Oral Answers to Questions
Ed Davey Excerpts(1 day, 22 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
Yesterday, we heard Christian Turner, Peter Mandelson’s replacement as US ambassador, say that the only country Trump has a special relationship with is Israel; that the Prime Minister’s job is in danger after next week’s elections; and that in the US, Jeffrey Epstein’s associates have evaded responsibility for their actions. The Prime Minister has had to fire one US ambassador for lying. Does he fear that he will have to fire a second for telling the truth?
The Prime Minister
Given what I have had thrown at me in the last two weeks by all the Opposition parties, that is the least of my problems. I know that the right hon. Gentleman likes stunts, but I was surprised that he joined in with the one yesterday. His business spokesman said last week that he was satisfied that I had not misled the House. The right hon. Gentleman’s opening position was that it was inconceivable that officials would give clearance to Mandelson and not tell Ministers that it was against the United Kingdom Security Vetting recommendation. That is what he said, and it did not happen. I expect frivolous accusations from the Leader of the Opposition. Clearly, I was wrong to expect anything better from the man in the wetsuit.
Ed Davey
I have got my drysuit on today, and let me tell the Prime Minister that when Boris Johnson was faced with that motion, he did not whip his MPs. There was a difference there.
Experts are warning that food prices will rise by 10% this year as farmers’ costs soar. Trump’s war has exposed how weak Britain’s food security is, yet under the system brought in by the Conservatives, England is the only country in Europe where farm payments do not actively support farmers to produce food. So will the King’s Speech include a good food Bill to fix that mistake and ensure that people can afford the food they need?
The Prime Minister
Of course food security is important, and that is why I was considering that, among other issues, in the ministerial meetings yesterday in Cobra. That is what I was spending my afternoon doing: ensuring that we were prepared and managing the risks of a conflict that will affect every single one of our constituents. What was the right hon. Gentleman doing? He was wasting his time in here on a baseless allegation and engaging in party political issues. He should have been working on the single most important issue of the day, but he wasted his time on a baseless political stunt.
Oral Answers to Questions
Ed Davey Excerpts(1 week, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I associate myself and my party with the comments of the Prime Minister on our wonderful late Queen. I agree with him on the need to confront antisemitism wherever it is in our society, and on remembering Stephen Lawrence and his family.
I am sure many of us in this House were shocked by the revelations from Olly Robbins yesterday. He said that No. 10 told him to find a plum job for Matthew Doyle, another Labour crony who is friends with a convicted sex offender. The Prime Minister was asked on Monday whether No. 10 had proposed any political appointments other than Mandelson. Perhaps the past few hours have jogged his memory. Will he confirm today whether he knew that his office was lobbying for a diplomatic job for Matthew Doyle, and whether they were doing it on his authority?
The Prime Minister
As I said earlier, Matthew Doyle worked for many years in public service, both for me as Prime Minister and for other Ministers. When people leave roles in any organisation, there are very often conversations about other roles they may want to apply for. In this case, nothing came of it.
Ed Davey
The House and the public watching will note that the Prime Minister failed to answer my questions.
The chaos in this Government must not stop us focusing on the cost of living crisis hitting our country. President Trump’s idiotic war with Iran has already pushed up inflation in our country to 3.3%, and the Prime Minister knows there is far worse to come for the British people from here on in. They need help now. Will the Prime Minister follow other countries and use the Treasury’s extra revenue from higher fuel prices to cut rail and bus fares, and slash prices at the pump by 12p a litre?
The Prime Minister
Everybody can see that the conflict is causing serious economic damage in this country and countries around the world. The right hon. Member’s claim of a windfall for the Government is politically misleading and economically illiterate.
Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment
Ed Davey Excerpts(1 week, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
May I start by reflecting on something that I feel, along with many Members across the House and, certainly, our constituents? That is how utterly depressing it is that we are having to have this debate at all. Just a few years after we went through all this under Boris Johnson and the Conservatives, and less than two years after the British people voted them out of office for indulging in this sort of chaos and distraction, here we are again.
