Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this important emergency debate, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) on securing it.
My right hon. Friend made a series of excellent points, as did the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry). I agree with all those points. It is extraordinary that, on the eve of the President’s state visit, we are talking about the US ambassador who has been sacked in scandal.
There are many unanswered questions, and I will be asking many of them, but today the Prime Minister needs to do three things. The Prime Minister needs to come clean about what he knew and when he knew it—not send his junior Ministers to cover for him. The Prime Minister needs to publish the Mandelson-Epstein files in full. The Prime Minister needs to take responsibility for the appointment of Lord Mandelson as ambassador to Washington. But the Prime Minister is not here, because he is hiding from Parliament and hiding from questions. I know that he is a busy man, but confidence in him and in his Government rests on him being able to account for what happened, and so far no one is taking any responsibility.
We have had our ambassador in the US sacked over his relationship with a man convicted of child sex offences. What is more—this tells us everything we need to know—this was an appointment apparently forced through by the Prime Minister and/or his chief of staff. We have seen a political ally pushed ahead of qualified candidates because the Prime Minister and Morgan McSweeney admired his talent for mixing with the rich and powerful, despite his known links to a man who was publicly known as a convicted paedophile and a convicted sex trafficker.
Given the speeches we have heard and everything that is in the public domain, it is now very clear that Peter Mandelson should never have been appointed. It is now also clear that the Prime Minister knew that there were major concerns when he came to this House just last Wednesday. Instead of taking action, the Prime Minister expressed confidence in him. Why on earth did he do so? Was he poorly advised, or was it just his own poor judgment?
In every single one of his Government’s scandals to date, far from being the decisive man of conscience he promised to be, the Prime Minister has shrivelled from leadership, he has dodged responsibility, and he has hidden behind others, just as he is doing today, and he has come to this House and hidden behind process and lawyerly phrases. The Prime Minister has shown no courage, no judgment, no backbone. If he cannot see it and Government Members cannot see it, I can assure them that the British public can. The Prime Minister has turned out to be everything he claimed to abhor. This is a Government of sleaze and scandal, and Labour MPs know it. I will be interested to see how many of them stand up to defend their Government.
The British public and, especially, the victims of Jeffrey Epstein deserve the Prime Minister, for once, to be straight and honest with us. He must immediately do three things. First, he must apologise to the victims of Jeffrey Epstein for ever having appointed Peter Mandelson as ambassador. How is it that this has still not happened? There has been no apology. Secondly, as I said, he must publish the Mandelson-Epstein files in full—all the information he had at his disposal, both when he made the appointment and when he came to the House last week to express full confidence in Mandelson. Thirdly, he must make sure that someone takes responsibility.
Everyone now agrees that Peter Mandelson should not have been appointed. We have heard so much from my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington about endless scandal and conflicts of interest with China and Russia, so why was he appointed? Was it a failure of vetting? Was it that advisers hid information from the Prime Minister? Or was it that the Prime Minister knew and made the decision anyway? Someone needs to take responsibility.
Sir Julian Lewis
Does my right hon. Friend agree that we have seen a rapid transformation from the Prince of Darkness into a grovelling Lord Yum Yum? One has to ask, why was the British Prime Minister surprised? Had he never heard the tale of the turtle and the scorpion that meet at the side of the river? Should the Prime Minister not have realised that the poor old scorpion simply cannot help what is in its nature?
Mrs Badenoch
I completely agree with my right hon. Friend. The story is that of the frog and the scorpion, and it is one of my favourite childhood stories. Everyone knew what Lord Mandelson had been up to. It is simply not tenable for any Member on the Government Benches to hold the line on this one, burying their heads in the sand and hoping that it goes away, least of all the Prime Minister.
We now know that the Prime Minister was aware of the compromising emails last Wednesday at Prime Minister’s questions, yet he came to the House and said that he had confidence in his ambassador. Many on the Labour Benches cheered, but now they are all looking at their phones, and most of them do not have the courage to look me in the eye. They were cheering last week, and now they are full of shame. [Interruption.] Sorry, are they proud? No, they are not. I will continue.
