[0:00]Washington. And this um as I say is is relevant now. On the 27th of February 2025, the prime minister whilst in Washington visited the American data and
[0:10]AI company Palunteer at its headquarters. The meeting did not appear in the prime minister's register of visits.
[0:20]>> It only came to light later. Now, Palanteer, we should remember or remind ourselves, was a client of Global Council, the company in which Peter
[0:30]Mandlesson had a commanding share. Later that year, Palanteer received from this government a 240 million pound
[0:41]deal. >> British companies couldn't compete. >> That deal was granted by direct award. Given the allegations now coming to light about Mandlesson's contact
[0:52]conduct, can the minister assure the House that the cabinet secretary will review the circumstances around the award of that contract
[1:02]>> and assure himself that there are no other such contracts, no other undisclosed meetings, that the government is going to go through all of the communications that Mandelson sent
[1:13]out whilst he was ambassador. messages we must assume, some of which were sent to old business contacts, potential few business contacts, and so
[1:24]on. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the prime minister knew that Peter Mandelson had maintained an unhealthy relationship
[1:35]with a man who was a convicted pedophile, >> and he appointed him to the role of ambassador. Anyway, [clears throat] everybody in this house should be
[1:46]shocked by it. It must be concluded that had the prime minister been pressed on that point at the time, the appointment would not have been made. But the prime minister knew, his aids knew, and the
[1:56]appointment was made anyway. >> What else did he know? Only after this humble address, only if the government treats with it in good
[2:07]faith, will we know that. I very much hope that it is not the case that we find that there are gaps in our security and vetting process. If there are, the government will be able to fix them. But
[2:18]I think it's also likely that we'll see that there were reports that consistently raised concerns that were swept away. And it will then be the duty of the government to disclose who swept
[2:29]them away and why. Ultimate responsibility must rest with the prime minister. It is
[2:37]time for him to take responsibility. >> I call the minister to move the
[2:45]amendment, Nick Thomas Simmons. >> Thank you uh Mr. Speaker and I do I beg to move the amend amended motion in the name of the prime minister, my name and
[2:57]indeed right the names of right honorable friends. Now Mr. Speaker, members will be aware that the government came to the House Monday for an update following the release of 3
[3:08]million pages of documents by the US Department of Justice regarding Jeffrey Epstein. As the government said Monday,
[3:16]and I reiterate now, Jeffrey Epstein was a convicted pedophile and a despicable individual who reveled in abusing the
[3:26]vulnerable and destroyed the lives of countless women and girls. I will I will give way. Let me just I'll complete my introductory remarks, then I will give way to the honorable gentleman. What he
[3:36]did was unforgivable. Every time his crimes are in the public eye, victims must relive their trauma. And his victims are at the forefront of my mind, and I'm sure they're at the
[3:48]forefront of all honorable and right honorable gentlemen and ladies minds in this uh debate. As the prime minister has said, anyone with relevant information must come forward and
[4:00]cooperate with investigation so Jeffrey Epstein's victims can get the justice they've been denied for so long. As for Peter Mandlesson, his decision to
[4:11]maintain a close relationship with a convicted pedophile, including discussing private government business, isn't just wrong, it is apparent. I did promise to >> Steven Flynn.
[4:22]>> I thank the minister for giving way. I am however curious. Earlier we heard the prime minister state that he knew that Peter Mandlesson had maintained a relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. Did
[4:33]the minister also know? And if so, did he express any concerns to the prime minister at that time about his decision
[4:42]to appoint Peter Mandlesen as ambassador to the United States of America? >> So, Mr. Mr. Speaker, on the second point, I I played no personal role in the appointment process, but as the
[4:54]prime minister said, the depth and extent of Peter Mandlesson's relationship was not known at the time of his appointment. As soon as that came
[5:04]to light, the prime minister acted decisively and sacked Peter Mandelson. I'll give way. >> I I thank the minister for giving way and given the public disgust and the
[5:15]sickening behavior of Peter Mandelen and the importance of transparency. In 2022, I proposed a humble address seeking information about PPE which the party
[5:25]opposite resisted and my honorable friend, the member for Hackne South mentioned just before. Should we not have the ISC not have the same role now
[5:35]in keeping public confidence in the process? >> Minister, let me pick up this point. Um, Mr. Speaker, because I know a number of honorable right honorable members have
[5:46]raised this. I think in the first instance, let me say that this process now is going to be conducted and led by the cabinet secretary of unimpeachable
[5:56]integ. I mean, the honorable gentleman shouts cover up at the cabinet secretary. You really should consider that remark I think. But secondly, it'll be conducted by cabinet office lawyers.
