wellnessfitpro
Gordon Brown calls for inquiry into ‘shocking’ leaking by Mandelson of government information when he was PM
Gordon Brown, who was prime minister when Peter Mandelson passed at least one confidential memo addressed to him to Jeffrey Epstein (see 12.41pm), has described the leak as “shocking” and written to the cabinet secretary demanding an inquiry.
In a statement, Brown says:
I have today asked the cabinet secretary to investigate the disclosure of confidential and market sensitive information from the then business department during the global financial crisis.
On September 10 last year, I wrote to the cabinet secretary to ask him to investigate the veracity of information contained in the Epstein papers about the sale of assets arising from the banking collapse and communications about them between Lord Mandelson and Mr Epstein.
That enquiry led to a response on November 19 that no departmental record could be found of any information or communication from Lord Mandelson to Mr Epstein on these issues.Given the shocking new information that has come to light in the latest tranche of Epstein papers, including information about the transfer to Mr Epstein of at least one highly sensitive government document as well as other highly confidential information, I have now written to ask for a wider and more intensive inquiry to take place into the wholly unacceptable disclosure of government papers and information during the period when the country was battling the global financial crisis.
Given the public interest in this, I have asked that the results of the inquiry be published and done so as soon as possible.
Brown and Mandelson was close friends and allies in the late 1980s and early 1990s, when New Labour was taking shape. They fell out bitterly when Mandelson backed Tony Blair, not Brown, for Labour leader in 1994. In 2008 Brown stunned Westminster when he persuaded Mandelson to quit his job as a European commissioner and return to cabinet. The two men had a good working relationship until the 2010 election, but then fell out again over who was to blame for Labour’s defeat.
The revelation that Brown asked for an investigation in September last year into potential leaking by Mandelson is new. Brown says he was told that “no departmental record could be found of any information or communication from Lord Mandelson to Mr Epstein on these issues”. But that is not surprising, and it suggests the investigation was not very thorough. When cabinet ministers leak information, they tend not to use their work email accounts.
Key events
In response to a question from Kieran Mullan (Con), who asked Starmer to name a single benefit Hongkongers would get from his trip, Starmer again called the Tory stance on China “pathetic” and “unserious”. He said the opposition kept asking him to raise issues with the Chinese. But the one thing they could not accept was Starmer actually going to China to discuss these matters with its leaders.
Starmer does not deny raising concerns about ‘kill switches’ in Chinese solar panels during talks in Beijing
Greg Smith (Con) asked Starmer if he raised the question of “kill switches” being installed in Chinese solar panels – ie secret components that would allow them to be deactivated remotely by the Chinese.
Starmer said he raised all the sensitive issues, “in direct terms and in the room”.
Starmer suggests Russian involvement in Reform UK goes beyond Nathan Gill case
Alex Barros-Curtis (Lab) asked Starmer to condemn Nathan Gill, the Reform UK leader in Wales, for taking bribes on behalf of Russia.
Starmer said Barros-Curtis was right to raise this case. And he said that Nigel Farage was not interested in finding out if that was the extent of Russian influence in Reform UK, “which it won’t be”.
Starmer says Tory attacks on his decision to engage with Chinese ‘pathetic’
Alicia Kearns (Con) criticised Starmer of not mentioning in his statement the fact that one of the people he met on his trip was the official accused of overseeing the alleged Chinese spying operation in parliament.
In response, Starmer said the Tory criticisms were “pathetic”. He said he raised these issues with the China. He says the Conservatives seemed to think they could raise these issues by doing nothing about them.
Back in the Commons, in response to a question from Julian Lewis (Con), Starmer said the Conservatives’ position seems to be that “if one has concerns in relation to China … the pragmatic thing to do is to buy a pack of sand and put your head in it”.
Plaid Cymru joins Lib Dems and SNP in calling for police investigation into leaking by Mandelson
Plaid Cymru has joined the Lib Dems and the SNP in calling for a police investigation into Peter Mandelson. Liz Saville Roberts, the Plaid leader at Westminster, said:
The latest revelations relating to Peter Mandelson are profoundly serious and cannot be brushed aside as a political embarrassment or left to internal party discipline.
Losing the Labour whip alone does not deliver accountability for a scandal of this gravity.
The evidence now in the public domain raises serious questions about the handling of sensitive information while Mandelson held senior public office, and intensify questions about the nature of his relationship with a convicted paedophile.
Where there is a credible basis to suspect potential misconduct in public office, the response must be independent, transparent and rigorous.
In the interests of public confidence and the integrity of public office, I am joining calls for a formal police investigation. No individual who has held high office should be beyond proper scrutiny, and the public deserves clear answers.
Stephen Flynn, the SNP leader at Westminster, asks Starmer to apologise to Jeffrey Epstein’s victims for appointing Peter Mandelson ambassador to Washington. And he asks if Starmer backs a police inquiry into Mandelson.
Starmer says only the SNP could ignore the tariffs on Scotch whisky being halved, and instead ask about something not relevant to the trip.
Andrew Mitchell, the Conservative former international development secretary, says he thinks Starmer was right to go to China.
That is not Badenoch’s view.
He asks if Starmer just deliverd a written note about Jimmy Lai.
Starmer says of course he did not. He raised the issue properly.
Luke Taylor (Lib Dem) asks what Starmer was told about Jimmy Lai. And he asks about the Chinese said about the transational repression aimed at Chinese people living in the UK.
Starmer says both these issues were raised. He does not say what the Chinese said. But he said the government passed on information to Lai’s family.
