliamentarians to be free to travel to China. And what the prime
[8:47]minister said last week is absolutely right that there is more to do and it is important to get clarity
[8:58]>> on how we move forward where those bans have not been lifted and it is very important that we continue to see that progress. >> David Smith.
[9:09]>> Mr. Speaker, I have to say it's really disappointing to see the opposition front bench treat this as it's some kind of party political issue and that they don't have they don't have a monopoly on outrage about this and this really
[9:20]should be a this really should be a cross party issue. >> So I'll ask my uh right honorable friend the minister a specific element as she works and the government works for the
[9:31]release of Jimmy Lie in this outrage. Can she also keep in consideration his freedom of religion or belief because I understand that he's been denied access to the Eucharist as well. And so as
[9:42]we're making representations on his behalf, as all of us should be, can we keep that in mind? out. >> I thank my um honorable friend for his
[9:53]uh question and indeed for the work that he does uh as our envoy on uh the freedom of religion and belief and certainly that is a matter that we continue to keep uh and to and to
[10:05]continue to advocate for on his behalf. >> Andrew Mitchell. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, now is not the time to lambast the Chinese
[10:15]government for the wider issues between us, but to focus 100% on securing clemency for Jimmy Li. Surely the
[10:25]granting of clemency and a one-way ticket back to the UK and to his family will be a win for everyone, including the Chinese. Minister,
[10:37]>> I thank uh the right honorable member and perhaps on this we can agree that we do want to see an immediate release. We want to see uh that there is an immediate release on humanitarian
[10:47]grounds so that he can be reunited with his family and he must be supported as well to receive that vital independent
[10:56]medical treatment to support his health and his well-being right now. respond premises. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Last year, the
[11:06]UN working group on arbitrary detention ruled that Mr. Lie has been unlawfully and arbitrarily detained. In 2022,
[11:16]the same UN working group concluded the same for Jagtar Johal. Today, Jagtar turns 39 and instead of celebrating,
[11:26]he's languishing in a foreign prison like Jimmy Lie. I caution the government that if we don't stand up for our citizens unlawfully imprisoned abroad, we risk becoming beholden to the whims
[11:38]of others rather than rather than standing on pr firm principles. So how is the government making meaningful
[11:46]representation to our Indian and Chinese counterparts to bring these British citizens home? >> That's been well woven in. Minister, [laughter]
[11:57]>> uh I Mr. Speaker, let me thank my honorable friend and in relation to uh Jimmy Lie uh let me say that we take the
[12:06]UN working group's opinion incredibly seriously. That's why we continue to call for Mr. Mr. Li's uh immediate release and in relation to uh Jagtar
[12:17]Singh Joel he will know also the work that we continue to do. >> Sir John Wittinger. Thank you Mr. Speaker. Um, in December I asked the prime minister to make clear that his
[12:28]visit to Beijing could only go ahead if Jimmy Lie was released. He responded to me, "It is important that we continue to engage so that we can raise this issue."
[12:37]That clearly achieved nothing. But will the minister also bear in mind that alongside Jimmy Lie, six other senior members of Apple Daily received lengthy
[12:49]present sentences in what RSF have described as the complete collapse of press freedom in Hong Kong? And will she say what action the government will take
[13:01]in the two-eek period before uh in which an appeal has to be lodged to make sure that not just Jimmy lie but all of them are released.
[13:10]>> Minister >> uh let me thank uh the right on right honorable member and uh he will know that in relation to um the appeal that
[13:21]will be a matter for um uh Mr. Lie, Jimmy Lie, his family and his legal team. uh but he is right that it is
[13:31]important that we continue to call uh for an end to the national security law and for the release of all those who are being held or prosecuted under it. That
[13:42]is our position and it will continue to be so do >> thank you Mr. Speaker, as chair of the allp parliamentary group on Hong Kong, I
[13:52]just want to absolutely say on behalf of many of the members of that group and myself how horrified we are. This case
[14:01]exemplifies the systematic dismantling of Hong Kong's judicial independence. The proceedings under the national security law do not operate within the
[14:11]independent or impartial judicial framework. Judges are designated by the Hong Kong SAR executive. Trials are conducted without juries. Evidential thresholds are lowered and the
[14:22]fundamental presumption of principle of insert of of innocence is gone. How is the government going to take on not just on behalf of Jimmy Lie but
[14:33]under for all the Hong Kong who live here in the UK that we will protect them from this nefarious activity and illegal
[14:43]law. Minister, >> uh it is um absolutely the case uh that we continue to be concerned about the
[14:54]erosion of freedoms and she will have seen that be um expressed in the six monthly reports that are also published
[15:03]uh by um the foreign office. We continue to stand and we will always stand with the people of Hong Kong and it is essential that we continue to see the
[15:15]honoring of historic commitments that were made under the legally binding Sino British joint declaration and it is absolutely clear that China must do the
[15:26]same. Glad Mr. >> Speaker, Jimmy Liy's conviction is, as my honorable friend said, a massive failure for Saki Starmer, who said he
[15:35]could change outcomes. This sends a worrying signal to Hong Kongers living in Wokingham and across the UK. >> Many Hong Kongers face intimidation from China when they are simply standing up
[15:47]for their civil liberties. So what steps is the government taking to protect pro-democracy Hong Kongers in Wokingham and across the UK who feel themselves to
[15:58]be under threat from Chinese authorities in our country. These residents are very concerned and many of them feel for
[16:08]their lives. Minister, >> uh let uh let me thank the honorable member for his important question and it
[16:16]is essential that we continue uh to make sure that any attempt by a foreign state to harass or intimidate uh or to harm
[16:26]individuals in the UK must not be tolerated. It is the reason why we are supporting increased training and support for law enforcement uh in
[16:36]relation to these matters so that they can be dealt with the uh with the urgency that is required and also the intelligence that is also uh important
[16:47]uh to be sharing and let me also say that in relation to um uh Jimmy Lie and the prime minister's visit look I will
[16:58]uh disagree with members of this house who are seeking to make this a party political matter. Jimmy Lie has been in prison since before this government came
[17:08]in to power and we continue to work as we should across the house to do all we can to make sure that we are not just advocating for his release but that this
[17:20]remains a priority for the government as it is and that we continue to work to have his release as immediately on on humanitarian grounds.
[17:30]>> Stell thank you very much Mr. Speaker, and I do thank the minister for her answers. But I think it's fair to say that when the sentence was passed down, the CCP baked into our reaction that we
[17:42]would reiterate calls for release, that we would put out warm words of uh demands towards the uh well-being of Jimmy L. There are of course concerns now that he may be transferred to prison
[17:52]inside China where access to that legal representation will be even more difficult. So could I ask the minister what practical and tangible changes will
[18:02]happen today as a result of this shift in the relationship with China now that they have sentenced a British citizen to 20 years? And is she able to say a bit about what actions her department are
[18:13]going to take in the weeks ahead to give practical support to Jimmy Li so that this isn't another statement or question in a few weeks time lamenting an appeal that was unsuccessful.
[18:24]Minister, >> um let me uh just reiterate um uh in relation to my honorable friend's
[18:32]question that we continue to work with our allies and also to speak directly with China. That is both public and also
[18:44]private in terms of the work we continue to do to secure his release. The government also remains in close contact with Mr. Li's family to discuss the
[18:56]actions that we are taking and we will continue to do this because securing the release of Mr. Lie remains a priority for this government and for the prime
[19:07]minister. >> So Desmond Sway >> can I say to my honorable friend and to the minister that this is not PARTY POLITICAL. THE LAST GOVERNMENT were as bad if not worse.
[19:18]The reality is the what the honorable lady spoke about condemnation in the strongest terms. That is a complete
[19:27]waste of breath. They understand one thing and that that there has to be a cost. Will she sanction those responsible? >> Uh Mr. speaker. Um uh I think the
[19:45]honorable member um uh I think will perhaps disagree, but I think the the key the key point is that you can't move
[19:56]forward unless you're in dialogue. And that is why what the prime minister did in going to China and in raising this directly has opened the doors to further
[20:07]conversation. And it is important to say that we continue to advocate for the release of Mr. Lie in public and in
[20:18]private and that we remain in close contact with Mr. Lie's family on the steps that we are taking. >> Alex, >> thank you, Mr. Speaker. The the
[20:28]government's been pretty generous to the Chinese government. First the embassy, then the prime minister's visit to China, trade concessions, and in return the Chinese government have conferred a
[20:39]death sentence on Jimmy Lie. Um, will those responsible in Hong Kong, the administration judiciary that undertook this politia motivation trial, will they welcome in the United Kingdom or will
[20:50]they be sanctioned? >> Minister, >> um, I thank uh I thank my honorable friend for um for his question. uh and
[21:00]he will know in relation to what we have said how important it is that we continue to see that what we have um
[21:10]seen under the um Sino British uh declaration is upheld and that we expect those standards under the declaration
[21:20]not just to be held in relation to those historic commitments by Britain but that we expect China to do the same. Steven Gins. Thank >> you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the
[21:31]minister will be aware that there's cross party consensus that we are horrified by the jailing of Jimmy Lie, but she'll also be aware that there are consequences when a UK government is
[21:41]perceived as being weak and they have consequences for British citizens. Now, she said that the prime minister spoke softly. He also spoke ineffectively.