[6:06]Now the house is asking quite fairly a broader question as is my right honorable friend about scrutiny. There's a role as uh the chair of the public accounts committee around how select committee scrutinized this. There's
[6:18]existing powers for the ISC in terms of scrutinizing this. I I'm hearing what the house is saying and I will take that point away. I'll take I'll take one more intervention and I'll I'll come to the right and then I have to make some
[6:29]progress. Well, friend, uh, can I can I say to a disappointed neither the opposition or the government had a reference to the important role that the ISC could have in this basis? >> Can I say to as a member of the
[6:41]intelligence community, I've also spoken to the chair, the the Lord Beamish, and we've heard from the deputy chair before that we feel the intelligence community should be involved in this and help this
[6:51]process not on behalf of parliament. I would urge the the the right my rightable friend to speak to number 10 to ensure that we get that and that happens quickly for them. >> Minister,
[7:03]>> I think I've already said I'll I'll take the point away. I think he knows from our personal dealings on a different matter. My respect to the intelligence and security committee and its work. I'll give way to the former deputy prime minister. Then I'll have to make some progress.
[7:14]>> Oliver, >> thank you. I I I thank the minister for giving way. The the point here is not about uh impugning the integrity of the cabinet secretary. The point here is
[7:24]about confidence in this house and I think the the temperature in the house seems to be that most people feel that involving the ISC will give both this
[7:34]house and more importantly the public confidence about this process. Now it sounds as if the minister is sympathetic to this point. Can he just confirm that he is sympathetic at that point and he
[7:45]will be making the case to Downing Street for this tweak? >> Minister, >> Mr. Mr. Speaker, I I wasn't accusing the the right honorable gentleman of impuging the uh the cabinet secretary.
[7:55]The point I was making was that the process is being officialled and indeed then being decided upon by cabinet office uh lawyers. The broader point that the house is making, I can do no
[8:05]more than say I hear what he's saying and I will take uh that point away. But can I just come back? I'll I'll give way once more to the chair packer, but I really must make some progress. I'm
[8:15]grateful to the minister and he knows that this house knows that he's a honorable gentleman in every sense of that term. Right. >> But the mood of the house is very clear and my right honorable and learned
[8:26]friend has set out as have others the role of the ISC and the expectation that it discharges these serious and sensitive matters on behalf of the house and that the government has has
[8:36]confidence. During the course of this debate, can I invite him to go back to number 10 and not and to take advice and to not move his amendment this afternoon?
[8:47]>> I think that would reflect the will of the house and would allow people to start moving these issues forward. To move it today would I would suggest be a retrograde step for the government and
[8:58]its reputation. >> Minister, >> on on the first point, as I said to the former deputy prime minister, I'll take the point away. where I disagree with the right honorable gentleman and I'll come back to it in a moment is the importance of the amendment because
[9:09]there are really important public policy issues I want to deal with in respect of that but let me just return to the thrust of my I I will give away in a moment no government minister let's be
[9:19]clear of any political party should have behaved in the way Peter Manderson did and it was absolutely uh disgraceful the alleged leaking of crucial documents to
[9:30]help millionaires profit in the middle of the global crash crash. Lying to contemporaries, lying to the prime minister, lying to the public is both shameful and shameless. And let me just
[9:42]finish this point before I I will take some more interventions in a moment. Peter Mandlesson will now account for his actions and conduct. That is why the
[9:52]Cabinet Office has referred this matter to the police. And Mr. Speaker, the Metropolitan Police have released a statement confirming, and I quote, that they have received a number of reports
[10:03]into alleged misconduct in public office, including a referral from the UK government. And the statement also confirmed that the Metropolitan Police
[10:13]have started a criminal investigation in relation to potential misconduct in public office and that the police will, I quote, continue to assess all relevant
[10:24]information brought to our attention as part of this investigation and won't be commenting any further at this time. Now the house will understand that on that particular development it would not be
[10:36]appropriate for me to comment further but I'll take one intervention. >> No order. >> We're getting very curried away about the way the Metropolitan Police has been
[10:47]thrown around. I meant to have been contacted. I am not being contacted. Now I have the house. The house will understand that I am not
[10:58]responsible for the minister for the ministerial answers. Let's just put that on the record and let's see if we can tie this up a little bit. For avoidance of doubt, I stand there is an ongoing
[11:09]police investigation into this case. However, no charge have been brought. The house subjudicy resolution does not apply in the context. It is up to the
[11:21]ministers how they reply, but the House rules do not prevent them from answering fully. So, please let's not hide behind that something's not factual. So, let's
[11:31]get this on the record. And I still haven't had the phone call. >> Could I could I just say in in respect of that, Mr. Speaker, I hear precisely
[11:41]what you say and I entirely accept that interpretation of the subdu judicy rules. I'm certainly not hiding behind it and indeed I will come to some remarks about this in a moment.
[11:53]>> I maybe I can help a little bit but I think the answer was that we can't do this because there's a police investigation and I think we've got to recognize that is not a reason. So please let's not play off each other.
