Before the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister comes to the Dispatch Box to make the statement, it has been brought to attention of the Chair that it is possible that information has not been shared in due time. The requirement to provide a copy of the statement to the Opposition before it is made is set out in the ministerial code—in chapter 9, if the Minister wants to refresh himself. I am not responsible for policing the ministerial code, but it is clearly a discourtesy to the House not to make information available in good time. Those on the Treasury Bench, and no doubt the Ministers responsible, will have heard me and will ensure that this does not happen again.
I apologise to the House if we were a few minutes short of the standard 45 minutes to an hour prior to the statement in publishing the documents, but I can confirm that they have now been laid before the House and are available on gov.uk.
With permission, I will make a statement to update the House on the Government’s response to the Humble Address of 4 February. The Government committed to responding to that Humble Address, and I can today confirm that we are releasing a first tranche of documents, which have been laid before the House in advance of this statement, and are now published on gov.uk for the public. There are further tranches of documents to come as officials work through the full scope of the Humble Address.
It is important to recognise the strength of feeling across the House—my own included—in our disgust and horror at the nature and extent of the relationship that Peter Mandelson maintained with Jeffrey Epstein despite Epstein’s criminal conviction for abusing a vulnerable young girl. This included encouraging Jeffrey Epstein to fight that conviction.
Jeffrey Epstein was a despicable criminal who committed the most horrifying and disgusting crimes that destroyed the lives of countless women and girls. What he did is, of course, unforgivable, and I know that his victims will be in the thoughts and prayers of all Members across the House as we debate these issues today. Those victims will always be our first priority. Peter Mandelson’s behaviour was an insult to them and their suffering, and I am sorry that these events leave them with no choice but to relive their horrors, with still too little justice being served. That is why there is cross-party consensus in this House for full transparency and accountability, why anybody with knowledge must co-operate with inquiries, whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere, and why the Government are therefore committed to publishing all documents relevant to the Humble Address.
The Prime Minister has taken responsibility for Peter Mandelson’s appointment as ambassador to the United States. He has acknowledged that it was a mistake and has apologised, not least for believing Peter Mandelson’s lies. As the Government have said previously, there are specific documents that this Government would like to have been able to disclose today, but which the Metropolitan police has asked us not to publish yet in order to avoid prejudicing its ongoing criminal investigation into Peter Mandelson. We have agreed to that request and will therefore publish those documents in the future, as soon as the Metropolitan police has confirmed that they will no longer prejudice its investigation.
As the House already understands, the Government must also carefully assess the risk of prejudicing UK national security or international relations posed by the release of any official documents. Any such material will be, and is being, referred to the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament. I thank the Committee for its assistance in this matter and can confirm to the House that it has agreed with a limited redaction, requested by the Government, in relation to one document that we are publishing today. Outside of that arrangement, this process does not change the important and well-established constitutional principle that national security and international relations judgments are, ultimately, for the Government.
I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your remarks at the outset of this statement. I also thank the Minister for advance sight of the statement, which I received at 1.30 pm. This whole business is really about transparency. The Government have had to be dragged to do this by Members on both sides of this House, so producing a 135-page document and putting it online 23 minutes before this debate is really not acceptable at all. I respect the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister for coming to the Chamber and making this statement, but it really ought to be the Prime Minister sitting there, because all of this is about the Prime Minister’s judgment. It is very convenient that this document was published after Prime Minister’s questions, during which the man who made the decision—the man whose judgment is in question—could have been put under scrutiny by hon. Members. Very many questions arise from the documents published. I will put a few on record, and then return to the central theme.
There is the issue of severance pay, to which the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister referred. Why did Ministers agree to any severance pay, given what had happened? Many of our constituents will be disgusted that Peter Mandelson received £70,000. Will his full declaration of interests, which he was supposed to have handed over when he was appointed, be published? I do not believe that they are included in the tranche of documents published today. Is that because of a police request, or is it for some other reason? Will the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister publish a register of withheld and delayed documents, so that the House can be aware of what is being held back? Will he give us a little more information, either now or in the future, on redactions? It is important that this House understands who is deciding on what will be redacted.