[21:53]>> So, will she tell us what's next? Perhaps I can just say um uh again what I um uh
[22:03]what I have shared with the house today that in relation to the announcement today that we continue to uh advocate
[22:14]for his release publicly and privately. We have not hidden our view over the p imprisonment of Jimmy Lie. We have not
[22:24]hidden that we see this as politically motivated. We have said clearly and unequivocally that he should be released
[22:33]on humanitarian grounds. That remains a priority for this government and it remains a priority for the prime minister and he will know that.
[22:44]>> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Parallel to the terrible injustice inflicted on Jimmy Lie, my constituent Khloe Chung still
[22:53]has to live with a 100,000 bounty on her head. Her resolve has never been stronger. I spoke with her this weekend despite knowing that anyone in the UK
[23:03]can claim that bounty. So, in the spirit of keeping the conversation going, can I ask the minister to use everything in her power to convince the CCP to lift
[23:14]that bounty from Khloe and indeed all the other UK residents who currently have bounties placed on them under Hong Kong's national security law. And the only crime these people have committed
[23:26]is telling the truth about the repressive regime in Hong Kong. Minister, >> uh I thank my honorable friend and I do agree with him. And what I will also say
[23:37]is that uh we will not tolerate this harassment and intimidation in the UK and the safety of Hong Kongers in the UK
[23:47]is of the utmost importance for the government. He will also know that training and guidance, as I've said, on state threats activity is now being
[23:56]offered by counterterrorism police to all 45 uh territorial uh police forces across the United Kingdom. And this includes upskilling dedicated 999 call
[24:08]handlers on TNR, which maybe the last government did as much of. I don't know.
[24:15]This new package of training allows >> this new package of training does allow frontline police officers and staff to increase their understanding of the
[24:26]threats that foreign powers present. And we will continue to work with my honorable friend in relation to his constituents. I >> I I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, but this is
[24:36]really hopeless. Uh I I mean no disrespect to this particular minister, but I'm sure you've noticed as I have that whenever something indefensible
[24:47]comes up, they always put middle ranking or junior ministers in the front line. Why isn't the maybe she's abroad, maybe she's in her sick bed, but otherwise why
[24:59]isn't the foreign secretary voluntarily making rather than sending someone else to take the flag in this position which really
[25:10]really is is not fitting of the outrage that honorable members and there are honorable members on both sides feel about the fate of Jimmy L. >> Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure whether
[25:24]to take part of that as a compliment uh in relation to uh not being directly targeted, but as the minister for the Indopacific, it is a case in which I
[25:35]take great interest and it is important that we are here in front of the house today. The minister has read Confucious, the
[25:47]Chinese philosopher 2 and a half thousand years ago, uh I believe, and the silver rule, which talks about mercy and compassion. [cough] And whilst all of us in this house will
[25:58]continue to campaign for Jimmy Li's release, could the minister at least confirm whether there is consular access to Jimmy Lie, not just consular
[26:08]communication, and would she call upon President Xi, who no doubt has studied uh Confucious, to revisit compassion and mercy, and at least allow medical treatment, correct diet, and allow Jimmy
[26:20]Lie to be released from solitary confinement? Minister, >> Mr. Speaker, the um honorable uh member may already be aware that we continue to
[26:30]seek consular access and that it is uh important uh that we continue to advocate for the release uh of Jimi on
[26:41]humanitarian grounds. And I'm sure that that message is one that is going out loud and clear from this house. >> Dr. run. >> Speaker, the Trump administration is not
[26:51]known for its record on human rights and yet the US has been perfectly prepared to sanction Chinese officials, CCP
[27:01]officials who have been abusive. And yet the UK has sanctioned nobody. Why is that? And when will the judges and prosecutors involved in Jimmy Li sham
[27:12]trial be sanctioned by this government? Yeah, >> minister. >> Uh I thank uh the honorable member for
[27:22]his uh question and what I will say is that in relation to um uh what we expect to see happening in Hong Kong that it is
[27:32]unacceptable that we have not seen those commitments those historic commitments that we made at the time of the Sino British joint declaration be upheld. It
[27:43]remains a matter of concern that the national security law was brought in at all and it remains a matter of concern that people are being uh prosecuted under that and that we seek an end to
[27:54]the national security law and that we seek the immediate release of Jimmy L. >> Jim Al. Mr. Speaker, strong words of condemnation
[28:04]are appropriate and necessary. But when will the government's actions match those words of condemnation?
[28:12]>> Yeah. Yeah. Minister, >> Mr. Speaker, I think that the uh the honorable member will know that to have
[28:23]a case that is a priority for the government that is raised at every opportunity at every level of government and that we continue to work on publicly
[28:34]and privately. It is a matter of great concern, I know, to this house and to the country and that we will want to see all of us working as much as we can and
[28:45]wherever we can to see the release of Jimmy Li. That is our priority. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the prime minister was happy to drop back from China, heralding the successes of
[28:56]the visit without having secured the release of Jimmy Lie. And now we see Jimmy faces this 20-year prison sentence in effect, a life sentence. Does the minister think that was a price worth paying?
[29:07]>> Minister, >> Mr. Speaker, I um I will just reiterate again that what is the most important thing is that we focus on doing everything we can to secure the release
[29:18]of Jimmy Li. That is our priority and we will continue to raise this matter publicly and privately and continue to
[29:30]be in close contact with the family on the steps that we're taking. >> The best check. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Um the minister appears to have come to the chamber today with absolutely nothing to say.
[29:40]>> Uh the recent visit to China was an absolute disaster where people took burner phones, we took a burner plane, we even appeared to take a burner prime minister. >> [laughter]
[29:53]>> So the minister has recently said earlier in the statement she made reference to progress being made in these discussions. So can she outline exactly what progress has been made and
[30:03]can she also outline what the response was from the Chinese government when the prime minister raised the case of Jimmy Li with them directly? >> Minister,
[30:13]>> Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's recent visit allowed us to open up discussion and dialogue, directly directly with the
[30:23]Chinese government at the highest level. Something it seems to me that the party opposite have forgotten is actually quite important in having a discussion
[30:32]and dialogue, including on incredibly difficult issues with other governments. There is absolutely no point trying to
[30:43]call for something when you are shouting into a void and they should know better because it is much better to have a relationship that allows us to make our
[30:53]case directly to the Chinese president rather than talking to ourselves. And as the prime minister has said, the purpose of engaging is to seize the
[31:04]opportunities that open up as a result of engagement. but also to provide an opportunity for those discussions. If
[31:13]you sit outside the room, if you refuse to engage, you can't even have the conversation. And so I come back to the point that I
[31:24]have made a number of times in the chamber today that we continue those discussions publicly and privately to
[31:34]secure the release of Jimmy Lie. That is this government's priority. >> Jim Sh. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And uh the
[31:44]minister has heard me asking for uh interventions numerous times over the last number of years on behalf of British citizen Jimmy Lie as others have in this house indeed collectively very strong. And now the sham trial has ended
[31:55]and unsurprisingly Jimmy will be held in unknown conditions for 20 years until he is 98 years of age if he lives that long denied his religious beliefs no mass and
[32:06]and unable to worship as God as he so wished to do. Mr. Speaker, this surely cannot be acceptable to this government whose prime minister and attorney general have been at the forefront of
[32:16]using human rights as a planetaria for every decision. Are we truly in this house to believe that government abandonment of Hong Kong has meant there are not options for those who are
[32:27]British in Hong Kong and whose only crime is not agreeing with Beijing? >> Yeah. Minister, >> uh I thank the honorable gentleman and indeed the right the honorable
[32:39]gentleman. He will also uh um appreciate the importance of wanting to see progress in this case. He is right to
[32:49]actually see 20 years as the sentence which is tantamount to a life sentence or indeed has been said in this house a death sentence is unacceptable. That is
[32:59]why we continue to call for the release of Jimmy Lie and it is important that we see that release on humanitarian grounds.
[33:09]>> Right, that completes the urgent question. Let the front benches change over >> statement. Duran Jones.
