Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment
Gregory Stafford Excerpts(2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
Yesterday’s statement from the Prime Minister should have brought clarity. Instead, it has left this House with more questions than answers. This is not a narrow procedural issue; it goes to the judgment of the Prime Minister. It is a disgrace that he is not here today to answer questions—perhaps the usual excuse that he was not told holds clear.
Let me begin with the exchange that I had with the Prime Minister yesterday, which crystallises the problem. On 4 February, the Prime Minister told my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition that the vetting process had disclosed information relating to Epstein. Yesterday, he attempted row back on that by saying that he had conflated vetting and due diligence, before then insisting that he understood the distinction. Those positions cannot comfortably sit together. If he understood the distinction, why did he give an answer that conflated the two? If he did not, why claim certainty at the Dispatch Box? His defence—that due diligence forms part of the wider process—did not answer the question that he was asked at the time. If that is not misleading the House, it is difficult to see what is. That lack of clarity runs through the entire account.
The Prime Minister confirmed that, in November 2024, he chose not to follow the clear and obvious advice of his then Cabinet Secretary, Lord Case, to carry out vetting before he appointed Mandelson. Now, the Prime Minister relies instead on a subsequent review by Chris Wormald, which states merely that the approach may be usual—not that it is right. The question remains: why was the advice rejected when it mattered?
The Prime Minister’s account of what he knew is equally difficult to reconcile. He says he had confidence that the vetting process had addressed the most serious concerns, yet he also says he had not seen the vetting report. If he had not seen the report, on what basis did his confidence rest? If he was relying on the Cabinet Office due diligence paper, why was that not made clear at the time when he was asked specifically about security vetting? Why was a direct question met with an answer that did not address it at all?
The contents of the due diligence paper raise further questions. It highlighted connections to Russian and Chinese interests. It referred to involvement with Sistema, a company embedded in Russia’s industrial and military structures with well-known links to Kremlin-aligned figures. That information was not hidden; it was in the public domain and placed directly before the Prime Minister in December 2024. Why did none of that trigger greater caution and, more importantly, greater action?
Most seriously of all, Sir Olly Robbins’s evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee today was consistent with the fact that Mandelson could act in his role and have access to sensitive material before the process had concluded. We also discovered that the Prime Minister’s team tried to put Matthew Doyle, another friend of a known paedophile, into an ambassadorial position.
We still have no clear account of who knew what and when, what decisions were taken, where responsibly responsibility lay, or how this situation was allowed to develop. However, I think we understand why: this is about judgment. Time and again, the Prime Minister has shown a willingness to appoint people despite serious concerns about their records: a Transport Secretary with a fraud conviction, an anti-corruption Minister under investigation, a homelessness Minister with a record that raises profound questions, and a Deputy Prime Minister who failed to meet her own tax obligations.
In this case, despite personal associations that should have raised the most serious red flags, connections to hostile states, and a long and controversial history in public life, the Prime Minister judged Peter Mandelson to be a suitable candidate for one of the most sensitive ambassadorial roles because of his influence over the Labour party and the Prime Minister himself. This is not a failure of process; it is a failure of judgment. With judgment like that, the Prime Minister is not fit to lead this country for a moment longer.
Security Vetting
Gregory Stafford Excerpts(3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I have accepted that I made an error in the appointment, and apologised to the victims, as I must.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
On 4 February, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister whether the vetting process had disclosed information about Epstein. The Prime Minister answered, “Yes, it did.” In his response to my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne), he said, “I got confused between vetting and disclosure,” but in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith), he said that he knew the difference. If that is not misleading the House, what is?
The Prime Minister
I was asked about the vetting process, and the due diligence is part of the vetting process. Rather than rest on a technicality, I gave the House the information that I had about what I knew from the due diligence. It was clear what the Leader of the Opposition was asking; it was about Epstein. I knew that was in the due diligence, and that is why I told the House about it.
Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address
Gregory Stafford Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Darren Jones
The Government did not wish to give £1 to Peter Mandelson, but, as the documents from tranche 1 revealed last week, the decision was based on advice that the quickest possible route to removing him from civil service employment was to provide a severance payment on the terms provided, and that that sum was lower than the anticipated cost of legal fees associated with an employment tribunal dispute.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
Two weeks ago, the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister gave me two pithy answers, so I ask him to do the same this week. First, did Peter Mandelson receive top-secret so-called STRAP security clearance? Secondly—we will try this question once again—did Peter Mandelson submit a declaration of interests? I want a yes or no to both those questions.
Darren Jones
I refer the hon. Gentleman to my previous answer.
