Thank you uh very much, Mr Speaker. Can I just begin by saying that the comments from the honorable member in his uh final speech, not least at the beginning where he visibly enjoyed his jokes more than the rest of us in this house uh shows that for them on that side of the house, this is purely a joking matter. But we take this seriously, Mr speaker and so I will speak to the substance and the motivations of the motion that's before the house today.
Before I do so, can I thank all right honorable and honorable members for their contributions to the debate. I'd particularly like to thank honorable friends and other members who reminded us, as they should, that the victims of Jeffrey Epstein suffered the most hideous abuse and will be reminded of that every single time this matter is debated. The prime minister the prime minister has apologized to them and expressed his ongoing regret for having appointed Peter Mandlesson in the first place which he knows is at the heart of this matter.
Mr Speaker, the prime minister and indeed the whole government recognized the importance of transparency in respect to Peter Manderson's appointment and dismissal as ambassador. This is why this is my eighth appearance at the dispatch box to provide updates on these issues and why the government welcomes the opportunity today to debate the substance of the motion before us. Can I also recognize the diligence of this house's select committees to pay tribute to the work of my right honorable friend uh the member for Islington South and the members of her committee for the important work that she is leading on the foreign affairs select committee.
members from across the house will have heard the evidence from a number of officials and the prime minister's former chief of staff as part of that ongoing work in this parliament. I would also like to thank the honorable member for North Dorset to chair the public administration committee and the members of the intelligence and security committee for their support in providing additional layers of transparency and accountability as the government complies with the humble address. Mr Speaker, moving today's mo to today's motion from the leader of the opposition.
I won't in recent weeks uh uh Mr Speaker, Mr Speaker, I will happily Mr Speaker, I will happily give way in due course, but I want to turn to the substance of the motion first. In recent weeks, Mr Speaker, some have accused the prime minister of dishonesty, saying there was no way that foreign office would have given Peter Mandlesson's clearance against the vetting agency's recommendation, let alone without checking for with the prime minister himself. The leader of the opposition herself on BBC Radio 4 said he knew, and I quote, that I know he is lying.
But the testimony provided by Sir Ollie Robbins has disproved those accusations without question. So rather than focus on the issues affecting our constituents and the countries most, what do the opposition benches do? They try to shift the goalposts and have tried again and again to make their arguments fit.
Today alone, Mr Speaker, we have heard members of opposite bounce from one accusation to another in a desperate search for something that will stick. Keep getting it wrong. And we have been subjected, Mr speaker to the ranting incoherence of the leader of the opposition where she's in search of something that she could use to justify today's politically motivated spectacle.
I think we've heard enough, Mr Speaker, of the ranting incoherence of the leadership of the opposition. So, let's take the specific allegations in turn first, Mr Speaker, as to whether the prime minister was correct when he said full due process was followed. Yesterday, the government deposited a letter from the then cabinet secretary, Sir Chris Wormald, into the library of the house.
In that letter, it is clear he was specifically asked by the prime minister to review whether due process was followed in the appointment. He confirmed it was. Last week, the former permanent under secretary at the foreign office, Sir Ollie Robbins, stated to the foreign affairs committee that his department followed that process.
We have also heard the Cabinet Office permanent secretary's evidence which covered this issue in great detail. Katherine Little stated unequivocally that due process was followed in relation to Peter Manderson's vetting. I give way.
Thank [cheering] him for giving way. would not full due process have required the vetting to be completed before announcing the appointment as advised by the then cabinet secretary and ignored or overruled by the prime minister personally. The right honorable gentleman should listen to my speech.
Mr Speaker, I have just said that Katherine Little, Sir Chris Wormald, and Sir and Sir Ollie Robbins all agree on the point that due process was followed. When the prime minister received new information about the UK SV process this month, he immediately asked for the full facts to be established and he then came to this house on the 20th of April. And Mr Speaker, on the statement that Peter Mandlesson's appointment was subject to developed vetting, the prime minister has always been clear that this appointment was in line with the processes at the time.
