Lord Mandelson
Mike Martin Excerpts(5 days, 23 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lisa Smart
I am sure that I have been listening as intently as the hon. Gentleman. There are so many questions that it is right for the Government to answer, and we believe that a public inquiry, after any police investigation has concluded, is the way to get to the bottom of them. There are questions swirling around about which advisers said what, when, but the decision to hire Mandelson was ultimately the Prime Minister’s, and he must be held responsible for that.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
The Minister said that Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes were “unforgivable”. Does my hon. Friend think that the Prime Minister appointing said known paedophile was forgivable?
Lisa Smart
I think my hon. Friend is referring to the appointment of the friend of a known paedophile, rather than the appointment of a paedophile.
Lisa Smart
That is an important clarification to make. Rightly, there are questions surrounding the judgment displayed by the Prime Minister in appointing Peter Mandelson to the position of UK ambassador to the US. Those questions are wholly valid, as are the questions being asked about current Cabinet Ministers who also chose to maintain friendships with Mandelson—there are rumours of him popping in and out of some offices at will. I must say, I noted the facial expressions of some Government Front Benchers during Prime Minister’s questions earlier.
Of course, many questions were raised about Mandelson before his appointment. Questions were raised about him during the 2009 expenses scandal. He was forced to resign from Cabinet twice for unethical behaviour, and we understand that the security services raised serious concerns about his appointment last year, yet he was still appointed to one of our most sensitive diplomatic positions. This is not a case of one unforeseen problem; it is a pattern of warning signs that were ignored. This Labour Government promised to break with Conservative chaos, but instead we see the same failures—inadequate checks, reactive crisis management, and an inability to prevent obvious problems. You do not restore public trust with heartfelt apologies after things go wrong; you do it by having proper systems that stop scandals before they happen. Labour has failed to maintain public confidence, and it must do better.
Emily Thornberry
I will not take any more interventions.
I have explained what our Committee was told about due diligence and how that happened. Normally what would then happen is that an interview would be done with a panel, and questions that arose during due diligence would be put to the candidate during that interview. But that did not happen in this case because it was a political appointment. So if anyone had any concerns about Peter Mandelson and his background, or any of the things that people are now concerned about, those would not have been formally put to him during any form of interview process where minutes were taken and we could now look at what those conversations were. That, I think, is a really important piece of information to put before this House so that people understand how this happened.
We have due diligence—fast-streamers looking at the internet—nothing being put to Peter Mandelson, and then the decision being announced. The decision was announced in the middle of December, as we have heard, and then they wanted to do it really quickly, presumably so that he could be at the President’s swearing-in. Also, once the announcement was made, Karen Pierce would have lost power and influence, because it would have been known that she was not continuing in post, so it was important to move as soon as possible.
The next stage was vetting, which is done by the Foreign Office. The question I have for Ministers is this: given that the announcement had been made and that speed was needed, was pressure put on the Foreign Office to get through the vetting quickly? Was there, to coin a phrase, a need to “get on with it”? That is an important question to ask and one that we need an answer to, but we must also be realistic. Once it was known that Peter Mandelson was going to be the ambassador for Britain, it would have taken huge bravery and introduced potential risk to withdraw him from the appointment if anything had come up at the vetting stage.
Mike Martin
As Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, does the right hon. Lady know what the then Foreign Secretary—the Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy)—knew at that time? Does she think that that should also be brought to the attention of the House in this release of documents?
Emily Thornberry
The point is that the due diligence and vetting are done by civil servants and are not supposed to involve politicians, and the decision was made in No. 10. That is how it works, as I understand it, so the views of the then Foreign Secretary may not be directly relevant.
Mike Martin
I thank the right hon. Lady for giving way once again; she is being very generous. What is the point in civil servants doing due diligence if that information is not given to politicians when they make the decisions?
Emily Thornberry
No, it is given to those who are making the decisions—as I understand it. The due diligence is done by the Cabinet Office. It does due diligence on a number of candidates, and then the decision is made as to which candidate will be put forward. Then it is announced. Then the vetting is done by the Foreign Office, and that information is handed back. I believe that that is the process. I think it is important, for clarity, that people know the process, because if we are about to get a large amount of information, it is important to understand how it worked.
Richard Burgon
I totally agree with the hon. Member’s powerful point. It is no wonder that trust in politicians is at an all-time low. This affair shines a light on the role of the rich and powerful, and the relationship between some at the top of politics and some of the richest and most powerful men in the world. Peter Mandelson has always had, I would say, an unhealthy fascination with the super-rich and the powerful. After all, it was he who said that he was
“intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich”.