Darren Jones
As I think I have said to the House before, the vast majority of people who apply to public service do so to serve the public and are honourable people who acknowledge and live the Nolan principles in every day of their work. What the Peter Mandelson example has shown—there have been others in the past—is that for all the rules in place that serve the majority well, there are still too many opportunities for those who wish to get around the rules. That is why the work that the Ethics and Integrity Commission is now doing will be vital in trying to prevent that from happening again.
Gregory Stafford
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker—and I apologise for not being able to give you notice of it. The ministerial code clearly states that Ministers must provide accurate information to this House. Under the duty of truthfulness, it states that Ministers are required to
“be as open as possible with Parliament”
and maintain high standards of accountability. That is not just in what they say, but what they fail to say. I know that you do not enforce the ministerial code, Madam Deputy Speaker, but would you expect a Minister who has misled the House by omission to return to the House to correct the record?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. While the occupant of the Chair is not responsible for Ministers’ words, I would expect any Minister to return to the House to correct omission, although that is a matter for those on the Treasury Bench and not for the Chair.
Points of Order
Gregory Stafford Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. During Cabinet Office questions on 5 March, the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister informed me that the appointment of the new director general of the propriety and ethics team was made on an interim basis and in line with the rules. However, I have now received a copy of the civil service recruitment framework, which states that a temporary promotion, managed move or the appointment of a single applicant within the senior civil service, must require ministerial authorisation either from the Prime Minister or the relevant Minister before an appointment can be made without an external competition. Given the importance of the transparency and confidence in this Government’s propriety and ethics system, can you please advise the House how Members can seek clarification when there appears to be a discrepancy between a Minister’s statement to the House and the provisions set out in the civil service recruitment framework 2022?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. He will know that, as Chair, I am not responsible for the answers given by Ministers—
Oral Answers to Questions
Gregory Stafford Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dan Jarvis
Let me assure my hon. Friend that the Government are absolutely committed to strengthening the UK’s resilience. We have invested in the Government Cyber Co-ordination Centre, a leading cross-Government service that is actively monitoring vulnerabilities and enabling a more effective response to threats. The National Cyber Security Centre is closely monitoring the situation in the middle east, and directly engaging with relevant sectors by providing immediate sector-specific information and advice.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Darren Jones)
As I have outlined previously, work is ongoing across Departments to identify the material relevant to the Humble Address. Throughout this process, the Government have recognised the urgency and seriousness of fully complying with that Humble Address, and that is why we will publish relevant materials in tranches, the first of which we have committed to publishing in early March.
Gregory Stafford
Can the Minister confirm whether the head of the Government’s propriety and ethics team was appointed without an external recruitment process or written ministerial sign-off, in an apparent breach of its own rules? If so, is this further proof of a lack of transparency and accountability, and of a failure to uphold the propriety and ethics at the heart of this Government?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I am grateful to my hon. Friend and to PACAC for the work they are doing on this. As I indicated, our first priority is to deal with the immediate situation through hardship loans, and then through a robust recovery plan. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that management of these contracts and robust enforcement of contractual terms will be vital going forward.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
A few moments ago, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster indicated to me that the appointment of the head of the propriety and ethics team was done by an external recruitment process. Will he tell me how many other people were interviewed?
Darren Jones
If the hon. Gentleman is making reference to his previous question, he asked me if the appointment was in breach of the rules, to which I said no. As I have said to the House in answer to previous questions, the appointment of the head of propriety and ethics is on an interim basis, which is fully in line with the rules. A proper recruitment process will take place shortly.
China: Foreign Interference Arrests
Gregory Stafford Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dan Jarvis
Of course the Government will do everything to ensure that the counter-terrorism police and intelligence agencies have whatever they need to conduct this investigation. As the right hon. and learned Lady will understand from her time as Home Secretary, that is conducted independently of Government, and it is not for the Security Minister, the Home Secretary or any Minister to get involved in the business of an investigation. That would not be appropriate, and I hope she would acknowledge that. Let me also say something positive to her. She was Home Secretary when the National Security Act 2023 was introduced, and that vital piece of legislation is making a real difference to our ability to counter those who would seek to do us harm. It is a valuable tool in our armoury, but where there is a view that we need to add more tools to that armoury, we will definitely do so.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
The name of the Labour Member of Parliament whose husband has been arrested is circulating widely via the media. I do not intend to name that Member of Parliament, but if the reports are true, that Member of Parliament sits on a Select Committee that would have sensitive, maybe even secret, information and, through totally legitimate means, has visited a number of our defence sites across the country. Has there been, or will there be, an urgent review of what sensitive information that Member of Parliament might have been party to and, at the appropriate juncture, will the Minister release any correspondence between his Department and that Member of Parliament on things such as the Chinese embassy and other matters relating to China?