[33:29]Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Last week, I came to the House in the wake of information released by the United States Department for Justice around the depth and extent of Peter Manderson's
[33:40]relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. I outlined immediate steps this government took, including initial review of material which ultimately led to a referral to the Metropolitan Police and
[33:50]steps taken to modernize the disciplinary procedures to allow for the removal of peers who have brought the House of Lords into disrepute. I'm here today, Mr. Speaker, to update the House on further action the
[34:01]government will take to rebuild trust in public life in the wake of these damaging revelations since my statement last week. >> I'll finish the statement first if I may. Uh, Mr. Speaker, I am assure the
[34:11]House will agree with me. Uh the issues of standards, while important in and of themselves, do not meet the scale of
[34:20]disgust that we all have when we see powerful rich men misuse their positions to abuse women and girls. These
[34:31]procedural rules and the rules that I will talk to the House about today, Mr. Speaker, are important given what has been able to happen in the past. But we should start by recognizing that our
[34:41]response collectively requires wider changes in the culture and use of power wherever it rests. >> This goes to the heart of who my right
[34:52]honorable friend the prime minister is. It is why he became a human rights lawyer in the first place, why he became the director for public prosecutions and why he changed the current
[35:03]prosecution service to be more victimsoriented. and it is why he became prime minister. Mr. Speaker, as I set out last week, Jeffrey Epstein was a despicable
[35:15]criminal who committed disgusting crimes. >> The Epstein scandal is another awful example of a culture that did not value the lives, let alone the voices of women
[35:26]and girls. The series and sequencing of events across the last week has rightly made clear to us all that for too long and too often influential people in
[35:38]positions of power, overwhelmingly men, have been able to avoid proper and just scrutiny because of the perverse power structures that incentivize their belief
[35:49]that rules do not apply to them. And if I may say so, Mr. Speaker, members chtering from the benches opposite whilst I am talking about the victims of sexual abuse and abuse of power should
[36:00]know better and should recognize that they should be quiet and listen when we are talking about the victims and the justice they deserve to seek.
[36:11]>> Peter Mandlesson's disgraceful behavior raises a number of questions about the ability of the current standard system to catch those few who seek to break our
[36:22]rules. This damages all of us across the house. The vast majority of public servants, whether officials or elected members, come to serve the public, not
[36:33]themselves. This house, indeed this building, is full of people working hard, unsociable hours, making significant personal sacrifices in order to try and make a
[36:44]difference to people's lives, to do what is best for their country, to fight for their communities, to use their position in this place to give a voice to those whose voices are too often not heard.
[36:55]>> The issues associated with Peter Mandon, however, show that we must go further to ensure that no one can ever again behave in this way. Since entering government, Mr. Speaker,
[37:06]we have delivered on our manifesto promises to strengthen the role of the independent adviser and we have set up the ethics and integrity commission whilst also publishing ministers interests, gifts and hospitalities more
[37:18]frequently and reforming severance payments to ensure that they are proportionate and fair. This is significant and important reform after years of repeated ethics scandals under
[37:28]the last administration. This includes restricting payments for ministers leaving office following a ser serious breach of the ministerial code
[37:39]and requiring repayment of severance for those found to be in breach of the business appointment rules. Mr. Speaker, it's also why the government has introduced the public office accountability bill, a landmark piece of
[37:50]legislation to tackle injustice so that when tragedy strikes, the state is called to account. In response to the latest revelations in the past week, the prime minister has
[38:01]confirmed that the government will bring forward legislation to ensure parages can be removed from disgraced peers and that Peter Manderson will be removed from the list of privy counselors.
[38:12]And we are changing the process for the relevant direct ministerial appointments including politically appointed diplomatic roles so that in cases where the role requires access to highly classified material, the selected
[38:24]candidate must have passed through the requisite national security vetting process before such appointments are announced or confirmed. But Mr. Speaker, we recognize we need to go further.
[38:35]We will work with the newly established ethics and integrity commission to ensure that it achieves its aims of promoting the highest standards in public life. We will consider whether the current arrangements for the
[38:46]declaration and publication of financial interests for ministers and senior government officials are sufficient and whether in the future regular published financial disclosure forms or other additional transparency measures should
[38:58]be used. We will look closely at our system for providing transparency around lobbying and Mr. Speaker, it is clear that we should consider again the use of non-corporate communications channels
[39:08]within government. Revelations from the Epstein files have shown that it has been far too easy to forward sensitive information via unofficial channels. There is a lack of clarity about the use of non-corporate communication channels
[39:20]within government which has raised concerns about the security of official information. As members on the benches opposite know from their former ministers who also forwarded information
[39:31]information from the government via private email accounts to people when they shouldn't. The government recognizes the consistent cause for a strategic review of these channels, the role they play in government, the legal
[39:42]framework in which they sit, and whether the current codes of conduct and guidance relating to them are effective. Mr. Speaker, this work will focus on the issues for government, but will complement a range of work being carried
[39:52]out in both this house and in the other place. The government is committed to the principle that second jobs for members of parliament should be banned outside of very limited exceptions such as
[40:02]maintaining professional qualification. The committee on standards is currently conducting an inquiry into second jobs and we are working with the committee to deliver meaningful change as quickly as
[40:12]possible. The house is considering the legislation currently before parliament to introduce a duty of cander and the prime minister has been clear that we will bring forward legislation to enable the removal of perigages from those who
[40:23]bought the house of lords into dispute and Mr. Speaker the government will ask the lord's conduct committee to expand its work reviewing the code of conduct in the other place to consider whether standards issues including the rules
[40:34]relating to peers and lobbying need to be reformed. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to provide the House with an update on the response to the humble address motion passed by the House last Wednesday. The government is committed
[40:45]to publishing all relevant documents in line with the motion agreed by the House and is working at pace to do so. As the House agreed on Wednesday, papers which the government believes should not be published on national security or
[40:56]international relations grounds will be referred to the intelligence and security committee of parliament. The prime minister wrote to the chair of the committee on Friday acknowledging that it is important that documents are made
[41:07]available to parliament as soon as possible. And as the prime minister has set out, the government is committed to being as transparent as soon as possible and in full compliance with the motion. The prime minister has asked the cabinet
[41:18]secretary to leers with the intelligence and security committee and I will ensure that the house is kept undated on this work. Mr. Speaker, we have all been appalled at Jeffrey Epstein's disgusting
[41:28]crimes and Peter Manderson's despicable behavior. It is utterly contrary to what the prime minister stands for and the values at the heart of this government. We are resolute in our commitment to
[41:40]fighting men's violence against women and girls and supporting their victims. Delivering on this mission is a critical part of our response to the terrible misogyny at the heart of the Epstein
[41:50]scandal. We also recognize that Peter Manderson's behavior has posed difficult questions about our safeguards against corruption. I have set out today, Mr. Speaker, the steps the government is
[42:01]taking to ensure that the British public can have confidence in the integrity of public life and I will continue to update the house as I said last Monday and today on these matter as our works develop. Mr. Speaker, I commend the
[42:12]statement to the house. >> Shut a minute. >> Points. >> They can't have points forward. They were just beginning the debate. So that's the rules of the house. I'm not going to change them especially for
[42:22]you. Neil O'Brien. Shut the minister. >> Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the minister for advanceite of his statement. Mr. Speaker, the prime minister's authority is gone and his
[42:34]government is starting to collapse. But the PM's decision to appoint Peter Manderson raises massive questions about standards in public life. Questions which the minister's statement today just doesn't answer.
