US Department of Justice Release of Files

As I know right hon. and hon. Members across the House will agree, Jeffrey Epstein was a despicable criminal who committed disgusting crimes and destroyed the lives of countless women and girls. What he did is unforgivable. His victims must be our first priority. As the Prime Minister has said, anybody with relevant information must come forward and co-operate with investigations, so that Jeffrey Epstein’s victims can get the justice that they have been denied for too long.

On Friday, the Department of Justice in the United States released around 3 million pages from the case files relating to Jeffrey Epstein. It is increasingly clear that his awful crimes involved many—often powerful—people, who facilitated them by actively participating in those crimes, by failing to hear the victims’ voices, by equating wealth with integrity, and by not using their privileged position to speak out, even against a friend. It is incumbent on those of us who hold ministerial office to behave in a way that builds trust in politics and upholds the standards that voters rightly expect from us.

Contained within the release by the US Department of Justice are documents that highlight the close nature of the relationship between Jeffrey Epstein and Peter Mandelson, including alleged financial transactions when Peter Mandelson was a Labour Member of Parliament and later a Minister. For the avoidance of doubt, this information was not known by the Government until the release of documents by the Department of Justice on Friday.

The nature of the documents has also raised serious concerns about Peter Mandelson’s behaviour while a Minister. Peter Mandelson must account for his actions and conduct. It is an understatement to say that his decision to continue a close relationship with a convicted paedophile, including discussing private Government business, falls far below the standards expected of any Minister. His behaviour was unequivocally wrong and an insult to the women and girls who suffered. No Government Minister of any political party should have behaved or ever should behave in this way.

The Prime Minister has today asked the Cabinet Secretary to review all available information regarding Peter Mandelson’s contact with Jeffrey Epstein during his period as a Government Minister, and to report back to him as a matter of urgency. As the House knows, Peter Mandelson is no longer a member of the Labour party, having resigned his membership last night, and the House may wish to know that disciplinary action by the Labour party was under way prior to his resignation.

The Prime Minister believes, as do the Government, that Peter Mandelson should not retain his membership of the House of Lords or use his title. As the House already knows, the Government do not have the power to remove peerages without legislation. However, the Prime Minister is calling on all political parties—including the Conservatives, as the largest party in the House of Lords—to work with the Government to modernise the disciplinary procedures to allow for the removal of peers who have brought the House of Lords into disrepute. The Government will today write to the appropriate authorities in the other place to start that process. It would be better to update those procedures so that they apply to all Members of the House of Lords, instead of having to introduce complex hybrid Bills for each individual peer who has brought the other place into disrepute.

I recognise the strength of feeling on all sides of the House, myself included, and the Government will of course keep Members up to date. I commend this statement to the House.

I call the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement.

The crimes of Jeffrey Epstein were truly terrible—paedophilia, sex trafficking, child prostitution. It was an awful abuse of power, and it is of course a great embarrassment to our country that its most senior ambassador should have been caught up with a man like him. In this latest set of releases from the US Department of Justice, it is clearer than ever that theirs was a relationship built not just on affection, but on the transfer of money from Epstein to Mandelson’s family and the transfer of information from Mandelson to Epstein. In some cases, this was apparently market-sensitive information that Mandelson received only by dint of being a member of the Labour Government.

So we of course welcome the belated announcement that there will be an investigation into Mandelson’s conduct while he was a Minister, but this should have happened long ago. I say that because we know that, in February last year, Gordon Brown, the former Prime Minister, wrote to the Cabinet Secretary explicitly asking for an investigation into the

“veracity of information contained in the Epstein papers about the sale of assets arising from the banking collapse and communications about them between Lord Mandelson and Mr Epstein.”

That investigation never happened.

In any case, I am afraid that the investigation announced today alone will not do. It is not enough to consider Mandelson’s historical conduct; there also needs to be an investigation into his behaviour while he was our ambassador in Washington. Given that he abused his previous position, it is entirely conceivable that he abused his most recent one. For example, I understand that on 27 February last year, Mandelson arranged for the Prime Minister to meet Palantir, a client of Mandelson’s company, Global Counsel. How many more such meetings were there, and what other information was shared? We all have a right to know.

The person who has to take responsibility for their failings is Peter Mandelson. The shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster knows that the process for political appointments, whether to ambassadorships or otherwise, was one set up under the previous Conservative Government. It was a process that we inherited and have since updated. The Prime Minister has been very clear that the declarations of interest put forward by Peter Mandelson were not wholly truthful. When it became clear from the release of information that that had not been the case, the Prime Minister moved swiftly to remove Peter Mandelson as the ambassador to the United States.