Dan Jarvis
On the hon. Gentleman’s first point, he will understand that membership of a Select Committee is not a matter for the Government, but Mr Speaker will have heard the point he raised, as have I. On his second point, he will understand that we are dealing with events that took place a couple of hours ago. I have not seen what is being reported online, because I have obviously been here, but I will give consideration to the matter he has raised.
Middle East
Gregory Stafford Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I assure my hon. Friend that we are taking every step we can to ensure that these people have the support they need. That includes the steps taken over the course of this weekend.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s comments about our service personnel in Bahrain and Akrotiri, which I had the pleasure of visiting in the summer. It is difficult to know where to start with the confusion and cognitive dissonance shown in the Prime Minister’s statement. He is against attacking Iran because it has nuclear weapons, but he is willing to attack it because it has conventional weapons. On those conventional weapons, British sovereign territory in Akrotiri has been attacked, yet the Prime Minister is unwilling to use British RAF personnel to strike Iran. What would Iran, or any other state actor, have to do to this country for him to act?
The Prime Minister
We are using British personnel to defend Cyprus at this very moment.
Standards in Public Life
Gregory Stafford Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Darren Jones
It is important that we take good practice wherever it exists and learn the lessons where reforms have not worked, whether it is in our Parliament or in devolved Governments across the United Kingdom. I encourage the right hon. Gentleman to write to me with his examples in more detail to ensure that we avoid that in the future. I assure him that the Government have no intention or desire to try to limit the voices of people in this House or anywhere else.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
Let me go back to the process that the Prime Minister followed. He received information from the vetting and security services that Peter Mandelson might have had an ongoing relationship. He then questioned Peter Mandelson about that. Did he then test the answers that Peter Mandelson gave with the vetting and security service? If he did not, it can mean only one of two things: either the Prime Minister has committed a dereliction of duty or he is a credulous fool. Either way, should he not resign?
Lord Mandelson
Gregory Stafford Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
Given that—rightly, I think—the hon. Gentleman would not have appointed Peter Mandelson ambassador to the United States of America, does he think that the Prime Minister made the right decision, and will he ever again have confidence that the Prime Minister can make the right decision on any other national security issue?
Dr Arthur
At lunchtime, during Prime Minister’s Question Time, we heard at length from the Prime Minister that we will release this information, so that people have a chance to look at it. We can speculate, but today’s debate is about releasing the information into the public domain, so that people can be reassured that the right decision has been made, and if it has not, we can question it.
Andrew Lewin
I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. That is why I began my remarks by saying that this has been an important day for the House. I sincerely believe that we are collectively in a much better place now than when we started the debate.
Gregory Stafford
I thank the hon. Member for the tone of his speech. I agree with him about the need to use moderate language and be representatives of our constituents, but in addition to that, we are elected to this place—I would hope—because of our judgment and the trust of our electorate. Whatever the outcome of this debate and of these documents, we already know that the public knew, the media knew and our constituents knew—we all knew, and we discovered at about 12 o’clock today that the Prime Minister also knew —that Lord Mandelson had a close personal relationship with a convicted paedophile. Does the hon. Member think that the Prime Minister can still command the trust of this House and the public?
Andrew Lewin
There are unquestionably things that we did not know. I listened incredibly carefully to the Prime Minister during PMQs today, and he was clear. He made a personal statement that he has felt lied to at every single stage of the process. The precise reason why every Member of this House wants to see every single document published that possibly can be is to get to the bottom of that, but I believe the Prime Minister.
China and Japan
Gregory Stafford Excerpts(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments, and for his message over the weekend. Japan is a key NATO ally, is a member of the G7 and, of course, the coalition of the willing, and, as he rightly points out, has key investments in the United Kingdom. That is why we discussed all those matters, and the GCAP, when we were there.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
The Prime Minister mentioned his previous meeting with the Chinese President at the G20 in Brazil. One day later, 45 pro-democracy Hongkongers were sentenced. Uyghurs, Falun Gong, Tibetans, unregistered religious groups, human rights lawyers, pro-democracy campaigners, Hongkongers in this country and Jimmy Lai—what single, tangible difference has the Prime Minister made for their safety and security?
The Prime Minister
Of course there are concerns; they are aired in this House. The difference between our parties is that our position is that the mature and serious thing to do is to have leader-to-leader discussions about them, engaging with the issues. The Conservatives’ approach is to shout about the issues, get a bag of sand and put their head in it, and influence absolutely no one. It is so unserious. They will not be fit for government for many, many years to come.