I understand there have been some questions about this process, but to be clear, as Sir Ollie Robbins told the Foreign Affairs Select Committee in November, and I'm quoting, as is normally the case with external appointments to my department, the appointment was made subject to obtaining security clearance. As Sir Chris Wormold told the same committee, and again I quote, "The normal thing is for the security clearance to happen after appointment, but before the person signs a contract and takes up post. " And as the former cabinet secretary said in his letter to the prime minister, having conducted a review into the process, and I quote again, the vetting process was complete before the previous HMA Washington took up post on 10th of February, 2025, and it is more usual for security vetting to happen after appointment.
I'll give way. Thank can I thank the minister for giving way. Clearly, he believes that he has a defensible position.
So, will the minister support the withdrawal of the whip against the backbenches? I'm not going to answer silly questions, Mr Speaker. Next, Mr Speaker, on the question of pressure, on the question of pressure, because many members on these benches, many members have asked questions today about a general pressure or a specific pressure or a variety of different pressures.
So, they may want to listen to the answer. It is important to be clear about this because there is pressure. There is pressure to get stuff done every day across every area of government as we work hard to deliver for the British people.
The leader of the opposition and other members who had previously served in government will no doubt recall this from their time in office. But there is clearly a difference between asking for progress updates and putting pressure on officials to predetermine an outcome or not to follow a proper process. That was not the case in this scenario.
Is it due process to make a public announcement of an appointment before vetting is completed? And is it not the case that having made a public announcement, the government created pressure on the process? Mr Speaker, I'm trying my best, but I've just answered both of those questions already uh from the dispatch box.
I refer the honorable lady to her comments. I'll finish this se I'll finish I'll finish this section. I'll finish this section and then I'll come to the honorable lady the right honorable lady.
And as sir Philip Barton told the committee this morning and I quote during my tenure I was not aware of any pressure on the substance of the Mandlesson DV case. I give way back. Mr Speaker, I asked the chief secretary to the prime minister really just one question in my speech.
Will he repeat on the floor of the house the exact words that the prime minister used at PMQ's in front of all of us that no pressure whatsoever was put on the foreign office? It's an important question, Mr Speaker. It is an important question because it's going to the very heart of the motion before the House today.
I'm going to just, you know, rest your rest of uh it is important. It is important to place the prime minister's words in the right context. [cheering] When the prime minister, Mr Speaker, they don't want to listen to the answer again.
They don't like the facts, but I'm going to try my best. They should pay attention. When the prime minister said there was no pressure whatsoever to answer the honorable lady's right honorable lady's question directly, he was specifically responding to the allegation that there was pressure that Peter Mandlesson should not be vetted at all and that he should be sent to Washington regardless of the vetting outcome.
Again, Sir Ole Robbins told MPs it was, and I quote, never put to him in that way. and the prime minister made that comment immediately after quoting the evidence provided by the foreign affairs committee. Regrettably, Mr Speaker, regrettably, and we're seeing it again today after time after time, the opposition is just trying to expand their interpretation of the prime minister's words in bad faith because their previous claim because their previous claim that the prime minister must have known about Peter Mandlesson's clearance has fallen apart in front of their eyes and now they are grasping at straws.
And this matters, Mr Speaker, because as the honorable member for Hearn Bay and Sandwich argued, the processes in this house, the work of the privileges committee is important. It is integral to our constitution. But there must be appropriate thresholds for these investigations.
Not every week off the back of PMQs on an interpretation of the wording of the prime minister, but instead on very significant cases that warrant the work of this committee. And that's why it is important, Mr Speaker, as many members in the House have done today, to contrast the allegations and the accusations of the opposition party today to the seriousness of when Boris Johnson was referred to the privileges committee in the last parliament. This is important.
This is important precedent, Mr speaker because in those circumstances, Boris Johnson knowingly told this house that there were no parties in Downing Street during COVID lockdowns, only for it to emerge that he'd personally been at five of them and received a police fine for attending them. That is the nature of lying to this house, which he was proven to have done in the work of the privileges committee. This is not about interpretation of a question and answer at Prime Minister's questions.