[12:04]I've made my point from the chair. >> Completely accept that Mr. Speaker. I'll take one intervention here then I'll take one over here. >> Chris and thank you M. Thank you Mr. Speaker. Um, I made this point on
[12:15]Monday, but I think it's really, really important to make again. The vast majority of members in this house and the other house come here to represent our constituencies, and I think people across the house would recognize I do my
[12:26]best to represent Harle as much as I possibly can. Um, would Harle, Mr. speaker. Um would would the um uh would the uh secret state agree with me that
[12:37]the reason the uh case of Peter Manson is so damning and upset so many people across this house is clearly this individual when he was in this place and well potentially when he was in this
[12:48]place but certainly when he was in the other place was not representing the people he was supposed to be representing but representing instead a vile pedophile. So would he agree with me that the reason the strength is so strong across the house is because
[13:00]actually he's letting down all of us >> the the public rightly demands the highest standards from those in office. They demand the highest standards from
[13:11]ministers. We should be held to the highest standards and my honorable friend is absolutely right. Peter Mandlesson fell far far short of those standards. His behavior has been revealed to be appalling. And as the
[13:22]prime minister has said, the prime minister has said, you will not order, order, order. Please, the minister is giving way. He will give way. But you can't stay on your feet. Old shouting,
[13:32]give way, give way. Please, let's give the minister some time and he will take you when he feels in the mood to take you. Minister, >> thank you, Mr. Speaker. I I'll take the honorable member for Bronms and then I will take an intervention.
[13:44]>> I I thank the minister for giving for giving way. uh given that at the point uh immediately prior to Peter Peter Mandelson's um appointment as ambassador, the UK had a respected
[13:54]ambassador uh already in the United States and Dame Karen Pierce. Why it was that the government decided given the known abhorance of both Jeffrey Epstein and the appalling previous judgment of
[14:06]Peter Mandlesson, the government still decided that on balance it was a risk worth taking to appoint pedophile adjacent Peter Mandlesson to the post of ambassador. Well, first of all, Mr.
[14:17]Speaker, can I pay tribute to Dane Karen Pierce, who I thought think represents the finest of our foreign service. Secondly, governments do make political appointments to these posts. That's happened. That is long-standing practice
[14:29]to a small number of posts. The prime minister has already said if he knew if he knew then what he knew now, Peter Manderson wouldn't have been anywhere near the government. I will give way to
[14:39]the chair of PA then I will give way to my own friend. Dan Beg Hillia, >> no longer chair of the public accounts committee. Mr. Speaker, u Mr. Speaker, it seems that we are in something of a
[14:51]muddle here. Had the opposition named the ISC in the humble address as in the past committee, then there would have been no debate in this house. But would the minister agree that to put all
[15:02]information openly in the public domain could have risks? But there are well-worn filters through Parliament, through the select committee corridor. And there are various committees that could have locusts in this space to
[15:12]properly and sensitively handle information which has in my time never leaked from a committee in order to make sure that we on the committee corridor on behalf of Parliament are holding the
[15:24]government to account because I think there is consensus, Mr. speaker that everybody wants as much information as possible in the public domain so that we can get to the bottom of what has happened in this egregious situation. >> My honorable friend's absolutely right
[15:36]about those existing mechanisms of scrutiny and I give her great credit for the work she does. I've always said on the point that's been raised opted I will take it away. I'll give away to >> Sarah Owen. >> I thank the minister for giving away and
[15:47]on the point of Peter Manderson letting people down, the people that have been let down most by this are the victims of Jeffrey Epstein. And does he agree that we wouldn't be discussing this
[15:58]disgraceful situation if it hadn't been that people didn't listen to the women that came forward in the first place, didn't listen to victims in the first
[16:07]place, and instead listen to men in power, men with deep pockets and men advising those in power. So, don't we need to put the victims at the heart of
[16:18]this and not just ourselves? My honorable friend is absolutely right and it is the victims, the women and girls who were victims of the
[16:28]trafficking and appalling aborarent behavior of Jeffrey Epstein who should be at the forefront of our mind. I'll make a bit of progress then I will give way a few times again and let me just say Mr. Speaker, not only has the
[16:40]cabinet office referred the evidence about Peter Manderson's time as a minister to the police, but we are also taking action going forward in the Hills
[16:50]law that is before this house to introduce a duty of Canada for all public servants that is going to make it an offense to lie to the public. Making it a criminal offense to do anything but
[17:01]act with openness and integrity when things go wrong. And that is the action this government is taking to prevent future cover-ups and injustices. A statement of intention that we want to
[17:13]enshrine that capacity to speak truth to power. As my honorable friend said, the voice of victims being at the forefront, not as in this case a group of powerful
[17:23]men putting an end to the situation where powerful people are able to avoid justice. Now the government should rightly be tested and questioned by this house. I will one moment I will give
[17:35]away the honorable gentleman. But the action that is taken by this government is what is crucial now. And earlier this week the prime minister asked the cabinet secretary to review all available information regarding
[17:47]Peter Mandelson's contacts with Jeffrey Epstein during his period as a government minister and to report back as a matter of urgency. After an initial review of some documents, the cabinet
[17:57]secretary made the decision to refer the matter to the police with the prime minister's support. And I should say the government stands ready to provide any support the police require as part of their investigation. On that note, I
[18:08]will give way to the father of the house. >> Edwardly, father of the house. >> We're all agreed on the character of Lord Manderson, >> but I'm not sure we're going to make much progress if we just repeating
[18:20]ourselves on that because we all agree the reputation of the house is at stake >> and what the opposition has to do is hold the prime minister to account.