In this serious debate, we need full honesty. As I alluded to earlier, one of the main reasons that Peter Mandelson was let off the hook and eased into one of the most important offices that he could be given by the Prime Minister was his role in internal Labour party factional affairs—that is just completely wrong. Let me quote Peter Mandelson:
“I work every single day in some small way to bring forward the end of his tenure in office.”
He was referring, of course, to the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) while he was leader of the Labour party, at a time when Lord Mandelson was a Labour party member. That is the reason Mandelson was let off the hook. People were so grateful for the job that he did again and again to kick the left of the Labour party that they—
Richard Burgon
I will give way shortly. I think the Prime Minister would be delighted if I gave way now, because I am coming to an important point.
The reward for the factional role that Mandelson boasted about and revelled in was a blind eye being turned, even though the Prime Minister knew about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. The reality is that Peter Mandelson would not have made it on to a panel of Labour party local election candidates, or as a Labour party parliamentary candidate at a general election, yet because of his factional role and his relationship with the super-rich—which stinks, quite frankly—he was eased into the position of ambassador to the United States of America. That is the truth, whether or not people choose to admit it.
Mike Martin
This important debate deals with corruption on an international scale, and with women and girls who have been victimised over years. May I ask the hon. Gentleman to lift his eyes above factional Labour politics and to focus on the issues at hand?
Richard Burgon
The hon. Gentleman may not have understood the point that I am making—perhaps that is the Liberal position on these things; I do not know. What I am talking about is the fact that victims of sexual abuse were put second to factional politics. The point I am making is that this dirty, grubby internal factional behaviour overrode those considerations—so, in fact, I do not disagree with him. That is the point that I am making: the lives of survivors should have been put first. The risk that Peter Mandelson posed to national security, and his deep inappropriateness for the role of ambassador to the US, should have been put first. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman misunderstood me, but that is the very point that I am making.
The public deserve the truth—the full truth. They need to know who argued for Peter Mandelson despite what was known about his relationship with Epstein, who argued for him to be pushed over the line into the role of ambassador to the United States, who warned against it, and what role the advisers around the Prime Minister played. That is fundamentally important. We cannot have a situation that the public quite rightly view as totally unacceptable. We need to know exactly how this happened and nothing should prevent that, because the public are completely baffled and disgusted.
The point has been made that we need to clean up our politics. Of course, that means no jobs for the boys when they are deeply inappropriate and deeply unsuitable for them, and it means looking at the role of big money in politics. Mandelson was infatuated with the rich and powerful in the same way that he was infatuated with the factional politics within the Labour party. Those things resulted in his being appointed to the position of ambassador despite what was known.
A manuscript amendment may be tabled and it may satisfy Members on both sides of the House—I do not know—but no manuscript amendment will rub away this crisis. No manuscript amendment and nothing that can be said in this House will remove the fact that the appointment of Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United States of America, despite what was known at the time, is literally indefensible. It is really telling that not a single Member on either side of the House has tried to defend that today, although some have defended it previously.
I come back to the point that we cannot have appointments in this country suborned as a result of people’s friendships or the role that they have played in internal party factions. That puts the national interest at risk and it can put national security at risk. The Prime Minister said “country first, party second”. What we cannot have is faction first, country second. I think that that is what happened with the indefensible decision to appoint Peter Mandelson to this important role, despite the fact that it was in the public domain that he had continued his relations with Epstein while that man was in prison for soliciting child prostitution.
National Security Strategy
Mike Martin Excerpts(7 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Pat McFadden
My hon. Friend is quite right to draw attention to the deep expertise that exists in the diplomatic service, which advances our national interests in a whole range of ways every day, including in conflict resolution. I pay tribute to the work of those in our diplomatic posts and diplomatic service across the world.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
If you will allow me, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will read a small quote from page 10:
“We will continue to abide by the important principle—shared by NATO and its key partners—that the security of the Euro-Atlantic and Indo-Pacific regions are inextricably linked”.
But that is not how the US views it. The Trump Administration see them as quite separate, and would prefer the United Kingdom to focus its efforts on the Euro-Atlantic. How does the right hon. Gentleman explain that discrepancy?
Pat McFadden
They are inextricably linked. While the Prime Minister attends the NATO summit today, our carrier group is in the Indo-Pacific region. It is quite right that the strategy we have published today draws attention to our responsibilities, our ambition and our determination to act in both arenas.
UK-EU Summit
Mike Martin Excerpts(8 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Julia Lopez
If that is outside the boundaries of what is acceptable, I will withdraw the comment.
