Jeremy Corbyn
Main Page: Jeremy Corbyn (Independent - Islington North)Department Debates - View all Jeremy Corbyn's debates with the Cabinet Office
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alex Burghart
I will give way in a moment; I would like to make a little progress.
It was reported this morning in the press that in September, following Peter Mandelson’s sacking, there was a Cabinet Office investigation into any further wrongdoing. Will the Paymaster General confirm whether he is aware of such a report and at least assure the House that, if such a report comes to light during his investigations, that will be published in response to this Humble Address?
The Conservatives fully understand that the Government have a duty to protect national security and our international relationships—of course they do. They must also understand, however, that security and our international affairs are completely entwined with this issue. The Paymaster General will have seen this morning that the Prime Minister of Poland, Donald Tusk, has announced that Poland, one of our strongest allies in Europe, will examine the paedophile’s links with the Russian intelligence services. As he said,
“More and more leads, more and more information, and more and more commentary…all relate to the suspicion that this unprecedented paedophilia scandal was co-organised by Russian intelligence services.”
Thousands of the documents released over the weekend refer to Putin and thousands more to Moscow. We know that Epstein recruited young Russian women and we know that he held parties in Russia. In some emails, I understand, Epstein said he could offer “insight” on Donald Trump to Sergey Lavrov, the Russian Foreign Minister. Those are all the ingredients of classic kompromat and this House cannot be deprived of consideration of such issues in the case of the Mandelson papers.
Alex Burghart
My right hon. Friend is quite right that this is exactly one of the issues that must now be investigated and done so very seriously, not just by this Government but by our allies in other jurisdictions. Though we do not yet know for certain how the money came to Epstein, we do now know where some of it went. Understanding its ultimate source will help us construct a picture of this very complex and devious web.
Alex Burghart
I promised to give way to my old adversary the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) first. Then, I will happily give way to the hon. Lady.
Jeremy Corbyn
I compliment the hon. Member on the content of his speech so far. This inquiry will have massive ramifications. It is an inquiry into the gilded circle surrounding Mandelson, which extends very broadly around this House and the civil service, the business community, the media and internationally. Is it not time that we had a novel form of inquiry which is not undertaken solely by Parliament or the civil service, but which is a much broader, more public inquiry that will look into the whole issue? This is a basic corruption of our political system that we are looking at in the behaviour of Peter Mandelson.
Alex Burghart
The right hon. Gentleman appears to be correct in that there is certainly an indication that serious corruption may have taken place. In the light of that, the House must consider closely what the best means of getting to the bottom of all these relationships and influences will be.
Lisa Smart
The right hon. Gentleman has clearly been reading Liberal Democrat press releases, because we believe that a public inquiry would be a far more effective way of getting to the bottom of this matter. I am delighted that he made that point.
Jeremy Corbyn
The hon. Member is making some excellent points. Does she agree that all the inquiry systems that have been discussed so far are influenced or participated in by people who have been within the golden circle of Peter Mandelson? Do we not need something novel and different, such as an independent, judge-led or judiciary-led inquiry that examines the whole thing in the round, similar perhaps to the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war?
Lisa Smart
I am always delighted to get agreement from across the political spectrum, and I very much agree with the right hon. Gentleman: an independent, judge-led inquiry would be the right way to go.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
This debate is crucial and seminal, but first and foremost it must be about the victims of the horrible web that Epstein created —the abuse, abduction, raping and secret imprisonment of women, who were apparently flown in and out of major cities around the world for the convenience of rich and powerful men. It is utterly disgusting, depraved and abominable behaviour on every single level, and every Member who has called it out is absolutely right to do so.
Epstein was not revealed yesterday; he was not convicted last week; he was not convicted last year. He was first convicted 18 years ago. It is not as if his record was not extremely well known. It seems that we are debating it now only because of the inclusion of Peter Mandelson in the ghastly, nasty, vile, horrible web that they created.
We have a duty to do something important today, and I for one support the Opposition motion. I hope that we vote on it, rather than coming to some crabby deal between the Government and the Opposition through a manuscript amendment that would kick the whole thing into the long grass, a long way away, on the pretence that we cannot discuss these issues because that might affect security or international relations. Almost anything can affect international relations. It sounds to me like the Government simply trying to get out of things.