[42:46]>> Mr. Speaker, advisers advise but ministers decide. >> And on that basis, can the minister explain why it was right for Morgan Mweeni to resign but not right for the
[42:57]prime minister to resign? Morgan Mswini might have provided the advice, but it was the prime minister who made the decision to appoint the best friend of the world's most notorious pedophile to
[43:09]be her majesty's his majesty's ambassador in Washington. And the PM did this despite knowing that Mandlesson had stayed in Epstein's house while he was in jail for child prostitution. The
[43:20]problem is not the structures or the processes. The information was there. The warnings were there. The problem is that the prime minister had all that
[43:29]before him and yet chose to ignore it. He cannot keep blaming others. He cannot blame the process. He must start taking personal responsibility for the the
[43:40]record of this government on standards is truly extraordinary. First, the prime minister was embroiled in the freebies scandal. £107,000 in gifts given to him since 2019 and a
[43:51]personal donor being given at Downing Street Pass. Then the prime minister was reprimanded by his own ethics adviser over the appointment of a non-disclosed labor donor to be the football
[44:01]regulator. his transport secretary and ex- cop had to resign over misleading the police. His anti-corruption minister had to resign over corruption. His homelessness minister had to resign for making people homeless. And then his
[44:12]deputy prime minister, housing minister, had to resign over a £40,000 unpaid tax bill on her house. >> No wonder even the leader of the Scottish Labor Party now says that the
[44:24]PM must go. >> Mr. Saw says, and I quote, "There have been too many mistakes and that he has no choice but to be honest about failure
[44:33]where I see it." He is right. Now, let me turn to some specific questions. First, can the minister confirm whether Peter Manderson received a golden goodbye severance payment signed off by
[44:43]the government? Why has the government refused to answer this question since September? It's been reported that the golden goodbye was between 39 and £55,000,
[44:53]more than the average person earns in a year. Mr. Speaker, this is grotesque. And what steps is the government taking to retrieve this incredible payment for resigning in disgrace? It sounded from the minister like he was saying he
[45:05]couldn't do it. I have to remind the minister at the moment at least they are actually the government. They can take action. Second, will the government agree to a full investigation into Peter
[45:16]Manderson's behavior while he was our ambassador? On 27th of February, Manderson arranged for the prime minister to meet Palanteer, a client of Global Council, his own company. It was not recorded in the prime minister's
[45:26]register of meetings. It only emerged later. Palanteer were then directly awarded a 250 240 million pound contract by the government. I make no criticism of Palunteer. My point is simply why wasn't it recorded? How many more such
[45:38]lobbyist meetings with the PM were there? And what other inside information was being shared? Will he agree yes or no to a full inquiry into Mandlesson's time as our ambassador? >> Yeah. Third, let me ask about another
[45:50]New Labor veteran put forward for a public office despite his known association with a pedophile. Number 10 have said that they investigated Matthew Doyle's relationship with a convicted
[46:01]pedophile, Sha Morton. Number 10 gave Doyle, the PM's former director of communications, Appir after purportedly examining this matter. But they have never clarified whether their
[46:11]relationship continued after Morton's conviction. If Doyle cut ties with Morton upon his conviction, why doesn't the government just say so? So I asked the chief secretary to clarify this and
[46:23]will he agree to publish all the documents relating to that appointment? Fourth, the chief secretary told the house on 2nd of February that a review of the decision to appoint Manderson was underway. What form will it take? Will a
[46:35]statement be laid before parliament? When will Mandlesson be interviewed as part of that review? Will it include the potential involvement of hostile intelligence services? And finally, has the government substantively responded
[46:46]to the ISC's request for more resourcing so it can do its job properly in reviewing the papers that are about to be released? >> Mr. Speaker, >> no amount of process or fiddling about
[46:57]with procedures can compensate for a prime minister who lacked the judgment to act on information put before him. >> The prime minister was warned about Mandlesson. He knew, but he decided it
[47:09]was a risk worth taking. And as the leader of the Scottish Labor Party pointed out today, it's not just the Mandlesson affair. Time and time again, the prime minister gets it wrong. From the winter fuel payment to the family
[47:21]farm tax. >> And just like with the grooming gangs inquiry, the PM has once again put his own political interest ahead of the interests of victims. >> Mr. Speaker,
[47:32]>> at the start of his statement, the minister says the PM's choices in this case go to the heart of who he is, and that is what we are worried about. Mr. Speaker,
[47:42]>> the PM's head of communications has resigned. The PM's chief of staff has resigned. The leader of the Scottish Labor Party says the prime minister should resign.
[47:53]>> It seems like more and more people, even in the Labor Party, are now coming to the same conclusion as the public. This country deserves better. >> Minister Doran Jones.
[48:08]>> Um, thank you, uh, Mr. Speaker, I I would remind the um the honorable gentleman that the public had their say at the last general election and elected
[48:18]a landslide Labor majority and put the party opposite into a historic historic defeat. And and might I say that one of the reasons in my view, Mr. speaker,
[48:29]that the public booted that lie of office was because of the repeated failings in standards and ethics from the PPE contracts to dodgy friends to lying to parliament to the sex
[48:40]misconduct scandals. And he says to me, why is it that ministers that have breached the code have resigned because we fixed the system. The reason we have an independent ethics adviser who can't
[48:51]be directed by the prime minister as was the case under the previous party is because it is independent. And where ministers have been found to break the code, they have gone because that should
[49:00]be the consequence for doing so. The honorable member has asked me um about what the prime minister knew at the time of Peter Mandlesson's appointment. The prime minister has answered this
[49:10]question repeatedly. Mr. Speaker, >> the information that has came come out since his appointment has made it clear that Peter lied to the prime minister about the state of his relationship with
[49:21]Jeffrey Epstein. And had the prime minister had known then at the point of appointment what we all know now with the privilege of hindsight he would not have appointed him in the first place.
[49:32]He asked me a number of questions about the process I think in which flow from the humble address as I've already informed the house Mr. Speaker, the government is working with the uh leadership of the intelligence and
[49:42]security committee to ensure that we can comply with the humble address and cooperate with transparency to release the documents in the way that we have said we will in compliance with the Met Police investigation and other
[49:52]constraints which are currently being uh managed and we will ensure that the intelligence and security committee is given all the available support it needs to be able to service the house effectively in line with the humble
[50:03]address. >> Is that it? >> Where should we go? De memberly Thornbury. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Um, I'm grateful to the u to the right
[50:13]honorable gentleman for uh for for his speech and for telling us that direct uh relevant direct ministerial appointments, including politically appointed diplomatic roles um where they have access to highly classified
[50:25]material uh will have to pass the requisite national security vetting process before such appointments are announced or confirmed. I know that it may sound a little surprising to members opposite because they probably didn't
[50:36]hear what he said because they were barracking the minister so much. But I mean that is to be that is >> that's to be welcomed. However, the
[50:47]foreign affairs committee has believed that Peter Mandleen should come in front of our committee before he was sent to Washington and we were right and we shouldn't have been prevented from
[50:59]seeing him. In the past, political appointees to ambassadorial roles have nearly always appeared before the committee, but only at the foreign office's discretion. We don't want
[51:09]discretion anymore. We would like it written into the rules that before someone is appointed to an ambassadorial role or the chair of the British Council or the director of the BBC World
[51:21]Service. We would like those political appointees to appear in public before the foreign affairs committee and to answer our questions. here. >> Um, can I thank the chair of the foreign
[51:32]affairs select committee for her question? She raises important points about the process particularly uh for the appointments of ambassadors um and the delay between announcement uh appointment and also the host country
[51:44]then accepting their appointment to formally um uh appoint them to their role. That's why we've made it clear today that um the security vetting process will now have to be concluded
[51:54]before announcement and confirmation. Uh she asks me about the role of pre-appoint hearings. I know that the permanent secretary of the foreign office has already informed her committee uh that the committee is
[52:06]entitled to invite ambassadors to appear before them uh to answer questions and of course we continue to keep all other pre-appoint hearings under review. >> Liberal Democrat spokesperson Lisa Smile
[52:17]much deputy speaker and I thank the chief secretary for advanced sight of his statement. We must remember that we're having this debate today because of the courage of the women and girls who spoke out against Jeffrey Epstein
[52:29]and those connected to him. Their bravery has forced us to confront uncomfortable truths around power, accountability, and the standards we
[52:38]must demand from those in public life. There are many questions swirling around this place about judgment rightly. And while you can't legislate out poor
[52:49]judgment, you can put in place a better system that leaves as little to chance as possible. And successive governments have failed to do that. From party gate
[52:58]to ministerial code breaches that went unpunished, we have witnessed a systematic deterioration of standards and the current system is broken.
[53:08]>> The ministerial the ministerial code lacks legal force. We need structural reform and I welcome some of the mention the measures that the minister has
[53:18]mentioned in his remarks today including the ability to boot out peers whose behavior falls below the standard we should all uh expect. The ministerial
[53:28]code must be enshrined in law with genuine sanctions for breaches. The ministerial must extend ministerial code must extend beyond its current parameters to include senior public
[53:38]servants like ambassadors and we agree that vetting standards must also be made tougher and they should include trade envoys like Andrew Mountbatton Windsor.