Why on earth did the Prime Minister do that? At any point did he ask his staff what more information might surface? That morning Lord Mandelson was saying that more information would surface. Did the Prime Minister receive a briefing about that ahead of Prime Minister’s questions? It is inconceivable that he did not. Ministers are now claiming that new information subsequently came to light—new information that they did not have. The story is all mixed and messed up, and they know it. What information appeared that was not in the original vetting? We would like to hear that when the Minister responds.
There are still more questions to answer. When did the Prime Minister’s chief of staff speak with Peter Mandelson last week, and what did they discuss? Do the Government have the courage to tell us that? We are told that Morgan McSweeney spent hours on the phone to the ambassador at the same time that Lord Mandelson was dodging calls from the Foreign Office. What were they talking about?
Those are questions about what happened just last week, but how did all this come to happen last year? The Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee has asked some excellent questions. But I ask the Minister this: what led to Lord Mandelson’s appointment in the first place? How was it that a man with known links to a child sex offender came to be appointed?
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
An additional question is whether there was any external influence. Did Tony Blair or any of Mandelson’s friends have anything to do with the appointment?
Mrs Badenoch
The hon. Gentleman asks a very good question, and I hope the Minister can provide an answer, because all of us across the House want to know.
We want to know how Lord Mandelson’s appointment happened in the first place. As I see it, there are only three possibilities. The first is that it was a failure of vetting, but are we really supposed to believe that this is the fault of the security services? I do not think so. Did they not drag up the intimate relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, which was discussed last week? The second possibility—a bit more likely—is that the Prime Minister’s advisers kept information from him. If that happened, it would be incredibly serious.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
Does my right hon. Friend agree that no matter what happened or did not happen, a Prime Minister—a leader—has to shoulder the responsibility? It is absolutely appalling that they would then blame the staff around them. It is their responsibility, and they answer to the House—no excuse.
Mrs Badenoch
My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. This is a Prime Minister who hides behind everybody else; whether his advisers, his junior Ministers or his Back Benchers, that is what he does. If he wants to blame advisers, which one was it? Who kept it from him? Why have they not apologised and resigned? No one is taking responsibility.
Thirdly, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington alluded to, the most likely but most worrying reason of all is that the Prime Minister had plenty of information to suggest that Lord Mandelson should not be appointed but chose to appoint him anyway. Even at the time, eyebrows were raised about this appointment and there were many critics; I remember it from the time. Now we read in the papers that the Prime Minister overruled security advice not to appoint Lord Mandelson. Is that true? The Minister should tell us.
It is time for the Prime Minister to come clean. He needs to come out of hiding. This issue will not go away. The Government cannot play for time as we will be back here again and again until all these documents are published. We will be back until someone takes responsibility.
This is a political crisis on top of an economic crisis all of the Government’s own making. They are distracted now, but they came into office with no plan for the country, no idea what they stood for and no vision for what they wanted to achieve. Because of that, they have been lurching from disaster to disaster, with winter fuel, tax rises, welfare chaos, scandal, and the Prime Minister’s failing leadership rebooted after just one year. The only plan they came into office with was a promise they made again and again to the British public: that they would restore honesty and integrity to Government. That was their defining mission, that was their grand plan, and it is in tatters.
So far, in one year, we have had an anti-corruption Minister sacked for corruption, a homelessness Minister sacked for evicting tenants, a Housing Secretary sacked for dodging housing tax, a Transport Secretary sacked for fraud and a director of strategy—apparently the speechwriter—lost only yesterday in scandal.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Ward)
indicated dissent.
Mrs Badenoch
The Minister shakes his head—he should be shaking it in shame. I have not said anything that is not true.
Now, finally, we have a US ambassador sacked for his links with a known child sex offender. The Government claim to care about violence against women and girls, until they actually have to do something about it. Where is the apology to those victims?