Vladimir Putin is waging war on our continent. Donald Trump is waging war with Iran. We desperately need to strengthen our own national defences. Families and businesses are struggling against a cost of living crisis. Petrol prices have soared, and people are really worried about what Trump’s war will mean for their holidays this summer and their energy and food bills this winter. Our NHS is still in crisis. We all have constituents who are waiting weeks to see a GP, people who are dying on corridors in our hospitals, and loved ones who are not getting the care they need. We should be talking about them today. Theirs are the problems that the Government should be focused on every single day.
That is what Labour promised, after all. In their manifesto, they said that the problems in our country are a
“direct result of a governing party that, time and again, puts its own interests and obsessions above the issues that affect families.”
They promised to change that, but here we are again. Instead of fixing the NHS and social care, instead of properly funding our defence, and instead of cutting prices at the pump, here we are, having to ask why the Prime Minister appointed the close friend of a notorious paedophile sex trafficker to one of the most important and sensitive jobs in his Government.
Peter Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein had been well reported and highlighted to the Prime Minister. He had already been forced to resign in disgrace twice from the previous Labour Government, and we now know that he was deemed a national security risk by the Government’s vetting agency. So we do, sadly, have to ask: why did the Prime Minister appoint Mandelson? Why did he announce the appointment before the national security vetting had been done, despite the then Cabinet Secretary Simon Case having told him that that should happen first? And why was he so determined to get Mandelson in post that he created, as Olly Robbins described it this morning, “an atmosphere of pressure” and a certain dismissiveness about the developed vetting process—a vetting process that the Prime Minister has since blamed for his mistakes?
Even after all this, even after yesterday’s statement, the Prime Minister still has not told us why he appointed Mandelson. He admitted that appointing Mandelson was a mistake and has apologised for it. He has tried to make the rest about process and officials, but he still has not answered the fundamental question: why?
I think we know a big part of the answer, do we not? It is Donald Trump. This all comes back to the way that the Prime Minister decided to approach his relationship with the President when he returned to office last year. Our party urged the Prime Minister to stand up to Trump, to stand together with our allies, and to approach him from a position of strength, not weakness. But he chose the opposite course. He decided to try to appease Trump, to flatter him, to stroke his ego, and to hope that he will be nice to us in return. Clearly, he thought that Peter Mandelson was the man for that job. So that is it: the decision to try to curry favour with Trump instead of standing up to him is the original sin that has landed the Prime Minister and his Government in the mess they are in today. Has it worked? Absolutely not.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
Yesterday, I asked the Prime Minister about the security vetting condition that required Peter Mandelson to be accompanied when visiting previous clients. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to find out whether the lack of accompaniment when visiting Palantir in Washington with the Prime Minister was a one-off or simply Mandelson continuing business as usual?
Ed Davey
My hon. Friend was right to ask that question yesterday, and I thought the Prime Minister’s response, which was that those types of meetings had not been recorded, was totally inadequate.
Despite all the flattery, Trump has still caused enormous damage to our economy and to the livelihoods of the British people with his tariffs and his war with Iran. Trump still undermines NATO, makes threats against our country and our allies, and insults Britain’s armed forces. Just look at what Trump said last night: that Mandelson was a “really bad pick”. I will not dwell on the hypocrisy of those words from a man who was close friends with Epstein, who partied with him and has so far taken no responsibility for that—those words from a President who still has as his Commerce Secretary a neighbour of Epstein who visited Epstein’s island and who lied about his relationship with him. All that is for another debate.
But Trump’s post, hypocritical as it is, does show the futility of trying to appease him. It shows how pointless it is to make a decision like who to appoint as US ambassador based on what Trump would like most. It does not work—it has not worked. I hope that on top of everything else, the Prime Minister and the Labour party will reflect on that point. The approach to Trump has failed. It is time to change course, to stand up to him, and to stand with our European and Commonwealth allies in defence of our national interest.
This is a mess of the Government’s own making. It is a mess born out of a futile attempt to appease Donald Trump. It is a mess that just keeps getting worse with today’s revelation, uncovered by my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello), that the Prime Minister pushed for the appointment as ambassador of another Labour crony with ties to a sex offender. Those catastrophically bad judgments have created a mess that has distracted and consumed the Government and stopped them from focusing on what the British people actually need.