[53:50]We must also ban those who've served in any capacity for a current foreign administration from donating to political parties, think tanks or campaign organizations. And we must end
[54:00]government by WhatsApp. All ministerial instant messaging conversations involving government business must be placed on the departmental record. These should be published quarterly alongside emails, letters, and phone calls to
[54:12]ensure greater transparency. We should also protect whistleblowers through a new office of the whistleblower with legal protections and criminal sanctions on ministers who failed to report
[54:22]wrongdoing. Just this morning, Madame Deputy Speaker, I met the lively and engaged year 12 students from Hazel Grove High School. When the next election rolls around, they can all vote. They [clears throat] deserve
[54:34]better than the broken system, and we should all be working hard to restore the public's trust in politics. >> Chief Secretary, >> uh, I thank the honorable lady for her
[54:44]statement and remarks. I think we all agree that we don't just need effective rules, but effective enforcement for people who break those rules. And these issues have highlighted the fact that there is more work to do and I look
[54:56]forward as does the government in working on a cross party basis to make sure as she said that we bring justice for victims who are affected by the abuse of power. >> Absum. >> Thank you madam deputy speaker. In
[55:07]December 2025 Palanteer won a three-year contract worth 240 million pounds from the government. This contract which is three times larger than any that Palanteer has previously won was awarded
[55:19]without tender. Will the minister ensure that there is full transparency of how this decision was made and who was involved? And does he agree with me more
[55:29]more widely that resignations under the last government meant that true accountability could be evaded and obscured and that all our constituents
[55:39]wanted from us and this government was the change that we promised to deliver? In the first part of my honorable friend's question, I can assure her that all procurement rules have been
[55:51]followed. But if there is any suggestion of wrongdoing, we have powers under the procurement act to take action if required. On the second part of her question, I agree with her that the public were calling for change at the
[56:01]last election, partly because of the repeated scandal issues that happened under the last administration. And that's why, as I've set out today, we've already taken action to make the ethics advisor independent, institute the
[56:11]ethics and integrity commission. And as I've set out in my statement today, we will go further. >> Deputy Chair Simon Hall. >> Madame Deputy Speaker, could I ask the
[56:22]chief secretary the following points? He said in answer to an earlier question, the documentation would be released in compliance with the Metropolitan Police. Can he ensure that his department number
[56:33]10 and the Met understand what parliamentary privilege means and assert it on behalf of this house? Secondly, he's mentioned the bill which would remove Mandlesson's titles in
[56:44]preparation. Now, that's a short bill. >> Could he tell us when he expects to see it introduced in this place and guarantee a one-day process for all
[56:54]stages [clears throat] of the bill? And his statement today is entitled Standards in Public Life. Knowing that Mandlesson was a friend of Epstein,
[57:04]forget the extent and all of Mandlesson's baggage, could the chief secretary finally explain to the House why Mandlesson was ever on the short
[57:14]list of people being considered to be appointed to probably our most important ambassadorial >> secretary. Can I thank the chair of the select
[57:24]committee for his uh questions? Um on his first question uh around privilege um I don't for one second question the supremacy of parliament or the basis of parliamentary privilege. All I meant to
[57:36]say was that the government is in discussions with the Met Police who have launched the criminal investigation and that it's important that we work with them to ensure that information is released that doesn't then um affect
[57:46]their criminal investigations. Uh the cabinet secretary and others are in discussions with the Met Police about that and we hope to be able to say more uh soon. on his question on the bill.
[57:57]Um, as I informed the house last week, the government's preference is to bring forward legislation that could be applied to any peer who is subject to breaching the rules and bringing the other place into disrepute. Uh, we have
[58:08]begun the work at looking at the scope and ability for that bill to be brought forward to the house. I've been informed that that has not been um that a bill of that nature has not been brought before parliament since 1425
[58:20]and that there no 19 the 1970 bill. Madame Deputy Speaker, if I may have a few moments, was about a collective group of peers who had been, I think,
[58:29]collaborating with the Nazis um around the Second World War. This issue is different. Um this is about standards that should apply to all peers in the House of Lords and you should have appropriate mechanisms for that to be
[58:40]instigated. But we are working on that with leazing with House authorities to ensure that we can do that right and we'll bring it forward very very shortly. on his final question about the appointment of Peter Mandlesson. As the
[58:51]prime minister has said repeatedly, if he had known at his at the point of his appointment what we know now, he would not have appointed him in the first place. >> Patricia Ferguson. Thank you, Madame Deputy Speaker, and I thank the chief
[59:01]secretary for his statement. And I wonder if he could tell the house how the prime minister is considering strengthening the role of the ethics and integrity commission given his commitment to improving standards in
[59:12]public life. >> Please. >> Um, I thank my honorable friend for her question. The ethics and integrity commission has been set up only very recently by this government to play an important role uh in relation to
[59:24]standards in public life. We want to work with the ethics and integrity commission together to ensure that we set it up for success in delivering on the issues and reforms that I've mentioned to the house today and that's the basis on which we'll be
[59:34]collaborating with them. >> Chair of standards committee Alberto Costa. >> Thank you madame deputy speaker. Um, Madame Deputy Speaker, I never make
[59:45]comment about any conduct or standards issues that may impact on individual MPs precisely because of my adjudicatory role in the committee and standards. And
[59:57]I don't propose to refer to the prime minister in respect of the potential that if not all documents are disclosed to the house, it might be a breach of
[1:00:06]privilege. But I do want to just say gently to the minister this that when he constantly refers to the past and to my
[1:00:16]party in government's role with breaches of the standards issues from this moment on will he accept that given the litany of issues that have behol befallen the
[1:00:27]Labor government as outlined by my honorable friend at the dispatch box that it would really behoove him if he stopped doing that and just ensured that
[1:00:38]going forward the Labor government acts with the same standards of conduct that it demanded of my party in government
[1:00:48]and might he request the prime minister given the statements that he's made here today to attend a meeting with the committee and standards to outline
[1:00:58]exactly how moving forward the prime minister will uphold the highest of standards >> chief secretary >> on the first part of his uh question. Uh
[1:01:09]madame deputy speaker, I agree that we need to ensure that we have a standard system both in this place and the other place uh that meets the challenges we're talking about today. That is not a party political issue. I merely make reference
[1:01:20]to the performance of the last government given the uh the chertering that we've had from the benches opposite when I was talking about the reforms we're bringing forward to ensure justice for victims and appropriate powers to
[1:01:32]tackle corruption in the future. On the second part of his question, I'm sure that if he writes to the prime minister, the prime minister's office will engage with him and his committee on his invitation. >> I call Paulie Billington followed by
[1:01:43]Steve Darling. Paulie Billington. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think it's worth reminding uh my honorable friend that um one of the things that people keep going back to is that the decision was made that this appointment
[1:01:54]was worth the risk. And what we finally found out was that some people decided that the rules didn't apply to them. Considering how important tackling women violence against women and girls is to
[1:02:05]this government and to this prime minister, could the prime could the honorable gentleman agree to meet with women backbenches in particular to discuss the possibility of exploring
[1:02:15]further how we tackle misogyny in public life? Secretary, >> I would be very happy to meet with honorable friend and colleagues and to do anything I can in pursuit of that outcome.
[1:02:26]>> Steve Darling. >> Thank you, Madame Deputy Speaker. It is jaw-dropping how many rich and powerful people were within Epstein's orbit and how many of them believe that they were
[1:02:38]untouchable. >> It's important that we have a culture that is supportive and trusting around whistleblowers. Does the minister agree
[1:02:48]with me that we need to have an office for whistleblowers to as the backbone for such a positive culture? >> Chief secretary. Um, I agree with the honorable member that we need to ensure
[1:02:59]those processes are available in all circumstances. My understanding is the legislation was updated in recent years, but I'm happy to consider any inputs from the honorable member and other members in the house if they wish to send them to me.
[1:03:10]>> Joanna Baxter. >> Thank you, Madame Deputy Speaker. I thank my honorable friend for his statement and would he be able to confirm the actions the government has taken to ensure that direct ministerial
[1:03:21]appointments including political appointments must pass the appropriate security vetting processes prior to those appointments being announced or confirmed. Chief Secretary.
[1:03:32]>> Um, I can confirm for my honorable friend that the rules have been updated to ensure that national security vetting must receive full clearance before any direct ministerial appointments are
[1:03:42]confirmed publicly or or then confirmed for appointments at later stages. As I said to our honorable friend, the chair of the foreign affairs select committee recently for ambassadors in particular, the process can often be quite stretched
[1:03:53]out over a number of days from announcement to being confirmed by host country and then fully being in post. Uh but we will update the rules to make sure that what happened in these circumstances with Peter Manderson can't happen again.