[18:31]Now, I've listened very carefully to the prime minister today, the leader of the opposition. I listened to the minister. He's been asked, the prime minister been
[18:41]asked on repeated occasions whether when this appointment was known, the prime minister knew that Manderson had
[18:51]continued his relationship with Epstein after the first conviction. It's a very direct question. The reputation of the house is at stake.
[19:02]Will the minister now answer that question? >> Prime answer this prime minister's questions. He was lied to about the depth and extent of the relationship.
[19:12]>> Jonathan Brash. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Um, I stand here acutely aware that I am the member of parliament for Heartleyool and I think today I speak for Heartley Podlians when
[19:24]I look at the evidence before us and say undoubtedly that Peter Mandlesson is a traitor >> and in that on that basis it is important that the public have
[19:36]confidence in this process. Would he agree? Yes, I absolutely agree and I think the honorable gentleman expresses the anger felt by many across the house and at the
[19:47]m I'll make some more progress than I will give way a few times again. >> No, I I will make some more progress than I will give way um again. Now, members will recall back in September,
[19:57]in light of the additional information in emails written by Peter Mandlesson released at the time, the prime minister then asked the then foreign secretary to withdraw him as ambassador with
[20:07]immediate effect. And the emails released showed that the nature and extent of Peter Mandlesson's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein was materially different to that was known
[20:18]at the time of his appointment. The issue over which Peter Mandlesson was withdrawn from Washington was information not available at the time when the due diligence was done
[20:29]and a due diligence process was conducted by the cabinet office and a security vetting process they are different were carried out. Since
[20:40]entering government, we've already taken action to strengthen the process for making direct appointments for ambassadors specifically and making direct ministerial appointments more
[20:50]generally. I will give way to my friend. >> I'm grateful to live. >> I'm grateful to my honorable friend for giving way. There's there's clearly concern about the government amendment
[21:01]that it doesn't go far enough in terms of scrutiny of those documents that might be withheld. And across the house there is a consensus growing that the the intelligence and security committee
[21:13]could provide a way forward for scrutiny of those independent scrutiny of those documents. >> Is there a possibility that we could have a a manuscript amendment to that
[21:22]effect that we can all join join together and vote for so that we can take this serious matter forwards? >> Can I I might be Yeah. The manuscript amendment will be a matter for the chair
[21:34]and um the chair will be sympathetic to what the house would need to ensure that we get the best. >> Well, I hope uh Mr. Speaker that the house always takes me at my word when I
[21:45]say that I will take these matters uh away. So the c the uh the cabinet secretary will be taking independent advice on the decisions he is taking
[21:56]through this process. The cabinet secretary intends this to take two forms. Firstly, having the advice of an in independent KC throughout the process
[22:07]and secondly scrutiny of the the approach he is taking by the ISC. I hope that will give the house the reassurance that it needs.
[22:18]Now I take let me come to I will give I will in a moment. Let me just make a bit more progress. I will give way again. Let me just take the opposition motion
[22:28]the and I have some experience in the past of uh drafting humble addresses on different matters in this house myself. Of course, there is an extensive nature to it. I think the house recognizes that
[22:40]it's imperative that the government protects sensitive information that could damage national security or relations with our international partners. I will give way.
[22:50]I I thank the uh the minister for giving way and I remember the humble addresses that were tabled in this place during those uh Brexit years. He will know that in opposition we never felt the need to put national security or international
[23:02]relations on the face of the motion itself because that was an implied uh protection. So can I ask the minister two things? One, he's just said quite helpfully that the ISC will be involved in scrutinizing the process. Does he
[23:13]mean the process that the cabinet secretary looks at documents or will they themselves be able to see documents? And I think we all understand what he means by national security. But could he give a definition by what he
[23:23]means by international relations because that's quite a broad term. Having some clarity around that would be welcome. >> Minister. >> Yeah. Yeah, I mean I mean as my I think my honorable friend has similar memories
[23:35]of the that particular uh parliament but um you know I for example on the the motion on lead bed for example we we included in the motion in a form which
[23:46]may contain redactions but such redactions may be solely for the purposes of national security. We did do that and I and in terms of the the humble addresses that I was involved in
[23:56]drafting, I was I was very very precise uh about it. Before I come to the scope of the motion, I will I've got two I'll
[24:06]>> Yes, I'm extremely grateful for him for giving way and and I know the minister takes the role of the IFC very seriously and I appreciate that he is trying to help the house with what he has just
[24:17]said. However, he will appreciate the difficulty the House has is it needs to decide what to do in relation to the motion before it today. >> Yeah.