The people out there do not want more Westminster drama; they are thinking about the hospital appointment that keeps being pushed back, the mortgage payments that just seem to keep going up, the loved ones who need care but are stuck on a waiting list, and the threats to our national security from an ever more dangerous world. Those are the things that keep people up at night, and they deserve a Prime Minister and a Government who are focused on them.
Our party will never stop making that case. We will never stop holding the Government to account, not for the sake of political point scoring but on behalf of the British people, who deserve better than this. The last Conservative Government failed our country by getting stuck in a cycle of chaos and scandal and refusing to move on. The question for the Labour party is whether it will repeat that mistake or finally deliver the change that our country needs.
The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister (Darren Jones)
Today’s motion asks this House to consider the Government’s accountability to this place for Peter Mandelson’s appointment. The Government have been, and remain, fully committed to keeping the House informed of all relevant information related to Peter Mandelson’s appointment and subsequent dismissal as ambassador to the United States. Ministers have addressed the House on a number of occasions on this matter.
The Prime Minister has set out to the House that, while much of the debate on this issue has focused on process, at the heart of it all is the decision to appoint Peter Mandelson in the first place. The Prime Minister has been up front about that and takes responsibility for it. He knows that he should not have made the appointment. He regrets the decision, and he apologises for it, in particular to the victims of Jeffrey Epstein. Those women and girls have been subjected to intolerable cruelty and disgusting abuse, and are to date without justice. Their experiences should be taken seriously and they should be listened to.
I do not come to the House today to defend that decision—it was the wrong one. I am here to account for the Government’s accountability to this House on the process that followed. I take the Government’s responsibility to this House seriously, so I will not take the opportunity this evening to try to score party political points, or to defend a decision that the Prime Minister has said is wrong and for which he apologises. I do, however, commit to returning to this House as often as required.
Darren Jones
The Prime Minister followed the process that was in place, and I will turn to some of the details of that in the remainder of my speech.
On 11 March, I addressed the House in response to the Humble Address, as we released the first tranche of documents relating to Peter Mandelson’s appointment and subsequent dismissal. I committed to keep the House updated as we worked to publish documents relevant to that Humble Address, and I recommit to doing so today. I reassure the House that we are proceeding at pace to process the outstanding documents, a number of which are currently being reviewed by the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament, with the aim of publishing the next tranche of documents as a matter of urgency.
In the debate, I was asked specifically about redactions in documents published in relation to the Humble Address. I will be clear: redactions are visible on the documents by the black marking out of information. If there is no marking out, it is not a redaction. All redactions are agreed via the Intelligence and Security Committee before they come to the House.
Security Vetting
Ed Davey Excerpts(1 week, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
It is 2022 all over again. Back then, when the Prime Minister was in opposition, and when it was Boris Johnson who was accused of misleading Parliament and scapegoating senior officials, the then Leader of the Opposition could not have been clearer; he said:
“The public need to know that not all politicians are the same—that not all politicians put themselves above their country—and that honesty, integrity and accountability matter.”—[Official Report, 25 May 2022; Vol. 715, c. 298.]
He promised “change”. He promised to
“break this cycle and stop the chaos.”
He promised a Government with
“more focus on long-term strategy, not the short-term distractions that can animate Westminster.”
I am afraid that the fact that he has even had to make a statement today shows how badly he has failed—how badly he has let down the millions of people across our country who are so desperate for change.
The Prime Minister blames his officials. He says that he had “no idea”. He gives every impression of a Prime Minister in office, but not in power. The facts remain, even by his own account, that the Prime Minister appointed Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United States even after he had been warned about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. The Prime Minister announced the appointment before Mandelson had been vetted, despite the clear risk to national security of putting someone unsuitable in that role. One of his top officials, just three weeks into the job, clearly believed that the Prime Minister wanted Mandelson to be appointed regardless of what the vetting process turned up. The Prime Minister has relied on the vetting process to defend his decisions, so why did he ask so few questions personally about the vetting process?
We all know the truth: the Prime Minister knew that appointing Mandelson was an enormous risk, but he decided that it was a risk worth taking—a catastrophic error of judgment. Now that has blown up in his face, the only decent thing to do is take responsibility. Back in 2022, the Prime Minister rightly accused Boris Johnson of expecting others to take the blame while he clung on. That was not acceptable then, and it is not acceptable now. I hope that the Prime Minister can at least tell the House this. We will be listening very carefully to his answer. Was he given advice by Simon Case, the then Cabinet Secretary, that the necessary security clearances should be acquired before he confirmed his choice for US ambassador? Did the Prime Minister follow that advice—yes or no?