[1:04:03]>> Sir Duncan Smith. >> Madam Deputy Speaker, I don't uh doubt [clears throat] the right gentleman's desire to put things right. What I slightly doubt today is that right now today when
[1:04:15]everything is about the prime minister's judgment that this looks a lot like smoke to me, this is right, but not right now. And the point I simply say to him is that
[1:04:24]>> the point about Mandlesson is that he all of this stuff was actually known in conversation discussion. He was sacked twice for impropriy in government office. He actually ended up in
[1:04:36]Derapasca's yacht when the EU was discussing taxation on aluminium improper again. And all this stuff leads to the final question of why him? Then
[1:04:47]of course the vetting was not good enough. But it could have been had they bothered to check everything. And I simply say to honorable gentlemen, there is a big question to be asked here. As
[1:04:56]my uncle Jen said, surely this is ultimately about the prime minister's judgment in overruling anything that he
[1:05:06]found and deciding for his own purposes that this man should have been appointed to our secretary. The right honorable gentleman will know that the prime minister apologized last 30 last
[1:05:17]Thursday for having appointed Peter Manson to the post as he said repeatedly had he seen the information that we are now able to see from the release of documents from the US Department for
[1:05:27]justice which showed the level of corruption but also the deep and extensive relationship that existed between Peter Manderson and Jeffrey Epstein on which Peter Manderson lied to the prime minister about at the point of
[1:05:38]his appointment. He would never have appointed him in the first place. Alex McIntyre. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I thank my right honorable friend for his statement. My biggest concern, the
[1:05:48]biggest concern of my constituents is that the impact of behavior like Peter Mandlesson's undermines trust in our politics and in our democracy because quite frankly, all parties in this house
[1:06:00]have had scandals related to someone in their party. It gives us all a bad name. So, can I ask from the bottom of my heart, can this government get a grip of
[1:06:10]it and end the sleas and scandal culture that has involved all of our politics, all of our parties, so that I can go back to my constituents and say, "No, we're not all the same." >> Secretary,
[1:06:21]>> um, I thank my honorable friend for his question. As I said in my statement, the vast majority of members of this house, but also civil servants and other political appointments in the other
[1:06:31]place come into politics to serve the public, not to serve themselves. But what the Peter Manson issue has shown is that for all of the rules that we have in place that work for the majority of people doing the right thing, there have
[1:06:42]still been loopholes of people who want to do the wrong thing. And those are the loopholes that we're now going to close. >> Steven Gins, >> Madam Deputy, um speaker, can I thank um the minister for a statement today? It
[1:06:53]was clearly preferable being here than in the reception that the prime minister is hosting for Scottish Labor MPs and MSPs later on. Um, I've lost count of the amount of time that I've spent here
[1:07:04]dealing with one way or another Westminster chaos and it often relates to members of the House of Lords who are there for life, be they Labor, Liberal, or Conservative. This statement's
[1:07:16]tinkering. When will they commit to what they've committed to for 115 years and dealing with the obscenity that is the House of Lords? Yes, here. >> The honorable member will know that the
[1:07:27]government's committed to working with peers in the other place to modernize the House of Lords and that we agree that that needs to happen. That's why we're in the process of removing hereditary peers and why we're working
[1:07:38]with the authorities in the other place to make sure that we deal with the issues we're talking about today. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I thank the Chief Secretary for his statement and his um focus on the victims of these appalling crimes. Could
[1:07:50]the chief secretly explain what steps this government has taken to ensure victim survivors of these vile crimes are um heard by those in power? >> Chief Secretary, >> um I thank my honorable friend and he's
[1:08:00]right to bring us back to the victims of Jeffrey Epstein and all women and girls who have been subjected to these atrocious crimes across the country because evidently uh their voices
[1:08:11]continue to not be heard and these crimes continue to perpetuate. That's why the government's committed to halfing violence against women and girls and why it's introduced the measures to ensure standards of public life are
[1:08:21]enforced in this place and in the other place too. >> So John Wittingale, >> thank you madam deputy speaker. Can I tell the chief secretary in relation to his previous answer that the foreign affairs committee repeatedly asked for
[1:08:32]Lord Mandlesson to appear? You refused to come. But what the foreign affairs committee did hear was from the permanent under secretary that Lord Mandlesson would be entitled to a payoff
[1:08:43]in relation to the terms of his contract. So can the chief secretary say how much he received and whether or not he will be asked to repay it? >> Uh the foreign office is currently
[1:08:54]reviewing the terms of the contract that led to the severance suggestion of severance payments when Peter Mandlesson was sacked and is due to update the house in due course. >> Sam Rushmore. >> Thank you madam speaker. Can I thank the
[1:09:05]chief secretary for his statement? It's refreshing to see a government that's committed to making those in positions of trust accountable. They're clearly very angry today. And maybe it's because
[1:09:16]it's in contrast to a record of people who voted to cover up for one of their friends. But may I say for ordinary people in Bishop Oakland, the crimes of
[1:09:27]Epstein are truly shocking and disgusting. and they're shocked to see this global web of power and people acting with such complete impunity. So is the government in addition to looking
[1:09:39]at improved vetting looking at how we have improved surveillance and vetting of those who are in a position of trust to make sure that these sorts of things cannot happen by those who are
[1:09:49]entrusted. Thank you, Secretary. >> Um, I thank my honorable friend for his question. As you will have heard in my statement today, there are a number of avenues that the government is pursuing, including the potential for more routine
[1:10:00]annual disclosure of financial and commercial interests um that we hope will shed more light on some of these issues where individuals are getting away with breaking the rules. >> Gavin Robinson. Madam Deputy Speaker, the chief secretary will know that there
[1:10:12]are too many members on both sides of this house that enjoy situations like this and it belies the seriousness of
[1:10:21]the situation. Does he recognize that an integrity and ethics advisor would not be able to solve the appointment of somebody removed from government twice
[1:10:32]if a prime minister wishes to appoint them. >> Exactly. would not be able to assist a former director of the public prosecution service whose professionalism should have been to discern the truth
[1:10:44]>> in accepting lies or to inject honor in a situation >> where a prime minister accepts the advice of an individual and then accepts
[1:10:56]his resignation but receive the advice. Chief Secretary. >> Um, >> I thank the honorable member for his question and he's right that the public do not expect party political bickering
[1:11:06]on these issues, but problems to be solved and justice to be sought for those who deserve it. Um, on the question of um, uh, the advice the prime minister received, as I've said um, a
[1:11:18]number of times, Peter Manson lied to the prime minister. Questions were asked and Peter Manson lied in his answers. I'm sure that will become clear as part of the disclosure of documents in in compliance with the humble address in the coming weeks.
[1:11:29]>> Charters. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can I thank my right honorable friend for all he's doing to overhaul standards in public life after the absolute binfire that the party opposite left. But can I
[1:11:40]ask him to comment on this because Peter Mandlesson is reportedly in receipt of a severance payment and I was a former regulator and clawback's an important tool that can come in. So, does my right
[1:11:50]honorable friend agree that if possible, Peter Manderson should be forced to pay every single penny back to the British people? >> Chief Secretary. >> Um, I do agree with my honorable friend
[1:12:00]and as I say, the Foreign Office will be coming forward with more information in due course. >> Richard F. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Intelligence and Security Committee wrote to the Prime Minister last
[1:12:11]Thursday. The letter was published and it included the following. The committee would be grateful to now be told the date on which we will receive the papers such that we are able to plan the
[1:12:22]resourcing requirements. I don't doubt what the minister said about the government being committed to being as transparent in as possible. But in his statement, the minister repeated the phrase as soon as possible. Can the
[1:12:34]minister go beyond ASAP so that the intelligence and security committee can plan the resourcing before receiving the papers? Yeah. >> Um I can confirm the government will be working with the intelligence and
[1:12:46]security committee. There are meetings I think happening today and tomorrow morning on that basis. The government is just lazing with the Metropolitan Police about the criminal investigation and once that has been clarified, we'll be able to move forward with disclosure to
[1:12:58]the house. Erin Moon >> Morz. Madame Deputy Speaker, could the chief secretary elaborate to the House will work with the committee on
[1:13:08]standards on proposals to ban second jobs for members of parliament to deliver meaningful change. Uh my honorable friend will know that it was a clear manifesto commitment of our
[1:13:20]party to ban second jobs for members of parliament except in limited circumstances for example where you have to maintain a professional qualification by being a doctor or a lawyer. Um the stat the committee in the house is
[1:13:31]considering those issues and I know that they've been working on them um in quite some detail. The government is working with the committee to try to move that on as quickly as possible and I know the committee wishes to do the same. So
[1:13:42]Julian Lewis, >> I think it's notable, Madame Deputy Speaker, that despite the government's huge majority, I think they've run out of people to stand up and defend their position.