[24:27]>> Members on both sides will have to decide how they should cast their vote. >> So although there is some reassurance in the intelligence and security being committee being involved with the
[24:37]cabinet secretaries process that will not be possible before we have to reach a decision on this motion. The principle here is surely this that
[24:47]the whole house cannot see everything. I have sympathy with the minister on this both in relation to national security material and rather more sympathy I'm proud to say that my colleague on the
[24:58]front bench in relation to material which may be sensitive relating to international relations. But following on from the comments that have been made on his own side, including from the right honorable lady for Hackne and
[25:08]Shortage, isn't the answer here that the opposition front bench will accept that its motion will include the concept that if material is sensitive, it is supplied
[25:20]to the ISC only and not to the whole house, >> but that everything should be disclosed to the house either via that route or via a route to the whole house.
[25:30]>> Absolutely. Exactly. here >> beyond the deadline to amend the motion which is a a familiar situation he and I have found himself in before. But what I just want to say very clearly and I hope
[25:41]that the house takes my previous answer on this as good faith that I have just remark saying the deadline has passed for amendment. Can you just can
[25:53]the speaker just confirm what you've just said to the house that you would be sympathetic to a manuscript motion that wouldn't be subject to that deadline? the chair is able to select a manuscript amendment
[26:04]and that will be a high bar but there is a lot that we need to clear up and I recognize that I think things can move forward and I'm sure just to let you
[26:12]know the answer is yes in a nutshell >> but um could I just I hope that the house takes in good faith what I have sought to do in the course of my speech
[26:23]let alone the course of the debate and I think that that and I think that scrutiny of the process is very important. No, the scope of the motion
[26:34]could also include thousands of documents. It is obviously both in the national interest to protect national security but also in the national interest to be transparent and act with
[26:45]urgency. I completely accept that and it is important now we do take time and care balancing those elements. So look to the government amendment. Let me make some progress. I might come back. Look,
[26:57]that's why the government has tabled the amendment. It has for publication of documents unless they prejudice national security. And I know I've been asked this specific question about international relations because of
[27:08]course such documents might contain information about our relationship with our international allies, how we have approached them. That is obviously
[27:17]important for governments to keep uh of course confidential because it's in the national interest. There's also the issue that I am very conscious of of not
[27:28]at all hiding behind the cloak of the Met police investigation. I'm definitely not seeking to do that. But of course, we will also have to bear in mind documents that might prejudice that
[27:39]investigation and that's something we will continue to speak to the Met about. Now, Mr. Mr. Speaker, we will of course
[27:49]do all we can to comply with the motion as amended and we will also update the house accordingly. And indeed on this
[27:58]moment on this moment I also want to say to the house that whilst that process of going through a significant amount of
[28:09]documents might take a little time, it is also important that the government starts that process of disclosure to the extent it can do today. And that is what
[28:19]the government will do in response to the debate and the very reasonable questions that are being put across the amendment. I I I am someone who rewards effort and
[28:30]as the honorable gentleman has put in such effort, we'll allow >> Can I can I return the compliment by just saying to the minister how much I admire his ability and generosity in giving way? I think I think he's doing
[28:42]exceptional job in relation to the government amendment amendment A. I understand where he is coming from and can I just describe perhaps a thing which he may wish to see passed through
[28:54]the ISC but can't be made publicly available and that is which of our foreign allies had something to say about the
[29:04]appointment of Peter Mandelen to Washington. And I appreciate the minister is never going to say uh uh precisely who that ally might be, but
[29:14]the nature of that correspondent surely is a matter of public interest and therefore of interest to this house, but is not something that can be bruted
[29:24]abroad. So the ISC provides the very obvious solution to discovering what representations were made and what
[29:34]material was passed between our allies and the Cabinet Office before this appointment was made. Can he make that commitment? >> Well, I hope the House has seen even in
[29:46]the course of this debate, Mr. Speaker, how the constructive approach I've tried to take on the role of the ISC and its role uh in this uh process. That's precisely what I've done. I want to come I want to turn now to another issue of
[29:57]this matter which is the perage because another action the government is determined to take is to strip Peter Mandlesson of his title as the prime
[30:08]minister has set out and frankly I think people watching this will be beused because there is no other walk of life where you are unsackable unless a law is
[30:19]passed. So we will introduce primary legislation. We the government has written to the chair of the Lord's conduct committee to ask the lords to consider what changes are required to