After years of chaos under the Conservatives, we needed a Government focused on the interests of the people—the cost of living crisis, the health and care crisis, and our national security. We needed a Government with honesty, integrity and accountability. Will the Prime Minister finally accept that the only way that he can help to deliver that is by resigning?
The Prime Minister
I set out in my statement the full facts. In September, when the Bloomberg emails came to light, I asked the then Cabinet Secretary to review the process. He told me that the process was as it should have been, and as soon as the information about the security vetting came to light last Tuesday, I asked for the facts to be established, so that I could update Parliament.
The right hon. Gentleman asks me about the announcement before developed vetting. He has heard the evidence that I have given to the House from the former Cabinet Secretary and from the former permanent secretary. In relation to the advice from Simon Case, when I asked the former Cabinet Secretary to review the process after September 2025, he specifically addressed whether the process had been followed by referencing the Simon Case letter, and assured me that the process was the right process to have followed. In answer to his question, that was specifically looked at by Sir Chris Wormald in the review that was conducted in September last year.
Middle East
Ed Davey Excerpts(2 weeks, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement, and I join him in what he said about the horrific attack in Southport. Our thoughts are with the families of Bebe, Elsie and Alice and with all those affected.
“A whole civilisation will die tonight”—
words I never thought I would hear from an American President. Though Donald Trump thankfully did not follow through this time, those words are a stark reminder of how reckless, immoral and completely outside the bounds of international law this President is. Regrettably, he is no friend of the United Kingdom. He is no leader of the free world. He is a dangerous and corrupt gangster, and that is how we must treat him. Will the Prime Minister advise the King to call off his state visit to Washington before it is too late? I really fear for what Trump might say or do while our King is forced to stand by his side. We cannot put His Majesty in that position.
Trump’s latest cunning plan, to blockade the strait of Hormuz, will only escalate this crisis and jeopardise the precarious ceasefire. It is right that the UK is not joining him, and I welcome the Prime Minister convening a summit to offer an alternative to Trump’s. We must work with our reliable allies in Europe and the Commonwealth and our partners in the Gulf to bring this conflict to an end and keep open the strait of Hormuz. That is critical for tackling the cost of living crisis, which is getting worse and worse for people in the UK. Petrol prices are now up by more than 25p a litre and diesel up 49p since Trump started this war—cheered on, let us not forget, by the leader of the Conservative party and Reform.
Does the Prime Minister recognise that families and businesses cannot wait months for the Government to step in and help? Will he use the windfalls that the Treasury is getting from higher fuel prices to cut the cost of living and keep the economy moving, with action to slash bus and rail fares, and to cut fuel duty by 10p today, bringing down the price at the pumps by 12p a litre?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his questions. In relation to the language about destroying a civilisation, can I really be clear with this House? That was wrong. A threat to Iranian civilians in that way is wrong. These are civilians, let us remember, who have suffered immeasurable harm by the regime in Iran for many, many long years. That is why they are words and phrases that I would never use on behalf of this Government, who are guided by our principles and our values throughout all this.
In relation to the King’s visit, the relationship between our two countries is important on a number of levels. The monarchy, through the bonds that it builds, is often able to reach through the decades on a situation like this; and the purpose of the visit is to mark the 250th anniversary of the relationship between our country and the United States, and that is why it is going ahead.
In relation to the blockade, let me be clear, as I have been already in the last day or so, that we are focusing our efforts on opening in full the strait of Hormuz because of the damage that the situation is doing to economies around the world, including our own. That is why we have been working with other countries at various levels and will bring them together in a summit later this week. We, the UK, will not be joining the blockade that the President announced.
In relation to the help that is needed for families and households, obviously we have already put in place help for energy bills and heating oil, but we are keeping this under constant review as the situation evolves. The single most important and effective thing we can do is to de-escalate the situation and work with others to get the strait of Hormuz open, and that is why we are focusing so much of our efforts in that regard.