My second lesson is that when Labour negotiates, Britain loses. We have already seen it in this Parliament, from the Chagos islands to the backroom deals with the unions. It is ideological naivety dressed up as serious and sober diplomacy. Labour thinks that signing a deal is the same as securing a good one. It is not, and all that will become clear.
Let us remind ourselves that Brexit was never a rejection of Europe and its people. It was a demand for democratic control over our laws, our borders, our trade and our future.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
The hon. Lady is a great fan of honesty in this Chamber, so I am sure that she will give me an honest answer. One way of understanding Brexit is that it replaced a circular flow of people with a one-way flow of people. Does she think that Brexit increased or decreased migration into this country?
Julia Lopez
Brexit allowed us to introduce a points-based system and that is what we did. I will accept that mistakes were made in the introduction of that points-based system, but the key is that we can tweak and tune that to accommodate the needs of our economy and those of the people we represent.
The British people could feel the world changing around them and they knew instinctively that the UK needed to be nimbler, faster and more accountable in responding to those currents, be they the movement of people or the regulation of businesses. We will not let it be said that there have been no Brexit benefits, because that is simply not true.
For a start, we no longer hand between £11 billion and £12 billion a year net to Brussels. We have secured trade deals, including from the fast-growing comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership nations. Whatever we think about last week’s US-UK tariff deal, we are not paying the same prohibitive trade taxes as the EU. We are setting our own course in areas such as AI, financial services and agritech. Those are not abstract wins or nostalgic impulses; they are real opportunities for a modern, outward-facing Britain.
If next week’s summit can ease practical frictions, that is all well and good. I want what works for British people. However, I am worried that Labour does not know what it wants, only that it wants a deal. I am worried it does not grasp what the EU will demand in return. And I am worried that Labour thinks slick comms matter more than real outcomes for the British people.
Today, we lay down a clear marker. On immigration, there should be no youth mobility scheme. It might sound harmless, but let us not be naive and have partial free movement by stealth. On defence and regulation, we want no dynamic alignment, and I am fascinated by the Minister’s refusal to say anything further on that matter. If Labour really thinks it has a great deal, there is a simple thing it could do, which is to bring that deal back to this House for a vote.
European Union: UK Membership
Mike Martin Excerpts(10 months, 2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. We are at a key geopolitical moment, which encompasses both economic issues and security and defence issues. Britain leaving the EU has damaged our economy. That is not a supposition; it is a fact. The Office for Budget Responsibility, the watchdog the Government are beholden to listen to for economic forecasts, says that our economy has been reduced by 4% because of Brexit. We can also look at the trade deals—for example, with Australia—that were held up and touted as a benefit of Brexit. We would have to look very hard, with a very powerful microscope, to see the bump in the UK GDP figures that we gained from the Australian trade deal, but we do not need to look hard to see our farmers’ anger and ire about the changes to food safety standards and the agricultural market in the UK.
Small business owners I speak to in my community of Tunbridge Wells are absolutely appalled by Brexit. No matter what their small business is—whether they sell books, grow and export apples, or make art—Brexit has been a disaster.
Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)
My hon. Friend mentioned small businesses. As a small business owner who imports goods from the European Union, I see at first hand how things that used to take days to import now take weeks. We used to require a purchase order and an invoice as the sole bits of paperwork, but we now have to fill in complicated forms, which is very costly. Those costs are put on small businesses with absolutely no benefit, and they have to be passed on to consumers. It is damaging our economy every single day. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is certainly not a benefit of Brexit?
Mike Martin
Marvellous! Ladies and gentlemen, that was a perfect example. I could list example after example of small business owners who say, “You know what? We have had to stop 20% of our business. We are no longer able to turn a profit on it because of the time we have to spend filling out forms.”
I will move on from the direct effects of Brexit on our trade with the European Union to its wider effects. One thing we see in the current geopolitical moment is the threat of tariffs. If we are honest, we probably thought we had seen the back of those in the early 1930s. But we are in this new world, which includes the United Kingdom becoming a target for tariffs from our supposed closest ally. We have seen a supine response from the British Government to the setting of tariffs against our steel industry. We are a market of 70 million people and the sixth largest economy in the world, but were we part of a market of several hundred million people—the largest trading area on the planet—would we be so supine?
EU membership is about not just economics but security, which Brexit has damaged in many small ways. I speak, of course, of intelligence sharing and access to databases—the sharing of data across borders. We used to have the Dublin convention, which allowed us to negotiate the return of refugees, in a way that is not open to us now.