[30:31]modernize the house processes to remove lords quickly when they brought either house into disrepute and the government stands ready to support the house in whatever way it is necessary to put any
[30:42]changes in effect. Now Mr. Speaker being in office is a privilege. It is a privilege. Every day
[30:52]is a privilege. And that is why there is anger across this house about Peter Mandlesson and his actions. The test for the government in these circumstances
[31:03]is the action we take to respond. And as I think has also come through this debate, our utmost thoughts are with the victims, the women and girls who suffered at the hands of Jeffrey
[31:15]Epstein. Behind the emails, the photographs and the documents are many victims who exposed to this network of abuse. They should be our priority in
[31:25]this matter and I'm sure they will be for the rest of this debate. Thank you. >> The original question was as on the order paper since when the amendment has
[31:36]been proposed as on the order paper. The question is that the amendment be made. Lisa Smart Liberal. >> Thank you very much indeed Mr. Speaker. We are having this debate today solely
[31:48]because of the women and girls who found the courage to come forward about the abuse, the abuse they had endured over years at the hands of rich and powerful men. Without these women's bravery in
[31:59]speaking up about their experiences at the hands of a pedophile sex trafficker and his friends, none of these shocking revelations would have come out. We owe these women justice and we owe it to
[32:11]them to make changes to create a system that works. Would you give away? >> I will. >> I thank the honorable member for giving way victims, she is right, should be at
[32:21]the heart of this process. The allegations against someone uh the prime minister and ministers put Phil Trust in is absolutely shocking. Jeffrey Epstein was a sick child predator and a sex
[32:32]offender. He visited Hillsboro Castle on at least one occasion. Will uh does she agree that this house and the the government should have a full review of
[32:43]his activities whilst there and an audit of visitors to him during this time? The victims deserve answers. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> So, I agree with the honorable lady's characterization of some of the
[32:54]individuals we're talking about today. I think uh we will be supporting the uh leader of the opposition's motion to request the amount of information that is sought and we would go further. we would look to a public inquiry to look
[33:06]at the detail uh that I think the victims deserve. The revelations about Peter Mandlesson's conduct raise profoundly serious questions about judgment, about national security, and
[33:17]about accountability. The leaked emails suggest that while serving as a cabinet minister, he shared sensitive government information, sharing details about the 2008 financial crisis, market sensitive
[33:28]bailout measures, and potential asset sales. These allegations point to potential misconduct in public office aimed at helping those involved enrich themselves. They certainly warrant the
[33:39]police investigation that was announced yesterday, but also reveal catastrophic failures in the systems meant to protect our national interest. The emails highlight a fundamental lack of
[33:49]accountability that exists within our current system. The prime minister has rightly called Peter Mandlesson's conduct a betrayal. He submitted material to the police, requested draft
[34:00]legislation on removing perigages. These responses are necessary, but it has taken the government far too long to get to this position. Mandlesson was appointed ambassador to the United
[34:10]States by this government and this prime minister even after his links to Epstein had been extensively reported by the Financial Times and Channel 4 News.
[34:21]>> I will give way to my honorable friend. I thank my honorable friend for giving way. Um the cabinet secretary in evidence to the foreign affairs committee after Mandlesson had been uh
[34:32]withdrawn from Washington said that a summary of the uh developing and conflict of interest report was given to the prime minister prior to Mandlesson's
[34:44]appointment. Something which the prime minister appeared to confirm at the dispatch box earlier. Um the government and the prime minister has repeatedly said that it was the extent of the
[34:54]relationship that changed and somehow uh altered the appropriateness of his appointment. I wonder what message she thinks it sends to the victims of
[35:04]Jeffrey Epstein, to the many victims of rape, of pedophilia, of sexual assault, of sex trafficking, that anyone with a relationship with Jeffrey Epstein should
[35:15]be deemed appropriate to be our representative in Washington. I completely, Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with my honorable friend. I am not sure the what extent of friendship is
[35:25]appropriate uh with a known convicted sex trafficker to put somebody in our most senior diplomatic position. I will in a minute. I'll make a tiny bit more
[35:35]progress if I may. Uh Channel 4 Dispatches in 2019 interviewed a witness who saw Epstein take a phone call from Mandlesen while he was in prison for child sex trafficking. Mandelson asked
[35:47]for a favor to meet the then JP Morgan CEO. All of this information was in the public domain. I >> I'm grateful that she's made the exact point about it being in the public domain often from the US and one of the
[35:58]questions we haven't heard from the government. Was a request put in to uh the US to ask whether there were any concerns in the first place because we know that this relationship was public.