This awful saga involving Jeffrey Epstein continues. I understand that, as this House meets, one of his ranches in New Mexico is being investigated because there are reports that bodies are buried there. At the centre of this scandal was a very rich and powerful man who despicably abused his position, and he was helped to become rich and powerful by his associates, one of whom was Peter Mandelson. Although I of course associate myself with the remarks made by the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister about Epstein’s victims, it is very clear that those victims were not in the Prime Minister’s mind when he appointed Peter Mandelson. The Prime Minister has already admitted that he knew Mandelson had maintained his friendship with Epstein even after the latter’s conviction for his terrible crimes. That was a bad choice, and it is a choice that we can now read about in black and white on page 11 of the publication. It says:
The shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster asked me a number of questions, which I shall take in turn. The first was on the severance payment. He asked me why that payment had been made, and who approved it. As I set out in my opening statement, Peter Mandelson was employed as a civil servant, not as a Minister. That meant that on his summary dismissal by the Prime Minister, he had the right to take a claim to the employment tribunal. As we can see in the documents, Peter Mandelson asked for a much larger sum, with the implied threat that there would be legal proceedings, with associated costs. The Government would not have wanted to pay £1 to Peter Mandelson, but they reluctantly agreed to the award, given the contrast between the cost to the taxpayer of employment tribunal legal fees, and the cost of a payment; in the advice, the latter cost would have been higher than the amount that was given. The Prime Minister has since said that Peter Mandelson should either return that money or donate it.
On the question of who approved the severance payment, the House will see from the documents that the request from the Foreign Office was made to the Treasury. The payment was approved, in line with Treasury business rules, albeit reluctantly, and with an express condition that a non-disclosure agreement was not allowed in these circumstances. For the sake of completeness, there is reference in the bundle to that business case requiring my approval. I can confirm to the House that I did not receive that request, or indeed approve it.
The shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster asked me about some of the documents, namely about redactions and a register of withheld documents. On the question of a register of withheld documents, I would need to take advice from lawyers in the Metropolitan police before I could say whether these documents are being held for their criminal investigation. I hope that the House is somewhat reassured by the mechanism that we have been able to establish with the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, which has sight of these documents, albeit in a contained and controlled way. Government redactions to the documents are to protect only the names and contact details of junior civil servants, as is the practice. Other redactions that relate to international security and international relations are done with the approval of the Intelligence and Security Committee.
Clearly, Peter Mandelson’s associations bring a real stench to the appointment process, but I want to know about the business associations, and how they are scrutinised in the process. We know that Peter Mandelson’s public relations company, Global Counsel, had as a client Palantir, which has won lucrative contracts from successive Governments. I want to understand whether the papers demonstrate those associations, and the associations that Peter Mandelson then brought into Government.
My hon. Friend will see from the documents that are being published today that those commercial interests were raised by the Cabinet Office, and that established processes were in place that meant that new members of the civil service had to remove such commercial interests before taking office. There is some commentary in the bundle about the conversation that was had with Peter Mandelson in advance of his appointment as ambassador to the United States, specifically about that question. Having said all that, part of the review that we are taking forward is another look at the business appointment rules, to make sure that the processes that were applied were robust enough in the situation that we are discussing. If we need to further strengthen them, we stand ready to do so.
I thank the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement. It is a stain on our nation that we are even having to go through this. It is right that we keep Epstein’s victims, survivors and families at the front of our mind.
Today marks the first day of Britain’s own Epstein files. For a close friend of Epstein to have been made Britain’s ambassador to the United States is a shameful part of this affair; that is the Prime Minister’s responsibility. It is disappointing that the Prime Minister is not here to answer for that, and for his catastrophic failure of judgment with respect to Mandelson.
Peter Mandelson’s close relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, and the fact that it continued long after long after Epstein’s conviction for child sex trafficking, had been reported by both Channel 4’s “Dispatches” in 2019 and the Financial Times in 2023. Has the Prime Minister told the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister personally how those reports made him feel, and why he still felt it was right to appoint Mandelson anyway? Mandelson’s £75,000 payout is an insult to Epstein’s victims—if he had a shred of decency left he would donate it to charity—but the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister’s explanation of why the Government made that payout simply will not wash.
With a very limited number of documents being released today, the wait goes on for the rest of Britain’s Epstein files. That includes the documents relating to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor required by the Liberal Democrats’ Humble Address, which was passed a fortnight ago. I very much hope that the Government will get those documents out as quickly as possible. It has taken five weeks from the Mandelson Humble Address to publication today. Will the Chief Secretary guarantee that the first Andrew papers will be published within the same timeframe, and by 31 March at the latest?
As I have said to the House, the Prime Minister regrets having appointed Peter Mandelson ambassador to the United States. It was the wrong decision, and he has apologised for it.
On severance, as I said, the Government would not have wanted to give £1 to Peter Mandelson, but it was the quickest way to remove him as ambassador and a member of the civil service. As the leader of the Liberal Democrats said—the Government agree with him—the honourable thing to do would be to donate that money to an appropriate charity.
