Ambassador to the United States: Appointment and Dismissal
Debate between David Davis and Lindsay Hoyle
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
I seek leave to propose that the House debates a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely the appointment process and circumstances leading to the dismissal of the former ambassador of the United Kingdom to the United States, Lord Mandelson.
This is a matter of utmost concern across the House and across party lines. Our ambassador in Washington stands at the centre of Britain’s most vital bilateral relationship. It is a role of exceptional sensitivity, with more classified intelligence crossing the ambassador’s desk than reaches most Cabinet Ministers. The post carries immense responsibility. The ambassador represents Britain’s interests to our most powerful ally and, in so doing, shapes our reputation abroad. His conduct, both prior to appointment and during, must reflect the highest standards of professionalism, discretion and integrity—nothing less will do.
Lord Mandelson failed that test long before last week’s revelation, long before the understandable public outrage at the disgraceful behaviour with the paedophile Epstein, and long before the families of his victims quite rightly criticised the appointment. What was public about Mandelson’s past is more than enough to disqualify him from consideration for ambassador, from his resignation from Government not once but twice—first in 1998 for not telling the truth about an interest-free loan, and then in 2001 for helping a wealthy businessman get a passport—to his links to the Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska, a gangster capitalist who benefited to the tune of many millions of pounds from policies promoted and signed off by Lord Mandelson when he was EU Trade Commissioner, and, particularly relevant today, his commercial links defending China.
All of that was in the public domain before the Prime Minister appointed Lord Mandelson as our ambassador. Why was it ever thought acceptable to appoint a man with such a chequered and murky background to such a vitally important position? The House needs to know what vetting was done and when, what the opinions were of the Foreign Office, the Foreign Secretary, the Cabinet Office and the security services, and when the Prime Minister was told. We need to know who knew what, and when.
The Government must take the House with them on these appointments, but their behaviour to date on this issue has been marked by obfuscation and delay, by recrimination and cover-up. It is not just a question of the Prime Minister’s political judgment, important as that is; it is a question of ethics. It is a question of what is deemed acceptable behaviour, when in positions of power. The House must have the opportunity to debate this matter before the recess.
Mr Speaker
I have listened carefully to the application from the right hon. Member and am satisfied that the matter raised is proper to be discussed under Standing Order No. 24. I put it to the House.
Application agreed to.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between David Davis and Lindsay Hoyle(4 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker.
David Davis
I do apologise to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I am glad that the Secretary of State is here. As we have heard today, a very successful parliamentary petition was put up by a member of the public just over a week ago, and was supported by a large number of regimental associations. In the middle of last week, an email was sent from the Directorate of Infantry to regimental headquarters. It said:
“With immediate effect”—
that bit is highlighted in red—
“please ensure that all of your communication channels (including Twitter/X etc) remove any feeds related to the Northern Ireland Troubles Act announcement and any associated petitions.”
Regimental associations are there to defend and look after the interests of, and to support, veterans. It is not for the MOD hierarchy to dictate what they can or cannot promote, particularly through legitimate parliamentary engagement. Veterans’ voices must not be silenced by bureaucratic interference. Is it appropriate, Mr Speaker, to pressurise regimental associations to remove content that supports democratic participation?
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between David Davis and Lindsay Hoyle(6 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lilian Greenwood
It is lovely that people are so keen.
Charge point availability is increasing everywhere. As of 1 March, there were over 75,000 UK public charging devices, with one added to the network every 29 minutes, but we recognise that there are still regional disparities. The local EV infrastructure fund will deliver a further 100,000 charge points right across England.
Business of the House
Debate between David Davis and Lindsay Hoyle(11 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Indeed, this question may be of interest to you. The Leader of the House has ministerial responsibilities, but she is also the nearest thing this House has to a shop steward in the Cabinet, and it is in that context I ask her this question.
A month ago, I wrote to the Chancellor about her cancellation of the investment opportunity fund, a decision that has put at risk an investment of hundreds of millions of pounds in a new factory in Goole in my constituency, and with it hundreds of jobs. Two weeks ago, I chased up that letter and was told I was going to get a reply; I was even given a reference number. Yesterday, at 1 o’clock on the dot, I got a timed email telling me that the Treasury was not going to answer my question and was handing it off to somebody else. This was a dishonest piece of obfuscation to avoid accountability before the Budget debate. I hope it is not a harbinger of things to come, but will the Leader of the House remind her colleagues in Cabinet of their direct responsibility to us, for our constituencies, to answer such a question and treat it properly in future?
Point of Order
Debate between David Davis and Lindsay Hoyle
Sir David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Transparency of justice is vital. To that end, Members of this House should be freely able to see exactly what happens at any trial in this country. Yet when I tried to obtain a transcript of the Lucy Letby trial from Manchester Crown court, I was told it would cost me £100,000. That number eventually reduced to £9,000. In any event, that is more than any of us in this House can afford. It is critical that parliamentarians have free access to that kind of data. Will the House authorities talk to the relevant Government Department to ensure that transcripts of all trials are freely available to Members of this House?
Mr Speaker
This is not a matter for the Chair, but I know that the right hon. Gentleman is not the only Member with concerns about the cost of such transcripts. I will ask the House authorities to look into the matter, because such costs inhibit Members. The outrageous amount of £100,000 prohibits Members of Parliament from carrying out their duty on behalf of their constituents. The Solicitor General is in the Chamber, so I hope that she will take these comments on board and let us speak to the company concerned. I will also take the matter up with the Clerks of the House. Does the Solicitor General wish to make a comment? If not, let us proceed.