[36:09]We know that there it existed. So did the US get asked for any information or any concerns they have? I haven't heard the government uh explain this point. Has she? >> I listening as intently as the honorable
[36:21]gentleman has. I'm sure. I think there are so many questions uh that are right for the government to answer. We believe a public inquiry is the way to get to the bottom of that after any police
[36:31]investigation has concluded. There are questions that swirl around which advisers said what and when. But the deci decision to hire Mandlesson was
[36:42]ultimately the prime minister's. and he must be held responsible for that choice. >> On that point, will she give way? >> Happily. I >> I thank you for giving way. Earlier, the minister said that
[36:53]>> Jeffrey Epstein's crimes were unforgivable. Does she think that the prime minister appointing said known pedophile? Was that forgivable? >> Is that forgivable?
[37:04]>> Luc I think my honorable friend is referring to the friend of a known pedophile rather than the appointment of a pedophile. >> Thank you very much. um which is an
[37:13]important clarification to make. Um I think that there are rightly questions surrounding the judgment displayed by the prime minister in appointing uh
[37:23]Peter Mandlesson to the position of the UK ambassador to the US. >> Um and the questions around those judgment around that judgment, Mr.
[37:32]speaker are wholly valid as are uh questions being asked around current cabinet ministers who chose who also chose to maintain friendships with Mandlesson with rumors of him popping in
[37:43]and out of some offices at will and I must say I noted the facial expressions of some on the government front bench during PMQ's earlier today. Many questions were raised about
[37:55]Mandlesson before his appointment. Of course, there were questions raised about him during the 2009 expenses scandal. He was forced to resign from cabinet twice for unethical behavior.
[38:06]And we understand the security services raised serious concerns about his appointment last year. Yet he was still appointed to one of our most sensitive diplomatic positions. This is not a case
[38:16]of one unforeseen problem. This is a pattern of warning signs that were ignored. This Labor government promised to break with conservative chaos. And instead, we see the same failures.
[38:27]inadequate checks, reactive crisis management, and an inability, I will in a moment, and an inability to present obvious problems. You do not restore public trust with heartfelt apologies
[38:38]after things go wrong. You do it by having proper systems that stop scandals before they happen. Labor has failed to maintain public confidence and they must do better. I will give
[38:49]>> I thank you for giving way. Obviously people here want to get to the bottom of accountability in terms of the prime minister other elements within number 10 and of course what Peter Mandelson
[39:00]himself has done. But there is something out there I think which is more systemic and the public understand that this isn't just about a number of rotten apples in the system. It is systemic. It
[39:11]is about wealth and power and access and how they treat >> young girls and women and us the public. They take us for mugs. So, does she
[39:21]believe that this is wider than just a few bad apples? It is systemic and that's what needs to be addressed here and that's what the public wants. >> I wholeheartedly agree with the
[39:31]honorable gentleman. I'm wondering, Mr. Speaker, if he's seen ahead in my notes, my remarks about some of the systemic changes we as Liberal Democrats would like to see. I agree with him. This goes
[39:42]far beyond a few bad apples. There are systemic failures in our country that we need to seize this opportunity to address. Um there are fundamental
[39:52]weaknesses in our system of government. Weaknesses that successive administrations have failed to address and which now further threaten public confidence. I'm going to take the urging of the
[40:04]father of the house to focus on how we make progress from here. We must make reforms to the ministerial code as it is clearly not functioning as it is. The code exists as a set of rules and
[40:15]principles acting as guidance for ministers rather than having legal basis. Therefore, ministers who breach it face no legal consequences. When the ministerial code is investigated, even when this is done by independent
[40:27]advisers, the prime minister can decide whether to listen to the adviser or not, which means that accountability becomes almost meaningless. And I wonder if in his uh winding up remarks, the minister
[40:38]might consider this and using this troubling episode in our national story as a catalyst for bringing about the muchneeded change by enshrining the ministerial code in law. Liberal
[40:49]Democrats believe that to go some way to restore vital public trust in our democracy, we also need to make fundamental reforms to this house and
[40:59]the other place. Members of the government clearly share this sentiment as we've heard various ministers on the airwaves over the last couple of days saying that the government recognizes
[41:09]the urgency of reforming the laws and may bring forward proposals at pace. I'd be grateful if the minister could lay out further detail of their plans to legislate especially given growing
[41:20]concern about public trust in our democratic institutions and the integrity of this parliament. The government holds a substantial majority in this house and we've seen that
[41:31]they're able to push through registration legislation rapidly. We saw this only last week with the medical training prioritization bill and the same process could be used to make
[41:42]urgent changes to the other place. Ministers need to set out the legal mechanisms available to suspend or remove a peer. the timetable for any planned legislation, the progress of
[41:53]cross party discussions that have been mentioned in the press, and how confidence in the upper chamber will be restored. Because without clarification, uncertainty risks further eroding public
[42:05]confidence in Parliament and in our democratic institutions. to the specifics of the motion we're discussing today and the government amendment to it. We Liberal Democrats believe firmly
[42:16]that transparency is vital and it is the very least the government can do to release the information requested. So, we will be supporting the main motion. We would go further. We don't even know
[42:28]the full extent of the British establishment's involvement in Epstein's appalling crimes or how many British girls and young women were trafficked by him. We are calling for a full public
[42:39]inquiry with the power to compel witnesses both to get justice for the victims and to protect our national security. >> On that point, >> I will give way.