On the Liberal Democrats’ Humble Address, that is being managed by the Department for Business and Trade; it is working on that now, and will come forward with updates in due course. As I said in my statement, the Cabinet Office will come back with a further tranche of documents in relation to the Humble Address as soon as possible.
If one of my constituents told me they had lost their job or been sacked because they had lied during the application process and they wanted compensation, I would tell them they had absolutely no chance of getting it, so I really struggle to understand why we paid a penny. I understand what the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister said about not wanting to make a payment, but the risk of an employment tribunal claim in such circumstances is minuscule. He is right that the money should have been paid to a victims charity. Will he now press Mandelson to do the right thing and give that money to the victims of abuse?
My hon. Friend and the House will see from the bundle of documents published today that the Government acted on the basis of legal advice in awarding that settlement payment, but I agree wholeheartedly, and repeat from the Dispatch Box that the honourable thing for Peter Mandelson to do would be to donate the payment to an appropriate charity.
I acknowledge what the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister said with regards to my role as Chair of the Committee looking at documents pro tem on behalf of the House. As he knows, that will be done properly.
Following the point made by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders), the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister is right that under the civil service rules, Mandelson could have made a claim to a tribunal, but the hon. Gentleman is also right that anybody doing so who has secured a position by deception would find themselves on the thinnest of thin ice; they would have no chance at all. Mandelson’s original claim just underscores the shamelessness of the individual in question.
As the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister has admitted that the Prime Minister was lied to—that is deception—was legal advice sought as to the likely outcome of any employment tribunal case brought by Mandelson? If it was, what was that advice? If it was not, why not?
The advice is in the bundle of documents published today; the hon. Gentleman will have to forgive my not being able to refer him to precisely the right page. While it is not for me to defend the claim that Peter Mandelson was making against the Government, one of the issues would of course have been the legal fees in defending that claim at the employment tribunal, which would have been a cost to the taxpayer even if in the end the Government would have been successful. Those considerations were put to the Government in advice, which is why that settlement figure—a much lower figure than the legal fees and potential settlement being asked for—was the case.
I have listened to the Minister, and some of his points were relevant, but this is not just about technicalities and lapses of judgment. This is about a wider, rotten political culture: a 30-year project where proximity to wealth and power is not a means to an end but the end goal. That is what Peter Mandelson represented. This is not just about him being the ambassador or being selected to be ambassador; he was at the heart of the political project around No. 10. That has to change. Do the Government understand that out there, this is about not just one bad set of decisions but a political culture, which Peter Mandelson represents, and that it is destroying mainstream party politics in this country? Do we get that? Do we understand that? Will we change?
20 of 64 shown
The documents released today relate specifically to the decision to appoint Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United States and the discussions that subsequently led to his dismissal. They include: the Cabinet Office due diligence report, which was passed to No. 10 prior to Peter Mandelson’s appointment; information provided to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister as to whether full due process was followed during Peter Mandelson’s appointment; papers relating to Peter Mandelson’s appointment as His Majesty’s ambassador to the United States and minutes of meetings relating to the decision to appoint him; and details of the severance payments made to Peter Mandelson after the Prime Minister instructed that he be withdrawn as ambassador, thereby terminating his employment by the civil service.
While the documents point to public reports of an ongoing relationship between Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein, the advice did not expose the depth and extent of their relationship, which became apparent only after the release of further files by Bloomberg and then the United States Department of Justice. After the Prime Minister reviewed the Cabinet Office due diligence report, which noted public reporting on Peter Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, questions were put to Peter Mandelson by advisers in No. 10, as right hon. and hon. Members can see referred to on pages 8 and 94 of the bundle, and Peter Mandelson responded. These are matters that are currently the subject of an ongoing police investigation, and we will publish this document when the investigation allows. When we do, Members will be able to see Peter Mandelson’s answers for themselves, which the Prime Minister regrets believing. Peter Mandelson should never have been afforded the privilege of representing this country, and I reiterate to the House that the Prime Minister deeply regrets taking him at his word. It was a mistake to do so.
I can, however, confirm to the House—as agreed with you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and Mr Speaker—that we have shared the documents that are with the Metropolitan police with the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee on terms agreed by the Metropolitan police, to ensure as much transparency to this House as possible.
As soon as the truth became apparent, following reporting by Bloomberg, the Prime Minister acted to withdraw Peter Mandelson from his role. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members across the House will also read in these documents with interest how Peter Mandelson conducted himself after his withdrawal as ambassador. As the documents show, Peter Mandelson initially requested a sum for his severance payment that was substantially larger than the final payment—not just two or even three times, but more than six times the final amount, despite the fact that he was withdrawn from Washington because he had lost the confidence of the Prime Minister.