The question is fundamentally one for the Prime Minister, and it is a bit odd that he is not here for the debate. It is a bit odd that he has not spoken in the debate and that all he has done is say what he did today at Prime Minister’s Question Time. I cannot believe that, when he was about to appoint Peter Mandelson as the ambassador to Washington, he was not made fully aware of all of Peter Mandelson’s record. The Prime Minister would have known about the number of times that Peter Mandelson was forced to resign, even from the Tony Blair Government, because of his behaviour. He would have known Mandelson’s record as an EU Commissioner, and of his interesting relationship with global dealers in minerals and many other things. He would have known all of that, yet he still went ahead and appointed Mandelson as ambassador to Washington, apparently despite advice from the Foreign Office and others. What a shame, what a disgrace and what an appalling appointment to make. We do not even know whether Mandelson is still being paid by the Foreign Office.
Today, we have to be very stern and clear that there needs to be the fullest possible inquiry into all of this. Parliament is not competent to undertake this inquiry. The Cabinet Secretary and the civil service machine are not competent to do so. They have all been ensnared in this gilded, friendly web of Mandelson and his business, political and social contacts, where favours were done and contracts were apparently awarded. That ghastly company Palantir was trying to get hold of our national health service, apparently at the behest of Mandelson and others.
None of us here are competent to undertake that inquiry, which is why I intervened earlier—I thank the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) for giving way—on how it should be conducted. I think it has to be judicially led, independent and, for the most part, in the public eye—rather like when the Government were eventually forced to undertake the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war; that is the nearest parallel I can find—because it needs to expose the whole web that Mandelson created, and the power play that he operated within the civil service, the political establishment, the media and so much else.
The hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) made a wonderful and very powerful speech. I thank him for his reference to what Mandelson said and did about me when I was Leader of the Opposition and leader of the Labour party. I can confirm to the House that under my leadership, Mandelson had no role, no influence and no part to play, because I do not trust the man or believe him. We need to make that very clear, because his role in British politics has been basically malign, undermining, and a very corrupting influence altogether.
When we look at our politics, we need to look at the role that big money, patronage, and turning a blind eye to crime play in it, because what we end up with is the national embarrassment of Mandelson being the ambassador to Washington, apparently on the basis that it was a risk worth taking in order to please Donald Trump. I do not know whether it succeeded in pleasing Donald Trump, but I did notice that at one of his endless press conferences, he could not remember who Mandelson was, so I am not sure how big the impact on the President was. Today is a day of shame for our politics—shame that we have got into the situation that has now been exposed.
Epstein was very, very powerful and very, very wealthy. Obviously, there needs to be more examination of that. More files have been uncovered than even Julian Assange managed to uncover through Wikileaks, and those files are going to be read and studied for a long time to come. There are lots of people all around the world who were dragged into this ghastly web based on dishonesty, lies, corruption and patronage. It is up to us as MPs to ’fess up to what has happened and to make sure there is a genuinely open, independent inquiry. When it comes to the standards of democracy we have in our society, and the levels of patronage that continue within it, we need to look at ourselves in the mirror.
Graham Stuart
The right hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech. He referred to the speech on factionalism made by his colleague on the Labour Benches, the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), and made the point that we need an independent inquiry. One of the reasons for that is the number of staff from Labour Together, a factional group within the Labour party, who were appointed to civil service posts directly after the general election, including one—Jess Sargeant—who was appointed to the Cabinet Office’s propriety and constitution group. Labour Front Benchers should not say, “Don’t question the impartiality of the civil service.” They undermined the impartiality of the civil service, and we need an independent inquiry if the public are to know that we will get to the truth.
Jeremy Corbyn
The right hon. Member makes a very fair point. Of course, the role of factions within parties is enormous—we have seen the role that Mandelson, Morgan McSweeney and others have played in sidelining, silencing and getting rid of very good, active people within the Labour party. Ultimately, it is the Labour party that loses as a result. I was extremely grateful for the role that Peter Mandelson played in the last election in Islington North: he came along and canvassed, and we won with 50% of the vote. That is the only useful thing he has done for a very long time that I can remember.
As I say, the right hon. Member’s point is a very fair one. It is right that Ministers and Governments should be able to bring political advisers into government with them. I remember discussing all this with Tony Benn in the 1970s; his view was that the civil service was intrinsically conservative and reactionary, and that there needed to be voices in there who were prepared to speak up for an alternative policy. I understand that point, but there has to be some kind of limit to the role of the political adviser in running the civil service—that is the Rubicon they must not cross. It is reasonable for them to advise the Minister, and they may have a very strong view or a view that is very different to that of the civil service. That is fair enough, but they should not be running the civil service. If we believe in an independent civil service, we must practise what we believe, even though it is probably quite uncomfortable for Ministers at various times.