I know the Prime Minister does not like difficult questions, but it is his judgment that is being called into question. He owes it to the country to come clean.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
On Thursday, I came to this House to announce that the Prime Minister had asked the Foreign Secretary to withdraw Lord Mandelson as the UK’s ambassador to the United States. At the outset, may I say—there were many comments to this effect from across the House—that all of us are appalled by Epstein’s crimes, and all those who have suffered as a result need to be at the forefront of our minds today.
I also thank a number of right hon. and hon. Members for what I think were genuine suggestions about scrutiny of processes in relation to ambassadorial appointments. In particular, the Government have listened to the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), on this matter, and we will consider all options to support the Committee in its work in future.
Stephen Doughty
I will not give way at first. I need to respond to many of the points that have been made in the debate, after which I will happily take some interventions.
The Prime Minister took this decision after new information showed that the nature and extent of Lord Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein was materially different from what was known at the time of his appointment. In particular, Lord Mandelson suggested that Epstein’s conviction was wrongful, encouraged him to fight for early release, and said that Epstein had been through “years of torture”. We know that the only people tortured were the women and girls whose lives were destroyed by Epstein’s heinous crimes. I associate myself with the remarks that a number of right hon. and hon. Members made on that point, both about the crimes and the victims.
Stephen Flynn
Is the Minister effectively telling the House that Lord Mandelson retaining his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein despite him being a paedophile was fine, and that the only problem was that Lord Mandelson thought that Jeffrey Epstein was innocent? Is the Minister conveying the message to the public that if Lord Mandelson had not sent those emails and had said to the Prime Minister that Jeffrey Epstein was guilty, that would not have been a problem?
Stephen Doughty
The Prime Minister has been explicitly clear that the new information was not compatible with the duty that we owe to the victims of Jeffrey Epstein’s horrendous crimes against women and girls, and with this Government’s clear commitment to tackling that kind of violence and abuse. As such, the Prime Minister took decisive action to withdraw Lord Mandelson as ambassador. He has also been clear—he undertook a number of media interviews yesterday—that Lord Mandelson would not have been appointed if all the information we now have was available at the time. I point the House to what the Prime Minister had to say yesterday:
“Had I known then what I know now, I’d have never appointed him.”
Following Lord Mandelson’s departure and in line with standard diplomatic practice, the deputy head of mission, James Roscoe—an experienced and capable diplomat—has been put in place as the chargé d’affaires.
Dr Evans
The Minister is doing a fair job, but I have one simple question for him: why is he, not the Prime Minister, in the Chamber answering the House’s questions? The Minister clearly cannot answer them—no disrespect to him. The Prime Minister said that he did not know something, but now he knows something. Where is the Prime Minister, and why is he not at the Dispatch Box?
Stephen Doughty
I am in the Chamber responding for the Government as the Minister for North America. The hon. Gentleman will understand that there are very important matters taking place today that the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary are involved with. We have also seen the new Hillsborough law launched today, which has been referenced during the debate.
Stephen Doughty
I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman in short order, but first I want to say something about our excellent diplomats and officials across the world.
We have an excellent team at the British embassy in Washington—indeed, we have had many excellent ambassadors, and we have a wide network across the United States, not just in Washington—and in King Charles Street. I pay tribute to them and all the work they are doing, particularly in supporting the outcomes of this week’s important and historic state visit. I associate myself totally with the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) about their professionalism, which I know has been experienced by many Members across the House. It is important that we put that on the record. This is a crucial moment for UK-US relations; together, we are focused on delivering on jobs, growth and security for people on both sides of the Atlantic.
I said that I would give way to the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), so I will.
Sir Julian Lewis
Given that the Minister is such a decent Minister, who enjoys respect on both sides of the House, I am tempted to repeat the advice that Lloyd George gave to Churchill during the Norway debate of 1940, which is not to make himself an air raid shelter to protect his colleagues—in this case, the Prime Minister—from the splinters. If the Prime Minister’s case is as strong as the Minister makes out, can he explain why, if I remember correctly, only a single Labour Back Bencher has made a speech in the Prime Minister’s favour?
