Darren Jones Speaks on Release of First Group of Mandelson Files – Guido Fawkes

Darren Jones is in the Commons again. This time to speak on the release of the first group of Mandelson Files…

The full statement below:

Thank you Madam Deputy speaker, and first can I apologise to the house if we were a few minutes short of the standard 45 minutes to an hour prior to the statement in publishing the document, but can confirm they have been laid to the house and they are now available on gov.uk.

With permission Madam Deputy Speaker, I’d like to make a statement to update the House on the government’s response to the Humble Address of the 4th February.

The Government committed to responding to that Humble Address. And today, I can confirm that we are releasing a first tranche of documents, which have been laid in the House in advance of this statement and are now published on gov.uk for the public. There are further tranches of documents to come, as officials work through the Humble Address’ full scope.

Madam Deputy Speaker, it is important to recognise the strength of feeling on all sides of the House, mine own included, of the disgust and horror at the nature and extent of the relationship that Peter Mandelson maintained with Jeffrey Epstein despite his criminal conviction for abusing a vulnerable young girl; including encouraging Jeffrey Epstein to then fight that conviction.

Jeffrey Epstein was a despicable criminal who committed the most horrifying and disgusting crimes that destroyed the lives of countless women and girls. What he did is of course unforgivable and his victims I know will be in the thoughts and prayers of all members across this House as we debate these issues today. Those victims will always be our first priority and Peter Mandelson’s behaviour was an insult to them and their suffering.

And can I say Madam Deputy Speaker, I am therefore sorry that these events leave those victims with no choice but to relive their horrors with still too little justice being served. 14:21:30

That is why there is, I think Madam Deputy Speaker,  a cross-party consensus in this House for full transparency and accountability, why anyone with knowledge must cooperate with inquiries whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere, and why the Government is therefore committed to publishing all documents relevant to the  Humble Address.

Madam Deputy Speaker, the Prime Minister has taken responsibility for Peter Mandelson’s appointment as ambassador to the United States. He has acknowledged it was a mistake and apologised, not least for believing Peter Mandelson’s lies.

As the government has said previously, there are specific documents that this government would like to have been able to disclose today, but that the Metropolitan Police have asked us not to do so yet, in order to avoid prejudicing the ongoing criminal investigation into Peter Mandelson. We have agreed to that request. We will therefore publish these documents in the future as soon as the Metropolitan Police have confirmed it will no longer prejudice their investigation.

The Government must, as the house already understands, also carefully assess the risk of prejudicing the UK’s National Security or International Relations posed by the release of any official documents. Any such material will, and is being referred to the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) of this House. I thank the Intelligence Committee for their assistance in this matter, and can confirm to the House that the Committee has agreed with the limited redactions requested by the Government, in relation to one document we are publishing today.

Outside of this arrangement, this process does not change the important and well established constitutional principle that national security and international relations judgements are ultimately for the Government.

Madam Deputy Speaker, on today’s release, the documents specifically relate to the decision to appoint Peter Mandelson as Ambassador to the United States, and the discussions that subsequently led to his dismissal.

This includes:

● The Cabinet Office due diligence report which was passed to Number 10 prior to Peter Mandelson’s appointment;

● Information provided to My Right Honourable Friend, the Prime Minister, regarding whether ‘full due process was followed during Peter Mandelson’s appointment’;

● Papers relating to Peter Mandelson’s appointment as His Majesty’s Ambassador to the United States, and minutes of meetings relating to the decision to appoint him; and

● Details of the severance payments made to Peter Mandelson after the Prime Minister instructed he be withdrawn as Ambassador, thereby terminating his employment by the Civil Service.

Whilst the documents point to public reports of an ongoing relationship between Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein, the advice did not expose the depth and extent of their relationship which only became apparent after the release of further files by Bloomberg and then the US Department for Justice.

After the Prime Minister reviewed the Cabinet Office due diligence that noted public reporting on Peter Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein,  questions were put to Peter Mandelson by advisers in No10, as Rt Hon and Hon Members can see referred to on pages 8 and 94 of the bundle, and Peter Mandelson responded. These are matters that are currently the subject of an ongoing police investigation and we will publish this document when the investigation allows. When we do, the House will be able to see Peter Mandelson’s answers for themselves, which the Prime Minister regrets believing.