Oral Answers to Questions
Ed Davey Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
May I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s remarks about Monday’s despicable attacks on the Jewish community? Antisemitism has no place in our society. Given the potential links with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, I hope that the Government will move faster to proscribe the group as terrorists.
As a former Secretary of State for Energy who granted licences for oil and gas exploration, may I make a judgment on this argument? The Prime Minister is actually right, and the Leader of the Opposition is wrong—[Interruption.] The law is clear, and I believe in the rule of law.
Just before President Trump posted about his supposed negotiations with Iran on Monday, traders made hundreds of millions of dollars of extra bets on oil futures. This looks like Donald Trump giving his mates inside information so they can make themselves richer, while his illegal war in Iran makes everyone else poorer. It looks like corruption of the very worst kind. Does the Prime Minister share my fear that Trump is making his war decisions on the basis of what enriches him and his friends, rather than what makes peace in the middle east?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his verdict. At least he has read the law that the Leader of the Opposition obviously has not read. In relation to the traders, we have seen the activity there. What I can say is that all my decisions are based on the best interests of our country, and that is why I have decided that we will not get dragged into the war, unlike the Leader of the Opposition. I have decided that we will act in collective self-defence—in defence of ourselves and our allies. I comment on my actions, and those are the principles behind my actions.
Ed Davey
If Trump’s war pushes up energy bills by £500, the Chancellor’s very narrow plans simply will not cut it. While I do not fall for the crocodile tears of the leader of the Conservatives, who cheered on this illegal war without a thought for the impact on people’s energy bills, and while the Government are right to reject the idea of repeating Liz Truss’s blank cheque approach, the Government cannot ignore the millions of families who do not receive benefits and who already face a cost of living crisis. Can the Prime Minister at least guarantee to all those families and pensioners that he will not let their energy bills go up by £500 this year?
The Prime Minister
Well, let me now give my verdict. The right hon. Gentleman is right about the Leader of the Opposition wanting to join the war, and she is wrong about that. [Interruption.] At least the right hon. Gentleman has read the legislation on which I am being challenged; it does help. [Interruption.] At least the right hon. Gentleman is right that it was the leader of the Conservative party who said, “Let us all go to war,” without thinking through the consequences. We are now discussing the consequences.
In relation to the support, we have made clear the principles and the approach that we will take. We will keep this under careful review. Energy bills for households are capped until the end of June. It is really important that I make it clear that that will happen whatever happens in the conflict, because I know the public are concerned about that. We will then put in place appropriate support, and we will look at how we put the principles behind it.
Oral Answers to Questions
Ed Davey Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I join the Prime Minister in offering my condolences to the family and friends of the two young people who have been killed by the meningitis bug in Kent and all those affected by this horrifying outbreak.
Britain’s independent nuclear deterrent is critical for the defence of our nation and the whole of Europe, but the current Trident missiles will reach the end of their lives in the 2040s. We have to make a choice now: lease new missiles from the United States, accepting whatever terms the President gives us, or build our own here in the United Kingdom. The Conservatives and Reform say that we have to rely on President Trump and the United States because we could not possibly do it ourselves. Does the Prime Minister agree with them?
The Prime Minister
Our independent nuclear deterrent protects us every day, and we should never forget how important it is. It is important that we renew it. We will do that in the best interests of Britain. The right hon. Member is openly advocating a plan without knowing how much it would cost and how it would work. That is not the way to deal with our independent nuclear deterrent.
Ed Davey
I am surprised by that response. The French can do it—does the Prime Minister really think Britain cannot?
Moving on, a New World investigation into GB News has found hundreds of shocking breaches of the rules of impartiality and accuracy, yet Ofcom has repeatedly refused to take action. Andrew Neil says:
“Just as Fox basically became the channel of Donald Trump, it’s clear they have turned GB News into the Reform channel”.
We cannot let GB News propaganda turn our great country into its version of Trump’s America. Either the Government rules are not fit for purpose or Ofcom is not properly enforcing them—which is it?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Member is right to raise an important question of free speech and our media. It is a matter for Ofcom, and it is important that we let it deal with it.
Oral Answers to Questions
Ed Davey Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) for her powerful and courageous speech in the debate on jury trials yesterday—I really hope the Prime Minister was listening.