Stephen Doughty
With respect, this is an emergency debate that was secured by the Opposition. I am in the Chamber setting out the case very clearly, and we have had a number of contributions from Labour Members. The right hon. Member knows that I and Members from across the House have affection for him and the work he does, including his previous roles chairing many important Committees of this House.
Many right hon. and hon. Members have asked a number of specific questions, including about the vetting process and security clearances that applied in this particular case. I fully understand the interest in those questions, and undoubtedly other questions will be raised over the course of discussions in this place. As you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is the practice of successive Administrations—including precedents from the last Government—not to comment on which officials have access to confidential information. That remains the case today.
I want to pay particular attention to this matter, because it is important and because Members present have asked very sensible questions. The national security vetting process is confidential, and the UK Government’s vetting charter includes an undertaking to protect personal data and other information in the strictest confidence. I am not going to depart from that approach in this Chamber today and release personal information about an individual’s confidential vetting. However, while I will not talk about the confidential details relating to this case, I can provide details of the overall processes that a number of people have asked about, including the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis), who opened the debate.
Prior to the announcement of Lord Mandelson’s appointment as ambassador, the propriety and ethics team in the Cabinet Office undertook a due diligence process, and after his appointment was announced on 20 December 2024, the FCDO started the ambassadorial appointment process, including national security vetting. That vetting process was undertaken by UK Security Vetting on behalf of the FCDO, and concluded with clearance being granted by the FCDO in advance of Lord Mandelson taking up his post in February.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke
I accept that private data cannot be disclosed, but is there a mechanism by which the Minister can ask the Intelligence and Security Committee to look into the question of whether somebody—a civil servant, for example—who was known to have had a close association with a convicted paedophile would have passed the vetting process to hold such a sensitive position? That could be something that the Minister passes on to the ISC to look at, because it goes to the heart of the situation. I very much doubt that a person with that sort of association would be given the highest security clearance.
Stephen Doughty
I know the right hon. Gentleman makes that point with sincerity, but I will not comment on the national security vetting process. That would not be appropriate or in line with being consistent from Government to Government.
Stephen Doughty
I will not give way; the hon. Gentleman was not here for the debate and he has just popped up now to try to intervene.
National security vetting is a long-standing formal process undertaken by UK Security Vetting on behalf of individual Departments, and it reports back to them. It helps Departments to identify and manage risks where individuals have access to sensitive assets or sites, and there are established processes within national security vetting to consider any security concerns raised and to manage such risks appropriately. Importantly, the national security vetting process is rightly independent of Ministers, who are not informed of any findings other than the final outcome. Exactly the same procedures were followed in this case.
Stephen Doughty
I will make a little more progress and then will happily give way.
To return to the fundamental question that has been asked by many Members, as I said at the start, in the light of new information, the Prime Minister made the decision to withdraw Lord Mandelson as ambassador. The Prime Minister took decisive action on these issues, and now the Government’s focus is seizing the opportunities of our US partnership as we look forward to the next phase of government, moving from fixing the foundations to driving forward growth and national renewal.
A lot of Members asked sensible questions about the relationship with the United States, our economy, our security and the state visit that is happening this week. I point the House to the fact that last week we secured and announced a £400 million contract with Google Cloud, boosting secure communications between the UK and US and building new intelligence capabilities for the UK armed forces. On Sunday, we announced more than £1.2 billion of private US investment in the UK’s world-leading financial services sector, and that new investment will create 1,800 new jobs across the UK and boost benefits for millions of customers. [Interruption.] Just yesterday, we announced a new UK-US partnership on civil nuclear power as part of our drive to put billions of pounds of private investment into clean energy, and I look forward to further announcements over the coming days.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I can barely hear the Minister speak.
Stephen Doughty
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; I have taken a number of interventions, and I do want to make some progress.
Hon. and right hon. Members have asked about the US-UK relationship. I can tell them that it is strong, thriving and growing. The steps that I have mentioned will ensure that our two nations continue to lead the world in innovation. We have trade worth more than £315 billion last year, and the US and UK economies are inextricably linked. Through the state visit, we will take that relationship even further, making trade and investment deals that will benefit hard-working families across these countries and regions.