[42:50]>> Uh I thank my honorable friend for giving way and specifically on the information that's available. Does she share my discomfort with the fact that this information is only become clear
[43:00]for us? with this mass release of information from the Department of Justice in the United States. And whilst I understand the government's reluctance to release information that may well
[43:12]harm international affairs, that doesn't seem to be a concern of the US government. >> I'm grateful to my honorable friends and I think the best uh disinfectant is often daylight. I am strongly in favor
[43:23]of transparency and welcome it including the information that's being requested today. >> Thank for giving way. I think her point about the wider establishment is important. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
[43:33]Individuals like Sir Richard Branson, who were clearly offering to help Steve Epstein to launder his identity and his uh represent uh reputation by suggesting PR advice on how he might recover from
[43:44]his prosecution. Uh and and gentlemen like Bill Gates, whose wife has very bravely spoken out against one of the reasons why she left him due to his links to Epstein. How do we make sure that men like this who continue to have
[43:54]extreme power can face some sort of justice on this? who's smart. >> She's entirely right to talk about some of the very well-known men and it is
[44:06]men, wealthy, powerful, greedy men who we are talking about today who should be held accountable for their actions. The transparency that is sought today is
[44:16]something I think we should all welcome and have in our minds the victims and survivors and preventing future young girls and
[44:27]women from being victims and survivors of similar crimes. We should do all we can and take that responsibility that we have very seriously indeed. My right honorable friend, the member
[44:40]for Kingston and Serban mentioned earlier in questions to the prime minister and indeed the shadow minister mentioned from the dispatch box today that the Polish government thinks
[44:49]Epstein may have been spying for Putin. The British public and Epstein's victims deserve to know if a UK cabinet minister was leaking secrets not only to a
[45:01]convicted pedophile and sex trafficker but also a Russian agent. We Liberal Democrats recognize the vital importance of safeguarding national security and
[45:11]genuinely welcome the openness displayed by the minister uh in looking at the ISC as a way of of getting to the bottom of some of this that he expressed earlier. However, safeguards are already in place
[45:23]to protect national security. These include the National Security Act which restricts the disclosure of information where this would harm the safety or interests of the UK. And in tableabling
[45:34]the amendment they have, including international relations, as a reason to keep secret the information they have. The government is trying to wrigle out of their obligation to the truth and we
[45:44]will not support it. >> Willingly honorable lady for giving away. I think the transparency point is really important. This Peter Mandlesson was a Labor politician. This is a Labor
[45:56]government. It may be that Peter Manderson was an isolated bad apple and really no one knew anything about anything that he was doing until this this release of these documents last week, [snorts] but public will wonder and they will question and if a Labor
[46:07]government covers up by being anything less than fully transparent, they'll wonder who they're covering up for and why. >> This is smart. >> I think there have been a a series of administrations who have not been as
[46:19]open as they might be, who've made poor choices about the behavior of some of their members that have ended up in scandal and disgrace. And I completely agree if she's making a point that
[46:28]trust, public trust in our institutions, public trust in our government is vital and we must all take that very seriously. Uh there is a a sorry legacy
[46:39]of recent governments who have behaved less than impeccably in a number of ways and I think using this whole sorry episode uh as a catalyst to bring about much neededed change is something we
[46:50]would strongly support. >> We're going to give way. You give way. Uh I will give way and then I will >> Andrew Madison giving way. Uh now the prime minister has said it's okay
[47:01]because the cabinet secretary is going to command this process. Does she agree with me? The cabinet secretary is a person of impeccable repute. But whatever he is he's he's he's he can't
[47:12]be objective because he's been involved in this process. It is almost unfair to put this on him. So what mechanism can she devise that will deal with that
[47:24]other than give the great bulk of this because international relations was going to cover the great bulk of this to the ISC. >> Well, he's he's clearly been reading Liberal Democrat press releases, Mr. Speaker, because we believe a public
[47:35]inquiry uh is a is a far more effective way of getting to the bottom of this. And I'm delighted that he made that point. I said I'd go to the back of that. >> Corby,
[47:46]>> I I thank the member for giving way and she's making some excellent points. Would she agree with me that all of the inquiry systems that have been discussed so far in this debate are actually
[47:56]influenced or participants in of people who have been within the golden circle of Peter Manson in the past? Don't we need something very novel and very different such as an independent
[48:07]judge-led inquiry or judicially inquiry that examines the whole thing in the round on the in the way that perhaps the Chilcot inquiry looked into the Iraq war.
[48:19]>> I'm always delighted to get agreement from across the political spectrum, Mr. Speaker, and I I very much agree with the right honorable gentleman that an independent judge inquiry would be the
[48:27]right way to go.