Thirty years ago this week, a man carried four handguns into Dunblane primary school and murdered a teacher and 16 children. I was deeply moved by the BBC documentary about it last night and by the courage of the parents who campaigned for a ban on handguns to keep other children safe, including Mick North, who lost his five-year-old daughter, Sophie, on that dark day. Mr North has rightly called on the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) to renounce his description of the handgun ban as “ludicrous”—something the hon. Member still refuses to do. Mr North has also called for a review of firearms legislation to close any loopholes. Does the Prime Minister agree?
The Prime Minister
I certainly do. We must never forget the horror of Dunblane and we must never forget the young children and their teacher who did not come home from school. The campaign that families fought to make this country a safer place is a lasting legacy, and we should be enormously grateful for their courage.
Ed Davey
I thank the Prime Minister for his reply, and I hope the Government will close any loopholes.
This week, families across the country have seen petrol prices rise at the pump, mortgage rates go up and fixed energy deals get more expensive, all because of a war they did not start and do not support. The Leader of the Opposition has been competing with the hon. Member for Clacton to be Donald Trump’s biggest cheerleader, and the Prime Minister was right to reject their costly warmongering. Last week, I asked him to guarantee that energy bills will not rise by hundreds of pounds in July. He did not answer, so let me try again: will he give people that energy bill guarantee now?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising this matter, because people will be really worried about the impact on them. To reassure households, the cap is in place until the end of June—until July—so that deals with the situation for households. We are working with the sector and others, and with allies, to do everything we can to ensure that energy bills do not rise. We are working around the clock on that. The most important and most effective thing we can do is to work with our allies to find a way to de-escalate the situation.
The right hon. Gentleman is right about the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of Reform. Last week, they were urging us to join—[Interruption.] This is serious. [Interruption.] If they had been leading the country, we would be in a war. They have now come to Parliament to say—
Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address Motion
Ed Davey Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the leader of the Liberal Democrats.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
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?
Darren Jones
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.
Middle East
Ed Davey Excerpts(1 month, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement and for my security briefing.
Once again, President Trump has launched a unilateral and unlawful act. Ayatollah Khamenei was a brutal dictator and a monstrous war criminal. He supported Hamas and the 7 October atrocities, and he massacred thousands of his own people for daring to protest against decades of repression. I shed no tears for him. Instead, I think of all the innocent Iranian civilians who have lost their lives. I think of the US service personnel killed in action, our allies and partners in the region who are being outrageously targeted by Iran, and our British bases which have already faced attack. They did not choose this war; Donald Trump did, and he will bear responsibility for it.
We have seen before what happens when an American President launches an illegal war with no idea how or when it is going to end, and we fear for what comes next. In discussions with the White House, has the Prime Minister demanded to find out Trump’s plan for what comes next? Does the Prime Minister understand that when he fails to stand up to Trump, especially when he breaks international law, it makes our country less safe? How will the Prime Minister be sure that defensive operations from UK bases will not become offensive? In rightly protecting our allies in the region, can we be assured by the Prime Minister that he will not follow Trump’s lead down a slippery slope into a protracted conflict?
Finally, we rightly expect our brave armed forces to protect British citizens around the world in crises like this, but that includes tax exiles like Isabel Oakeshott and washed-up old footballers who mock ordinary people who stay in the UK and pay our taxes here. As we protect them, does the Prime Minister agree that it is only right for tax exiles to start paying taxes to fund our armed forces, just like the rest of us do?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Member for his question. I agree that the response of Iran has been outrageous, particularly the hitting of countries that played no part in the strikes.
We have had extensive discussions with the United States at all levels, including the military-to-military level, continually over the course of the weekend. We deliberately took the decision not to join the offensive strikes that were carried out by the US and Israel. We did take the decision to take defensive action—first, by ourselves on Saturday with putting pilots in the sky, and, secondly, by allowing the bases to be used for purely defensive reasons. We clearly set out the legal basis upon which we took the second of those decisions. On the question about limits, it is limited to defence, and that is the basis upon which we have agreed the basing.
On the right hon. Gentleman’s last point, I want to be clear that it is my duty—our duty—to protect all UK nationals in the region. We will endeavour to do everything we can in order to do so.