The Government obviously found that to be inappropriate and unacceptable. The settlement that was agreed was to avoid even higher further costs involving a drawn-out legal claim at the employment tribunal, given Peter Mandelson’s employment as a civil servant, rather than a Minister. As the House will know, Ministers can be dismissed without recourse to the employment tribunal, but civil servants are treated differently.
The Government are committed to complying with the Humble Address, and further work is ongoing to compile the rest of the information in its scope. The Government recognise the urgency with which this work must be completed and will keep Members updated as that work progresses.
We know that these documents also reveal that the due diligence process fell short of what is required. We have already taken steps to address weaknesses in the system and to ensure that when standards of behaviour fall short of the high standards expected, there will be more serious consequences. We have launched the Ethics and Integrity Commission to promote the highest standards in public life and we are changing the process for direct ministerial appointments, including politically appointed diplomatic roles, so that where the role requires access to highly classified material, the candidate must have passed national security vetting before such appointments are announced or confirmed.
Ministers will now be expected to forgo severance payments following a serious breach of the ministerial code, and we have given the independent adviser the power to initiate investigations into ministerial misconduct without the need to seek the Prime Minister’s permission first. The Prime Minister has also strengthened the ministerial code, with stricter rules on gifts and hospitality, and we have asked the Conduct Committee in the Lords to review the code of conduct to consider what changes are required to ensure that peers can be removed when they have brought the House into disrepute in the other place. We are also exploring whether the Committee can tighten rules on lobbying and paid advocacy to bring the Lords in line with Commons procedures.
I want to note that the vast majority of individuals who apply to public service do so with the best of intentions. However, it is right that following the Peter Mandelson case, we have asked questions about how we can further strengthen the rules and processes that underpin the operation of government. We have appointed Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent in the upper House to support this work on standards and constitutional reform as a new Minister in the Cabinet Office. I can also announce that the Prime Minister has asked the Ethics and Integrity Commission to conduct a review of the current arrangements relating to financial disclosures for Ministers and senior officials, transparency around lobbying and the business appointment rules, and we are conducting a review of the national security vetting system to ensure that we learn the lessons from the policy and process weaknesses related to Peter Mandelson’s case.
Let me conclude by reiterating that the whole House will agree that Jeffrey Epstein was a disgusting individual, and that Peter Mandelson’s decision to put their relationship before his victims and the vulnerable was reprehensible. As the Prime Minister has said,
“the victims of Epstein have lived with trauma that most of us can barely comprehend. They have had to relive it again and again. And they have had to see accountability delayed and too often denied.”
We must all learn this hard lesson and end a culture that dismisses women’s experiences far too often and too easily. Peter Mandelson should never have been appointed, and the Government will comply with the Humble Address. I will update the House further in due course. I commend this statement to the House.
“After Epstein was first convicted of procuring an underage girl in 2008, their relationship continued across 2009-2011, beginning when Lord Mandelson was Business Minister and continuing after the end of the Labour government. Mandelson reportedly stayed in Epstein’s House while he was in jail in June 2009.”
The Prime Minister claims that he was lied to; he was not lied to by this due diligence document. It may be that Mandelson denied those claims, and if so, perhaps the Prime Minister was lied to, but by an inveterate liar who had been fired twice before. We are supposed to believe that the Prime Minister, who was once the chief prosecutor in this country, could not see through this nonsense. It beggars belief.
Over the coming hours and days, we will see whether these documents reveal why the Prime Minister’s judgment failed so badly, but we must suspect that it was because his then chief of staff was Mandelson’s protégé. Morgan McSweeney had set up Labour Together, the Prime Minister’s private campaigning organisation. Peter Mandelson had advised Morgan McSweeney on the establishment of that organisation, which had been responsible for breaking electoral law so that it could hide the sources of its funds from the public and from the Labour party. Labour Together then sought to intimidate and smear journalists who revealed that wrongdoing, and it provided hundreds of Labour MPs and many of the top brass in the Cabinet with free money and free services. This was the ultimate “jobs for the boys”. The Prime Minister knew all that he needed to know. It was on him; it is on him now. He let his party and his country down. I very much doubt that either will trust him again.
Lastly, the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster asked me about the report from the Cabinet Office to the Prime Minister. As I said in my opening statement, the Prime Minister did ask subsequent questions of Peter Mandelson following that report being submitted by the Cabinet Office. His advisers at No. 10 undertook to answer those questions. Although that is a document that we cannot publish at this time, the Prime Minister is very clear that he regrets having believed the lies that Peter Mandelson put before him.