Peter Mandelson should never have been afforded the privilege of representing this country. I reiterate for the House, the Prime Minister deeply regrets taking him at his word. It was a mistake to do so.

I can, however, confirm to the House, as agreed with Madam Deputy Speaker and Mr Speaker, that we have shared the documents that are with the Metropolitan Police with the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee – on terms agreed by the Metropolitan Police to ensure as much transparency to this house as is possible.

And, Madam Deputy Speaker, as soon as the truth became apparent following reporting by Bloomberg, the Prime Minister acted to withdraw Peter Mandelson from his role.

I’m sure that Rt Hon and Hon Members across the House will also read in these documents, with interest, how Peter Mandelson conducted himself, after his withdrawal as Ambassador. As the documents show, regarding his severance payment, Peter Mandelson initially requested a sum that was substantially larger than the final payment. Not just two or even three times, but more than six times the final amount. Despite the fact that he was withdrawn from Washington because he had lost the confidence of the Prime Minister.

The government obviously found that to be inappropriate and unacceptable. The settlement that was agreed was to avoid even higher further costs involving a drawn out legal claim at the employment tribunal, given Peter Mandelson’s employment as a civil servant, rather than a Minister. The house will know that Ministers can be dismissed without recourse to the employment tribunal, civil servants are treated differently.

The Government is committed to complying with the Humble Address. Further work is ongoing to compile the rest of the information that is in its scope. The Government recognises the urgency with which this work must be completed and the Government will of course keep Members updated as that work progresses.

But we know that these documents also reveal that the due diligence process fell short of what is required.

We have already taken steps to address weaknesses in the system and ensure that when standards of behaviour fall short of the high standards expected, that there will be more serious consequences.

We have launched the Ethics and Integrity Commission to promote the highest standards in public life.

And we are changing the process for direct ministerial appointments, including politically appointed diplomatic roles, so that where the role requires access to highly classified material, the candidate must have passed national security vetting before such appointments are announced or confirmed.

Ministers will now be expected to forgo severance payments following a serious breach of the Ministerial Code, and we have given the Independent Adviser the power to initiate investigations into ministerial conduct – without the need to seek the Prime Minister’s permission first.

The Prime Minister has also strengthened the Ministerial Code with stricter rules on gifts and hospitality,and we have asked the Lords Conduct Committee to review the Code of Conduct to consider what changes are required to ensure peers can be removed when they have brought the house into disrepute – in the other place. We are also exploring whether the Committee can tighten rules on lobbying and paid advocacy to bring the Lords in line with the Common’s procedures.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to note that the vast majority of individuals who apply to public service do so with the best of intentions.  However, it is right that following the Peter Mandelson case we ask questions about how we can further strengthen the rules and processes that underpin the operation of government. And we have appointed Baroness Anderson of Stoke on Trent in the other house to support this work on standards and constitutional reform as a new Minister in the Cabinet Office.

I can further announce that the Prime Minister has asked the Ethics and Integrity Commission to conduct a review of the current arrangements relating to financial disclosures for ministers and senior officials, transparency around lobbying and the Business Appointment Rules.

And we are conducting a review of the National Security Vetting System to ensure we learn the lessons from the policy and process weaknesses related to Peter Mandelson’s case.

Madam Deputy Speaker, let me conclude by reiterating that the whole house will agree that Jeffrey Epstein was a disgusting individual and Peter Mandelson’s decision to put their relationship before his victims and the vulnerable is reprehensible.

As the Prime Minister has said, “the victims of Epstein have lived with trauma that most of us can barely comprehend. They’ve had to relive it again and again. And they have had to see accountability delayed — and too often denied.”

We must learn this hard lesson, and end a culture which dismisses women’s experiences far far too often, and too easily.

Peter Mandelson should never have been appointed and the Government will comply with the Humble Address. I will update the House further in due course.

Mr Speaker, I commend this statement to the House.