[1:13:53]>> Now, the minister is, and I'm not being patronizing, the minister is a very intelligent man. Therefore, I ask of him that he does not insult the intelligence
[1:14:05]of the rest of us when he talks about the prime minister having believed Mandlesson's lies after he asked him
[1:14:14]questions. We now know from the forensic questioning by the leader of the opposition that the prime minister knew
[1:14:23]that the relationship between Mandlesson and Epstein carried on ongoing was the word after his being jailed for
[1:14:34]pedophilia and prostitution related offenses. He apparently chose to ask for more questions after that and was lied
[1:14:43]to. What more did he need to know before knowing that this man should never be allowed within a miles of the American
[1:14:52]uh post as our ambassador? >> Secretary, uh >> my honorable friend will in due course see papers disclosed in compliance with the humble address which will be very
[1:15:03]clear in showing the questions that were asked to Peter Manderson and the lies that Peter Manderson uh responded with uh in answering the prime minister's
[1:15:10]questions. and babies of our madame and I thank the the chief secretary for the statement. We know in Wales know how
[1:15:21]this story ends. The former Welsh first minister von Geththin was forced to resign following a serious error of judgment and the prime minister had
[1:15:31]expressed full confidence in him. The prime minister then went on to appoint Peter Mandlesson despite his association with a convicted pedophile being a
[1:15:41]matter of public record. >> So what lessons, if any, does the Chief Secretary draw from this pattern of poor judgment at the very top of government?
[1:15:53]>> Chief Secretary, >> um, as I've repeated to the House, Madame Deputy Speaker, there needs to be rules that apply in all circumstances to all people in respect of the House of Lords. this House of Commons and an
[1:16:04]appointment to these roles and clear consequences for people who lie or breach those rules and those are the reforms that the government are bringing forward. >> So Bernard Jenin speaker yesterday uh
[1:16:16]the prime minister's adviser Morgan Mweeny resigned because he had advised the prime minister to make this appointment. >> What advice did the national security adviser Jonathan Powell give to the
[1:16:28]prime minister? >> And if he did give the same advice, shouldn't he resign as well? Chief Secretary, >> uh the honorable member will know that it would not be appropriate for me to
[1:16:38]speak on behalf of civil servants and special advisers from uh the dispatch box. The statements released by Morgan Mweeny and Karma yesterday um uh answer his questions in relation to Morgan
[1:16:49]Mccloin's decision to resign from post. >> Shan Barry. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Uh a government enthralled to men and corporations drunk on power is the rot at the center of Mandlesson scandal.
[1:17:00]When people operate in the shadows, they think they can act with impunity. So, of all the seven Nolan principles, openness can help build back the most trust. So, does the chief secretary agree that we
[1:17:12]must drive out corporate influence and money? And as a start, would he cap political donations and ask all MPs and peers to follow my example in releasing logs of all lobbying meetings so the
[1:17:23]people can know we work for them? Chief Secretary. >> Um I thank the honorable lady for her question on on a number of those measures. As I said in my statement, we are looking at the current procedures
[1:17:33]and whether they can be um updated in the future to provide more transparency. But she is right that individual rules alone whilst can be improved um will not
[1:17:43]be sufficient for tackling the culture the cultural issues that lead to some of these challenges. And it's upon all of us on a cross party basis and any other people in power to call out and make it clear that that's not acceptable in public life.
[1:17:55]>> Sure. Alex Shelbrook. >> Thank you, Madame Deputy Speaker. Further to the point that my right friend from Chinford and Woodford Green um made, this does look like smoke today. It really does. I mean, this
[1:18:06]horse has bolted so far. It's at Weatherby Racecourse. And I have to say to the honorable gentleman that he really is not giving the answers that we need to hear. So, let me ask the right
[1:18:17]honorable gentleman. He said that the st what goes to the heart of the prime minister is what he's trying to do. So why did the prime minister believe that
[1:18:26]somebody who took loans which in today's money would be worth over a million pounds was found to be flogging passports. Why did the prime minister
[1:18:37]ever think that that person should be rewarded? Chief Secretary, >> on the first part of the honorable gentleman's question, I would just um remind him that the reforms that this government has made in the past 18 years
[1:18:48]and those which we're talking about today will be the most wide ranging reforms to standards in public life that we've seen for a very very long time indeed. I wouldn't call that smoke and mirrors. I'd call that progress. Um, on
[1:18:59]the second part of his question, as I've said repeatedly to the House, if the prime minister had known the depth and extent of the relationship between Peter Madison and Jeffrey Epstein, then he wouldn't have been appointed in the
[1:19:09]first place. And it's easy for members on the opposite bentes with the benefits of hindsight and now with access to the documents that were not available to the prime minister at the time of appointment to say that it should have been done otherwise.
[1:19:21]>> Alison Bennett. >> Thank you, Madame Deputy Speaker. >> This matter is not about process. It is about the judgment of the prime minister and we really can't legislate out poor
[1:19:32]judgment that we've seen on evidence today. So maybe the minister has considered our calls to create an office of the whistleblower. But would he also
[1:19:43]agree that we can ensure that there are proper criminal sanctions for those ministers who failed to whistleblow to mitigate the frailties and human error we see here?
[1:19:55]Um I'd point the honorable lady to the duty of cander provisions that we're bringing forward in the public accountability bill which in include criminal um sanctions for those who breach those rules. And as I've said to
[1:20:06]her honorable friends on the Liberal Democrat benches, I'm very happy to consider wider recommendations for whistleblowers as she sets out. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
[1:20:16]Given the importance of standards in public life, why is it that the advisor who suggested Peter Mandlesson as the ambassador to the US has had to resign
[1:20:27]but the person who actually appointed Peter Mandlesson that is the prime minister is still in post. As the prime minister said last
[1:20:39]Thursday, he has apologized for having appointed Peter Manderson and had the information that is now available had been available at the time of his appointment, he wouldn't have appointed him in the first place.
[1:20:50]>> Aud Khan, >> thank you Madame Deputy Speaker. We all know that the prime minister is a lawyer and one of the traits of a lawyer is to understand and test the veracity of
[1:21:02]information that is being provided. We know that the prime minister has said from that dispatch box that he took a risk and that he had no he had known that Mendlesson kept his relationship
[1:21:13]with Epstein. The real question is that I I suspect the risk was that the public wouldn't find out. The public do now know is it not time for the prime
[1:21:22]minister to simply go >> no >> Ky L. >> Thank you madam deputy speaker. This is insulting. The first time, though it was
[1:21:34]not to be the last time, that Peter Mandlesson resigned in disgrace from a Labor government, then Tony Blair's cabinet, I was 7 years old. >> Is the minister seriously telling us
[1:21:45]that our prime minister needs tweets to process to know not to hire somebody who has been a nationally notorious crook for over 25 years?
