Liz Saville Roberts

Yesterday the Prime Minister apologised to the victims of Jeffrey Epstein, but where was that sense of responsibility when he made the decision to appoint Peter Mandelson? Where was that sense of responsibility when he actively chose to ignore information that was already in the public domain? This morning, the Energy Secretary said, “Prime Ministers make errors. Prime Ministers are fallible. Prime Ministers are human”, but I am struggling to understand how the gravity of the misjudgment in this political appointment can be explained away by simple human error. This was not a split-second judgment or a decision made of urgent necessity under pressure in the heat of the moment; instead, it was a deliberate, considered political appointment made in full knowledge of the political priorities involved. Morgan McSweeney even swore it through. What is more, Government Members were given lines to take yesterday, prompting them to quote a victim of Epstein in defence of the Prime Minister. The suffering of Epstein’s victims was of no consequence to the Government when Mandelson was appointed; they weighed it in the scales and found which side they wanted to come down on. In truth, it is thanks to the bravery of victims such as Virginia Giuffre that Epstein’s crimes are even in the public domain. Her sister-in-law, Amanda Roberts, said this of Mandelson’s sacking last year: “Our governments have allowed these people to hold their status and their title without shame…It’s unfair we continuously pull these skeletons out, that survivors have to continuously point the finger for us to do the right thing.” These were women and children who were trafficked and abused by a network of men who acted with the confidence that they were untouchable—too powerful to be challenged and too protected ever to be brought down. It truly raises the uncomfortable question of whether Peter Mandelson’s familiarity with that world was treated as a skillset rather than a red flag. Was he chosen precisely because he was comfortable rubbing shoulders with the sort of men who shared private jets with Epstein, rather than in spite of it? How can the Prime Minister now express sympathy for the victims of crimes committed by a man whose closest associate he chose to elevate? How can he claim to share their pain when he made the very decision that caused them such distress? Just this morning, Sir Olly Robbins told the Foreign Affairs Committee that Downing Street asked the Foreign Office to find a senior diplomatic role for the Prime Minister’s then communications chief, Matt Doyle, even though Doyle had campaigned for a friend charged with possessing indecent images of children. This is the Government who promised to turn the page on Tory sleaze and restore trust and integrity to British politics; instead, the Prime Minister pressured the civil service not once but twice to appoint friends of known sex offenders to senior diplomatic roles. In closing, the facts were known, the associations were known and the public record was clear. This was a public decision. It was a wrong decision of such magnitude that the only conclusion will be to end the Starmer Administration, and that will happen when the Labour party decides to do so, because it is the Labour party’s responsibility.