Edward Leigh (Con), the father of the house, told Starmer that he should have told President Xi that China would not be getting its embassy in London unless it stopped spying on Britain, gave guarantees about the Chagos Islands and released Jimmy Lai.
Stamer said the Tories seemed to be implying he could help Jimmy Lai by not going to China, where he was actually able to raise Lai’s case.
Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, also accused Starmer of dealing with the Chinese from a position of weakness.
And he asked if Starmer would back legislation to strip Peter Mandelson of his peerage.
In response, Starmer said that, because he want to China, he was able to engage on issues like Jimmy Lai. He said there was no point politicians just “shouting” about issues, in the way he implied Davey was proposing.
He did not address the question about Mandelson.
In his response to Badenoch, Starmer said that, if the Tory leader were serious about security issues, she would have attended the briefing she was offered about the Chinese super-embassy. But she didn’t. Instead, she sent Chris Philp, the shadow home secretary. Starmer said that was a “double dereliction of duty”.
Starmer says Badenoch attended a protest outside the embassy site. He said, as opposition leader, he stopped his party being a protest party. Badenoch is taking her party in the opposite direction, he said.
Badenoch accuses Starmer of being ‘supine and short-termist’ in approach to China
Kemi Badenoch is responding to Starmer now. And she starts by saying it is “utterly reprehensible” that Starmer started his statement by accusing the last government of “isolationism”.
She claims the last Tory government led the world in its response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. And she cites trade deals signed by the last goverment of it being outward looking.
On China, she says of course Britain should engage. She goes on:
It is not the prime minister engaging with China that we take issue with. What we are criticising is his supine and short-termist approach.
I am sure the prime minister means well, but his negotiating tactic has always been to give everything away in the hope that people will be nice to him in return.
Badenoch says Starmer seemed to enjoy being in China. That is not surprising “for a man who was virtually a communist most of his life”, she says.
She says the Scotch whisky industry needs cheaper energy and lower taxes, not tariffs.
She says many countries already have visa-free travel with China.
And she says the lifting of sanctions on parliamentarians will have no practical impact.
She goes on:
What did his chief trip achieve for Jimmy Lai? Nothing. Did China promise to stop fuelling Putin’s war machine in Ukraine? Doesn’t sound like it. What did this trip achieve for the Uyghurs who are being enslaved? Absolutely nothing. Have China agreed to stop their relentless cyber attacks? Have they? We all know the answer to that.
The reality is that China showed its strength and Britain was pushed around. It is no wonder President XI praised the Labour party because the conservatives stood up for Britain. We don’t get pushed around.
Starmer says he urged China to end economic support for Russia’s war in Ukraine during his trip
Starmer criticised his three immediate Tory predecessors for not meeting Xi Jinping, the Chinese president.
It was right to engage with China, he said. Engagement “makes us stronger”.
But that did not mean that he was dropping security concerns about China, he said. “The fact is we can do two things at once.”
Starmer said in his talks he raised the case of Jimmy Lai, the democracy campaign imprisoned in Hong Kong. He said that he raised human rights concerns in Xinjiang and Tibet. He discussed Taiwan.
And he called on China to end economic support for Russia’s war effort, including companies providing dual use technologies.
Starmer makes statement to MPs about his trip to China and Japan
In the Commons Keir Starmer is making a statement about his trip to China and Japan.
There is extensive Guardian coverage of the China trip here.
And here is an article by Rowena Mason about the deals that were firmed up or agreed during the trip.
Peter Mandelson gave Jeffrey Epstein advance notice about the timing of the announcement of the €500bn bailout to save the Euro, Steven Swinford from the Times reports.
The latest episode of the Guardian’s Politics Weekly podcast is out. It features Pippa Crerar and Kiran Stacey discussing Peter Mandelson.
SNP writes to Met police calling for criminal investigation into evidence Mandelson leaked market sensitive information
The SNP is also calling for a police investigation into Peter Mandelson.
In a letter to Sir Mark Rowley, the Metropolitan police commissioner, Stephen Flynn, the SNP’s leader at Westminster, says:
I write to inform you of potential criminal misconduct regarding Lord Peter Mandelson – specifically the offence of misconduct in public office which, if proven, carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment …
In recent days, following the release by the US Department of Justice of files relating to Jeffrey Epstein, serious allegations are now emerging as to sensitive, state information that may have been passing between Mandelson and Epstein. These published emails, many of which occurred in the midst and aftermath of the financial crash, appear to suggest that market sensitive information was being shared with Jeffrey Epstein – a billionaire, convicted paedophile. The files also suggest that Mandelson and his family may also have been in receipt of significant amounts of money from Epstein.
If such allegations are investigated and proven, it is gravely serious – for Peter Mandelson, for the Labour prime ministers who appointed him and for the UK government as a whole. That is why I believe it is now clearly in the public interest that all of these newly released emails and files, and Mandelson’s entire period in UK Labour governments, must now be criminally investigated.
The grounds for such a criminal investigation are already well established in law.
In attorney general’s Reference No 3 of 2003 [2004] EWCA Crim 868 the court said that the misconduct must amount to:
“… an affront to the standing of the public office held. The threshold is a high one requiring conduct so far below acceptable standards as to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust in the office holder.”
These widespread allegations and the suspicion of criminal activity need to be urgently addressed; I therefore believe it is now essential that a formal, criminal investigation is now initiated by the Metropolitan police.
#Brown #calls #inquiry #shocking #leak #government #information #Mandelson #Epstein #politics #live #Politics