[1:21:56]Secretary, >> as the honorable lady will have heard, if the prime minister had access to the information we now have about the depth and extent of the relationship between Jeffrey Epstein and Peter Manderson, he would have not been appointed in the
[1:22:08]first place. >> Thank you, Madame Deputy Speaker. And if I may, I'll direct the house to my register of members interest in relation to whistleblow. Um I'm very hopeful that
[1:22:19]chief secretary knows that I was promised a meeting with him about the subject of whistlers during the passage of the public office um accountability bill. Um I look forward to meeting to
[1:22:29]meeting him. Um I wonder if he is aware I hope he is that actually the current legislation dealing with whistleblowers directs them into the employment
[1:22:39]tribunal of which there are 47,000 cases awaiting to be heard. we have to do something about whistleblowing and making sure the protections are in
[1:22:50]place. I'm looking forward to meeting him with a number of my colleagues so that we can discuss this in detail in full. Great. >> Um, as I've said to the honorable lady's colleagues on the Liberal Democratic
[1:23:00]benches, I'm very happy to receive further representations on reform of the law as it relates to whistleblowers and if we need to go further, we'll be happy to consider such. >> Dr. Andrew, thank you,
[1:23:11]>> Deputy Speaker. The minister has managed to throw out more chaff than a B-52. [laughter] C can I ask him uh in his remarks about security vetting whether he means
[1:23:23]developed vetting of the sort that is applied to very senior officials before they are appointed to extremely sensitive positions including military
[1:23:34]individuals or whether he has something else in mind? Will he say whether that will be repeated periodically as is the case for officials and will it be
[1:23:44]applied both the political appointees and also ministerial appointments as say appointments as ministers where those positions are particularly sensitive >> secretary
[1:23:55]>> um I think the honorable member knows madame deputy speaker that there's different processes in relation to the different types of roles that we might have and others in government from due diligence through to develop national
[1:24:05]security vetting as sets out. The important point is that the right process is applied to the right person at the right time and that is what we're reviewing right now. >> Pete wish speaker, the only statement
[1:24:17]that my constituents want today is a resignation statement. The only reform they want is the reform that takes this prime minister out of 10 Downing Street. It doesn't matter how many reviews,
[1:24:28]inquiries or fire guards they put in the way. He has lost the confidence and trust of the British people. Mike, what we need this is as a
[1:24:38]government that will end this chaos. They promised to end this chaos when they came to power. Instead, it is through the stratosphere. He knows, everybody in this house knows, everybody
[1:24:49]in this country knows he is toast. Why don't they just get on with it and get rid of him? sector. >> Uh the honorable gentleman seems to be wishing for more chaos in our country. The public voted to end that at the last
[1:25:01]general election and that's why this government's getting on for delivering change for people across the country. >> Wendy Martin. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Today's statement is actually little more than a
[1:25:11]a smoke screen, an attempt to detract away from the key issue which is about Peter Mamblesson and our prime minister. There are more questions being asked and
[1:25:22]still no answers. I'd like to take the minister very briefly back to that central point about a golden goodbye for Peter Mandlesson. How much? >> Secretary,
[1:25:32]>> I refer the right honorable lady to my previous answer. >> Sammy Wilson. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Of course, we do need to have a commissioner who has got the powers and
[1:25:44]abilities to expose where there's been corruption and to deal with it. But this statement today is not required because we already know that a bad judgment has
[1:25:55]been made by the prime minister and really what the public want to know is how is he going to be held to account for things which he already knew and ignored. But can the minister give us an
[1:26:05]assurance that looking at extra powers for commissioners will not go as far as what has happened in Northern Ireland where the discredited former standards
[1:26:16]commissioner has used her powers to silence members of the assembly for too vigorously questioning ministers or not showing enough empathy when they make public statements about security
[1:26:27]situations in their own uh in in their own constituency. and especially since some of the members sitting behind me when their heckling fields now threaten
[1:26:37]members by reporting to the standards commissioner to try and silence him that way. >> The secretary, >> I think it's important, Madame Deputy Speaker, that we uh take good practice wherever it exists and learn the lessons
[1:26:48]where uh reforms have not worked whether in our parliament or in other devolved governments across the United Kingdom. And the honorable gentleman is um encouraged to write to me with his
[1:27:00]examples in more detail to ensure that we avoid that in the future. I can assure him that the government has no intention to want to try to limit the voices of people in this house or indeed anywhere else. >> Gregory Stafford. >> Thank you, Madame Deputy Speaker. Going
[1:27:11]back to the process the prime minister followed, he received information from the vetting and security services that Peter Mandlesson might have had an ongoing relationship. He then questioned Peter Mandlesson about that. Did he then
[1:27:22]test those answers that Peter Mandlesson give with that security and vetting service? Because if he did not, it can only mean one of two things. Either he has a dereliction of duty or he's a
[1:27:32]credulous fool. Either way, he should resign, shouldn't he? >> Chief Secretary, >> no. >> Jim Alistister, >> thank you. Can I take the House back to
[1:27:42]where this debate started? It began with the shadow spokesman reminding us that advisors advise
[1:27:52]>> and ministers decide. >> Yeah. >> And in the back of that, I want to give the minister the opportunity, I think for the fourth time in this debate, >> to answer the fairly fundamental
[1:28:02]question that I'd like to know the answer to and my constituents would like to know the answer to. >> If it is right >> for an advisor >> to resign,
[1:28:12]>> Exactly. Why not the far more culpable decision maker? >> Thank you, Secretary. >> As the prime minister's made clear, he apologized for appointing Peter
[1:28:22]Mandlesson to the position of ambassador. And had the information which is now available been available at the point of his appointment, he would never have appointed Peter Manderson in the first place. >> Dr. Luke Evans.
[1:28:34]>> Thank you, Madame Deputy Speaker. And can I thank the minister for his statement about the new rules and legislation that he's bringing forward. I've missed something though. Could you point to the one that he's bringing
[1:28:45]forward that would stop a prime minister from appointing a twice sacked best friend of the world's greatest pedophile? >> Chief Secretary, >> I refer him to the detail of my
[1:28:57]statement. >> Robert Law. >> Uh thank you Madame Deputy Speaker. Many of us, including myself, spoke in this
[1:29:06]house against the ill-judged appointment of Peter Mandlesson, which flew in the face of logic given his poor relationship with the US and his history of misfeasants in public office.
[1:29:18]>> Will the minister undertake to obtain all redacted evidence from the US pertaining to all UK persons in positions of influence referred to in
[1:29:29]the Epstein documents and expose them to the public? This is the only way to clear up this global scandal for the UK electorate. >> Secretary, >> where the government has jurisdiction
[1:29:41]over documents and in compliance with the humble address, we will publish them as I've said to the house earlier today. >> Benji, >> thank you speaker. Uh the minister keeps making reference to uh if we had known
[1:29:52]uh then what we know now uh with regards to Peter Mandelson's appointment. But the key fact is that we already knew of Peter Mandelton's ongoing relationship with Jeffrey Epstein as the prime minister spoke about at PMQ's last week
[1:30:03]just as the uh government knew about Matthew Door's relationship with Sha Morton uh and still gave him a periage after uh the internal investigation. But coming back to the resignation statement
[1:30:13]of the chief of staff yesterday, um he stated that whilst I did not oversee the due diligence or vetting procedure, so could the minister explain who did oversee the due diligence and vetting procedure?
[1:30:25]>> Secretary, >> uh these processes are administered by the proprietary and ethics team in the cabinet office by the foreign office and all of the normal appropriate authorities. Jim Shannon.
[1:30:35]>> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. And I chief secretary is an honorable man and he's answering incredibly difficult questions and and we have to recognize that the chief secretary will know that I seek to find solutions rather than
[1:30:46]prioritizing point scoring. I say that very respectively in this house. In this instance, it's clear that the public want a solution uh to the seeming litany of trustbreaking decisions taken by
[1:30:57]successive governments. And whilst we cannot please all people, the issue of a basic standard for public servants is non-negotiable. And this breakdown, I believe, is highlighted [clears throat] the need for accountability at the
[1:31:09]highest level. So does the chief secretary believe that this can be achieved without a complete overhaul of the appointment system. >> Um I agree with the honorable member that there's evidently a number of
[1:31:20]changes that need to be brought forward and as he suggests in his question, I think that should be done on a cross party basis in the interest of how we serve the public. Al Muhammad. >> Thank you, Madame Deputy Speaker. The
[1:31:32]confidence in the prime minister is an at an all-time low and many of the reasons for that have already been discussed. However, one particular issue, the prime minister visited
[1:31:42]Palanteer's head offices in Washington DC in February 2025. Will the chief secretary confirm if Peter Mandolen advised the PM to visit
[1:31:52]Palanteer, what the purpose of the visit was? Will the government publish details and minutes of the discussions that took place at this meeting? And will the government review all existing contracts
[1:32:03]with Palunteer and suspend any further engagement with them until the investigations are completed? >> Uh the prime minister engages with a whole host of businesses whether in the
[1:32:14]United Kingdom or abroad. in relation to his question suggesting particular wrongdoing as I said to my honorable friend earlier we have powers under the procurement act to act on these issues if we must and if evidence comes to
[1:32:25]light then we reserve the right to do so >> Dr. scaring Marlin. >> The problem with the list that the minister wrote out is not one of those measures will protect us from the prime minister's poor judgment unfortunately.
[1:32:36]Uh and before I ask him that question, I will just point out to him as the minister sat next to him knows and he mentioned himself the government's currently putting through a house the duty of cander bill which will require ministers legally to answer questions frankly and with information that they
[1:32:47]have which people could usefully think that they should know. So asking for a third time, how much is the uh Peter Manson due to take as part of his payoff? Chief Secretary, >> as I said, the Foreign Office will
[1:32:57]update the House in due course. >> Thank you, Madame Deputy Speaker. I thank the minister for his statement and definitely agree that Epstein's crimes were disgusting and Mendelson's behavior
[1:33:08]were despicable. But I'd like to remind the minister that under the last government, the now prime minister said this, a fish rots from the head down, and the real change had to be led and modeled from the top. Yet, here we are.
[1:33:19]The issue is back. Despite that the color of the rosette changing, the prime minister's closest circle must now take the fall for his poor decision-making and appointing a man who is a best friends with a pedophile.
[1:33:30]>> Given that there is now a criminal investigation into his closest advisers, shouldn't he do the honorable thing and take his own advice? >> Secretary, >> the prime minister has he said today is
[1:33:40]getting on with the job of delivering change for this country that the electorate voted for 18 months ago, rewarding my party with a huge majority in this house. These issues are
[1:33:50]important and we will fix them, not least keeping the victims of sexual abuse and abuse of power at the center of those thoughts. And I know that members across the house will want to work with us to make sure that that is done.
[1:34:02]>> And that concludes the statement and we now move on to motion number one on business of the house today. Minister to move. Thanks.