However, damaging our relationship with Europe has damaged us in a more profound way, which is being exposed by the actions of the Trump Government, who are withdrawing the American security guarantee for Europe. We can quibble about whether that is happening, but the comments this weekend from Steve Witkoff should certainly give us pause for thought, and we should at least consider it a significant possibility. The Americans’ removal of that security guarantee exposes us all, and I will give hon. Members a very real example that happened just last week. The EU set up a defence fund that put money into European defence industries to pump-prime them and get them building equipment and munitions, but the UK has been excluded because we are not a member of the EU. We can quibble about the politics of that fund and about whether France’s role in it was right for European defence, but 20% of the European defence industry—the UK’s defence industry—is separated from the money that will buy all that kit.
I will conclude by focusing on the economy and security, which are interlinked: a strong economy enables us to build strong defences, and the stability created by security and defence, appropriately deployed, allows economies to grow. It is also true that the money invested in defence helps our economy to grow, and Brexit is stopping us doing that. We must forge a closer relationship with Europe so the UK can start to shape the future, rather than have the future shape us.
Oral Answers to Questions
Mike Martin Excerpts(10 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
I welcome the progress of talks between Ukraine and the United States. We must now redouble our efforts to get a lasting, secure peace. On Saturday, I will convene international leaders to discuss how we can make further progress.
I pay tribute to the bravery and dedication of all those responding to the ship collision off the east Yorkshire coast. Our thoughts and, I am sure, the thoughts of the whole House are with the family of the crew member who is sadly presumed dead.
This week we introduced landmark legislation to get Britain building, paving the way to restoring the dream of home ownership for working people across the country. We are also driving forward our Employment Rights Bill, the biggest boost to workers’ rights in a generation. That is our plan for change in action.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Mike Martin
Russia has abducted at least 19,000 Ukrainian children and transferred them to Russia. They have been told that their parents do not love them, placed in Russian homes and been re-educated. For that despicable crime and others, the International Criminal Court has issued six arrest warrants for Vladimir Putin and his gang. I note the Prime Minister’s previous fulsome support for the ICC and his comments just last night about the support that the UK will offer to Ukraine in achieving a just and lasting peace. Will the Prime Minister confirm to the House that British peacekeeping troops will be deployed to Ukraine only if the peacekeeping deal includes both the return of Ukraine’s children and Putin’s prosecution?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Member for raising that issue, because it is an absolutely terrible case of abduction and kidnapping. When we say a lasting, just settlement for peace in Ukraine, it must of course involve dealing with that issue. As he would expect, we are raising it continually with our allies.
Oral Answers to Questions
Mike Martin Excerpts(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend has been a determined champion of Kettering general hospital, and rightly so. There is deep anger about the delay to the work because of the Conservative’s failure to have a plan, but while we implement our affordable and deliverable plan to build a new hospital, I can reassure her that the RAAC identified at Kettering general is being mitigated and replaced through the national RAAC programme.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
Before Christmas, Lord Robertson, who is leading the strategic defence review, came before the Defence Committee and told us that he could not guarantee that the strategic outcomes from the review would be fully funded. Recently, we have also heard in media reports that the review might be delayed until the autumn—a delay of six months. Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to state categorically to the House that the strategic defence review, with its important requirements for the defence of our nation, will be fully funded and delivered on time?
The Prime Minister
We are committed to that because this is a serious review into our defence. The review needs to ensure we understand the challenges we face and have the capability to deal with those challenges in the modern era, so that is the exercise that is going through. We have committed to the path to 2.5%. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the last time 2.5% of GDP was spent on defence was under the last Labour Government, and that is the difference between the approach on this side of the House and the approach on that side of the House.
Oral Answers to Questions
Mike Martin Excerpts(1 year, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to the hon. Member for asking that incredibly important question. Many of us have been deeply concerned by some of the stories that have come to public light. We are determined as a new Government to strengthen the legal duty around sexual harassment so that employers take all reasonable steps to stop it before it starts. We will also require employers to create and maintain workplaces and working conditions free from harassment, including by third parties.
Mike Martin
My predecessor Greg Clark brought a Bill before the House to make it illegal to harass women in public. The Protection from Sex-based Harassment in Public Bill received Royal Assent in September last year, but the Act is not in force because the Secretary of State needs to pass a statutory instrument to make regulations to allow that to happen; it is legal plumbing. Will the Minister undertake to write to me and update me when that work will be done and when this important Act will come into force?
Anneliese Dodds
I am happy to write to the hon. Member when the Act does indeed come into force. To be absolutely clear, the new Government are determined to halve violence against women and girls within a decade, which includes on the street as well as in workplaces and homes. I know that the Home Secretary takes that incredibly seriously, so she is working with us on it.