I conclude by saying to the Government: do not come to some deal today just to get past today. Do not just get through today and think, “Wow, we got through that mess.” Members of the Government should not just put in their diaries, “Horrible day in the Commons, but tomorrow is another day. We’ll move on.” Let us have the open, public inquiry that is necessary. Let us have an understanding that we will turn the page on the era of patronage, and of close relationships between commercial pressure groups and lobbying—in the Lords, here, in the media and in our society. We should strive to build the open, fair, democratic society that we should all believe in. Those who suffered to get us universal suffrage and democracy did not do it so that we could develop a corrupt political system; they did it because they wanted an open, democratic, accountable system that benefited the poorest in society, as well as everybody else. Let us pass the motion today—no deals. We must inquire with real seriousness into the horror show that we have heard about.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. There are several other points of order. I am keen that we do not conduct the debate via points of order, so, if the right hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will take two further points of order and then respond to his point of order. Hopefully we might then have an answer.
Jeremy Corbyn
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Following the answer we have just heard, if the Intelligence and Security Committee comes across evidence of commercial misdemeanours as well as intelligence and international relations misdemeanours, what powers does it have to do anything about that? Where will it refer those concerns and where will those inquiries lead? The issues of lobbying and potential corruption in the handing out of Government contracts are massive, and I would not want that swept under the carpet on the basis that the Committee is dealing with international relations and national security.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have heard this evening from the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe), who celebrated Elon Musk—rather tactlessly, I believe—in this debate. Notwithstanding the fact that like Mandelson, Musk had a relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, and in fact was found to have been practically begging for a visit to his island, the hon. Member declined to include—
Alicia Kearns
I can give but one comment to those new MPs who may think that a reshuffle is a good thing: it causes only more upset and heartache within the party, and it will not be a solution.
Jeremy Corbyn
Does the hon. Member agree that the House should be slightly cautious here? We should not just roll over and accept the Government’s manuscript amendment without clear assurances about how far the inquiries will go where they relate to commercial interests, rather than just security interests, as well as a very clear process of reporting and a timetable, so that this is not just a carpet-brushing exercise to get rid of an embarrassing day for the Government.
Alicia Kearns
It is quite clearly the will of the House that that would be beyond unacceptable—it would be a contempt of Parliament, if it happened. I can say—I would like to think that this goes for the entire House—that I have complete confidence in the integrity of gentlemen such as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), who sits on the ISC. No one would impugn his integrity or question whether he would ensure that he got to the bottom of whatever is necessary. There is no question but that this issue goes so far beyond the vile and inhumane treatment of women; it appears, I am afraid, that Peter Mandelson betrayed not just his colleagues but his own country for the financial interests of others.
Chris Ward
I will get on to the motion, and then I promise I will give way.
As I said, the Government accept the spirit, purpose and intent of the Opposition’s motion, and we want to provide transparency and drain the swamp of Mandelson’s lies. Our amendment has two important points to it: one on national security and one on foreign relations. I want to cover those quickly, and then I will take interventions.
National security, as the Prime Minister has said from this Dispatch Box—and has said to me more times over the years I have known him than I can remember—is his No. 1 priority, and he will never compromise on that. That is why we wanted it in the motion and why we put the amendment before the House. There is precedent for that in a Humble Address. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) mentioned earlier, our Humble Address regarding Lebedev included the words:
“in a form which may contain redactions, but such redactions shall be solely for the purposes of national security”.
Our intention was to abide with that spirit and to make a clear point about national security. I will come on to how that will be treated by the ISC and the Cabinet Secretary in a second.
On international relations, as the Prime Minister said, these documents, which are significant in number, could well touch on sensitive issues concerning intelligence, trade or relations with other countries. For example, we would not want to release inadvertently information about our red lines in trade agreements, about peace negotiations and our position on things such as Ukraine, the middle east or Sudan, or information about sensitive assessments of our allies and the diplomatic conversations on which our lives depend. The point of the amendment is that we are trying to address that and to make it clear to the House, and we are trying to balance transparency with national security. That is what is most significant.
Jeremy Corbyn
I mean no disrespect to the Intelligence and Security Committee, but the Minister will have heard the points of order that the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and I made earlier. We need to know that there is a timetable for this inquiry, that it will not rule out specifically commercial interests such as Palantir and fail to investigate them, and that it will investigate the whole web of influence that Peter Mandelson had over so much in Government, which has brought about this dreadful position in which we appointed somebody who is a friend of a paedophile to be the ambassador to Washington. Many people watching today’s debate will not be happy that Parliament is merely shoving this issue off to one of its Committees, because they think there should be a wider public interest inquiry into the whole affair.
Chris Ward
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that. The police investigation will go wherever it needs to go. It will cover any criminality or allegations thereof. That is the right way to do it, and nothing will be hidden.