On the first point that the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster made, in relation to an investigation requested by former Prime Minister Gordon Brown, I can confirm to the House that his statement was incorrect. The former Prime Minister did ask the Cabinet Secretary to investigate in order to look for any particular documents that related, as he said, to the sale of RBS assets to JP Morgan. That investigation was undertaken. The Cabinet Secretary did respond to the former Prime Minister to confirm that no documents in relation to those questions were held by the Government. Evidently, now that more documents have become available to the public and to the Government, further investigations are now taking place.

The files seem to show that Peter Mandelson was given £50,000 by a notorious paedophile and that a few years later he sent on market-sensitive information to Epstein, who worked for JP Morgan, about market bail-outs. He told him about the Prime Minister’s resignation, said that they should “mildly threaten” the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and then told him about matters of national security. Surely this is a matter not of whether Peter Mandelson should be in the House of Lords, but of whether the police should be involved.

My right hon. Friend is right that each individual issue is wholly unacceptable, and cumulatively they are also unacceptable. The undeclared exchange of funds and the passing on of Government information, let alone the fact that those exchanges were to a convicted paedophile, are wholly unconscionable. The House will know that if any of those activities were to take place today, Ministers would be swiftly relieved of their duties and could be, via the recall petitions available to the House, removed from their constituency, too. As to the matter of criminal investigations, of course that is a matter for the prosecution services and the police. As I have informed the House, the investigation by the Cabinet Secretary into the released documents, as requested by the Prime Minister, is currently under way.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister and the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster are right: we must start by remembering the many women and young girls who experienced unimaginable horrors at the hands of Epstein and his network.

We must also ask what it was that first attracted the politician Peter Mandelson to the billionaire financier Jeffrey Epstein, and why it was that that relationship continued after Epstein’s character was well known. At the very least, the forwarding of confidential Government correspondence to a wealthy and powerful individual was clearly well beneath the conduct expected of a Cabinet Minister and possibly a breach of the law. When that is combined with the reported financial flows, the evidence is damning. The use of public office for private gain is the very definition of corruption; regardless of the outcome of a Government investigation, millions of people up and down the country are more than capable of judging for themselves on the evidence in front of them.

Is it not time to end the Lord Mandelson charade once and for all by bringing legislation to the House to strip him of his peerage? And what about his membership of the Privy Council? The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister referenced declarations of interest, so will the Government work with the House authorities to republish Peter Mandelson’s entry on the Register of Members’ Financial Interests dating back to his time as a Cabinet Minister in a Labour Government?

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his post on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench. He is right that it is time for the procedures in Parliament to be updated. While this House has taken steps in recent years to do so, the other place has not; as I said in my statement, the Government are today making an offer to the other place—to the appropriate authorities in the House of Lords—to put forward proposals to do just that. If we need to make time available to do so, we will.

The key question here is: who advised the Prime Minister? I do not expect the Prime Minister to do due diligence on appointments of this kind himself, but those around him must have done so. It appears that questions that needed to be asked of Lord Mandelson were not asked, or, if they were asked, that the answers were not passed on. Will my right hon. Friend give us a guarantee that when this is investigated, those around the Prime Minister who would have advised him on this appointment will be investigated fully?

The process for political appointments has since been strengthened by this Government to include additional interviews and processes for declarations of interest. The key thing, though, is that when someone lies in their declaration of interest, there must be a consequence, and that consequence for Members of the other place needs to be removal from the House of Lords and loss of peerage; that can happen only if the other place brings forward proposals to update its own processes, and the Government stand ready to support it in doing so. I agree with my hon. Friend that there need to be robust, clear and transparent processes, that any conflicts of interest need to be surfaced and dealt with adequately, and that when people are found to have lied, there must be some consequence.

I call the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is right to say that the other place must modernise its disciplinary procedures, but that kicks the Mandelson can down the road. This is not the first time this modern-day Icarus has flown a little too close to the sun, usually over money; we all remember the Geoffrey Robinson mortgage loan, which of course occasioned an earlier resignation—

And the Hinduja passport.

And the Hinduja passport, yes. Where I disagree with the Minister is in conflating the updating of the disciplinary procedures of the other place and the bringing forward of legislation—which is allowed—to remove Mandelson’s peerage. I am absolutely certain that, were the Government to bring forward a Bill, which need not be complex and hybrid as he suggested, it could be rushed through this House in a day, such is the appetite to make the point.

For the sake of clarity, can I just make it clear that neither I nor the Government are here to defend Peter Mandelson? We are here to defend the integrity of this House and the other place and to ensure that where processes need updating, they are updated. On the question of legislation regarding individual Members of the other place, the fact—if I might say so—is that there is a queue. That is why the process needs to be updated to apply to all peers: to remove the need to bring forward individual legislation, whether for Peter Mandelson or Michelle Mone.