This all this begs the question. Therefore, Mr Speaker, if there is no substance to the allegations in the motion today, what is it? What is it that is driving the behavior of opposition parties on the opposite bench?
This question goes to the very basis of the motion uh before us. So I have to ask, Mr Speaker, I have to ask I have to ask what is it precisely about this Labor government giving rights and powers to workers to renters to the disadvantaged that they do not like? What is it, Mr Speaker, about this Labor government standing against unearned wealth and people who use their privilege to extract value from the system rather than adding to it that they do not like?
What is it, Mr speaker about a Labor government raising taxes on private jets and non-doms to raise money for our state schools, our NHS, our police to lift children out of poverty after years of neglect from the Conservative Party opposite that they do not want to hear. We all know why, Mr Speaker, because they are on the side of the vested interests and we're on the side of the people. But Mr Speaker, Mr Speaker, to Mr Speaker, to be fair to the House, to be fair to the House, this is not just an accusation.
I'm leveling at the Conservative Party, Mr Speaker, because they are not the only ones playing games with this motion today. The SNP2, they're desperate to distract from their record in power. 10,000 kids in Scotland without a home to call their own, a Scottish NHS in decline, and the shameful fairies fiasco.
What is it that they're trying to distract from today? I thank him for belatedly I thank him for belatedly giving way. I don't know if he's noticed but this afternoon polling was released which outlines that 61% of people on these aisles believe that there should be an inquiry in the terms laid out in the vote tonight.
Just 20% of the public agree with his position. Why is he once again on the wrong side of public opinion? I I noticed, Mr speaker.
He has nothing to say to those kids, those patients waiting in the NHS. Why are the people waiting for his government to perform? And the so-called Green Party, Mr Speaker, just for me to complete going around the house, a party desperate to distract from Labour's mission for clean energy, from their opposition to clean nuclear power, to quibbling over new solar farms, which, and I literally couldn't make this up, Mr Speaker, they think are too big.
Get real. We are in an energy bills crisis and a climate emergency. And this Labour Party is going to pull out the stops to serve the British people.
Mr Speaker, Mr Speaker, whilst the parties opposite pl order, please if he's going to give way in has given way once already. You can't stand while the member speaking. You can indicate, but you can't continue to hang loose like you're trying to summon a taxi.
Come on. I'm I'm grateful, Mr I mean, Mr Speaker, Mr Mr Speaker, I I I for one I for one am rather enjoying myself, but I think the public might want to listen uh to the debate in the House today because Mr Speaker, whilst the parties opposite, which you can hear from their chering and their joking and their shouting are playing games, this Labor government is doing the work that matters. I've been asked, Mr Speaker, where is the prime minister?
The prime minister has been chairing this afternoon the Middle East response committee, bringing together the government to mitigate the war, the impact of the war on the Middle East. In contrast, Mr Speaker, the parties opposite want to distract from the fact after years of ordinary people facing pressures from the cost of living are feeling like hard work isn't rewarded like it used to be. That they, the Conservative Party and their friends in reform wanted the UK to go to war in the Middle East, making it harder for families up and down the country.
Distraction, distraction, distraction. In contrast, Mr Speaker, this government is investing in new rail, roads, and nuclear reactors, new scanners for our hospitals, free breakfast clubs for our kids. It is this Labor government that has saved British steel, investing in sovereign AI, renewing our high streets, and delivering homegrade energy.
This is relevant, Mr Speaker, because it goes to the behavior, the motivation behind the motion today. This Labor government is doing the hard work of building a better Britain, a Britain that gives people hope for a better future. all these opposition parties, they want to tear that down.
They want to tear down this Labor government and the Labor movement, but and they agree, Mr Speaker, they agree because like our forefathers before us, we've stood up to the power of bested interests, and we will do so again. And so I say to the opposition parties today, I say to them all when they come here to try to tear down this labor movement and our project for the British people, not today, Mr Speaker, not on our watch. We will not let it happen.