Richard Tice
Last week, the Prime Minister expressed confidence in Lord Mandelson. This week, does the Minister express his confidence in national security vetting?
Stephen Doughty
Of course I have confidence in our national security vetting staff. They do incredibly important work keeping this country safe. I will not comment on individual cases—I have been clear about that. I will return to the fundamental question asked by the hon. Member and others.
Emily Thornberry
Will the Minister help us with this? In the letter that the new Foreign Secretary wrote to me, she said that the Cabinet Office propriety and ethics team conducted a due diligence process at the request of No. 10 prior to the announcement of the appointment, and that the FCDO was not asked to contribute to that process and no issues were raised with the FCDO as a result of it. Now that the Minister has heard that, is he surprised that the Foreign Office was not involved?
Stephen Doughty
I have set out the process clearly, and I note that the Chair of the Select Committee has received that letter, which also sets it out clearly. She may have slightly missed the commitment that I made to her and to members of her Committee at the start of the debate, which was about considering all options to support the Committee in its work on pre-scrutiny processes. She makes an important and sensible point.
Stephen Doughty
I am going to conclude, and I do want to get back to the fundamental question.
The Prime Minister has made it clear that Lord Mandelson should not and would not have been appointed as ambassador in the light of the shocking information that came to light in the past week. The argument that we have heard from Opposition Members today is that the information was clear all along. But if the full depth and extent of this relationship had been so obvious, I hardly think that Lord Mandelson would have been one of the leading candidates to become chancellor of Oxford University—but he was. I highly doubt that he would have been offered a job as a presenter on Times Radio—but he was. He also appeared on BBC “Newsnight”, a programme that has done important work investigating the crimes of—
Madam Deputy Speaker
That is not a matter for the Chair. It is entirely up to the Minister if he wishes to give way or not.
Stephen Doughty
I was making an important point about the scrutiny of Jeffrey Epstein conducted by BBC’s “Newsnight”; such serious questions might have been asked of Lord Mandelson, but to my recollection none were. [Interruption.] Indeed, I am glad that the Leader of the Opposition wants to intervene, because I have a question for her. She and the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), as well as other Opposition Members, have raised questions today, but did they say a word in this House about Lord Mandelson’s appointment before last Wednesday? I do not have any record of that. In fact, the record shows that they did not raise it and they did not ask questions. The reality is that in the light of new information, the Prime Minister has acted decisively.
Mrs Badenoch
We did not need any new information to know that it was an unsuitable appointment. The Minister is making a doughty defence of Lord Mandelson, but the truth is that this debate has been about the Prime Minister’s judgment. When I was a Secretary of State and questions were asked about judgment, I did not send junior Ministers to answer my questions; I faced the House and I explained what had happened. The Prime Minister is not doing so. Will the Minister commit now to answering all the questions that I asked in writing? Will he also take this opportunity to apologise to the victims? He has not done so and the Government have not done so. The debate is nearly over. Will he take this opportunity to apologise to the victims for the appointment of Lord Mandelson?
Stephen Doughty
Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition was not in her seat at the start of the debate, because I made very clear our position on Epstein’s victims and our horror at the revelations, and said that all our thoughts are with them. I did that in sincerity in response to the points that have been made across this House, and I say that again. However, she could not answer my question. She did not raise this issue before last Wednesday. If it was all so obvious, why did not she do that?
Stephen Doughty
I was referring to whether this matter had been raised in the House by the Leader of the Opposition and others.
The Prime Minister acted decisively in response to the new information, which is exactly what should have happened. The former ambassador has been withdrawn. The Prime Minister and the Government are focused on deepening our special relationship with the United States in the interests of people across the Atlantic for jobs, growth, prosperity, security and our defence. That relationship with the United States is a relationship that has endured, is enduring, and will endure for the prosperity and security of our peoples well into the future.