FULL FIERY PMQs: PM Starmer Faces Clashes with Badenoch & MPs On Mandelson Appointment Scandal — AC1E

[0:00] They may not be made as part of an exchange on a statement. [0:04] The House rule on this is in place to ensure that members focus on the substantive matters [0:10] under discussion and, if the debate is needed on matters of individual conduct, that must [0:16] be drawn in the proper terms with notice. [0:19] I encourage all members to engage in respectful debate, and our constituents would expect. [0:25] I therefore know the statement of Prime Minister Keir Starmer. [0:33] With permission, I would like to provide the House with information that I now have about [0:38] the appointment of Peter Mandelson as our ambassador to the United States. [0:44] Before I go into the details, I want to be very clear with this House that while this [0:49] statement will focus on the process surrounding Peter Mandelson's vetting and appointment, [0:57] at the heart of this, there is also a judgment I made that was wrong. [1:02] I should not have appointed Peter Mandelson. [1:05] I take responsibility for that decision, and I apologise again to the victims of the paedophile [1:11] Jeffrey Epstein, who were clearly failed by my decision. [1:17] Mr Speaker, last Tuesday evening, the 14th of April, I found out for the first time that [1:25] on the 29th of January 2025, before Peter Mandelson took up his position as ambassador, the Foreign [1:33] Office officials granted him developed vetting clearance against the specific recommendation [1:41] of the United Kingdom security vetting that developed vetting clearance should be denied. [1:49] Not only that, the Foreign Office officials who made that decision did not pass this information [1:58] to me, to the Foreign Secretary, to her predecessor, the Deputy Prime Minister, to any other Minister, [2:08] or even to the former Cabinet Secretary, Sir Chris Wormald. [2:14] I found this staggering. [2:17] And therefore, last Tuesday, I immediately instructed officials in Downing Street and the Cabinet Office [2:24] to urgently establish the facts on my authority. [2:28] I wanted to know who made the decision, on what basis, who knew, and Mr Speaker, I wanted [2:38] that information for the precise and explicit purpose of updating this House. [2:44] Because this is information I should have had a long time ago. [2:50] And it is information that this House should have had a long time ago. [2:55] It is information that I and the House have the right to know. [3:00] I will now set out a full timeline of the events in the Peter Mandelson process, including from [3:06] the fact-finding exercise I instructed last Tuesday. [3:10] Before doing so, I want to remind and reassure the House that the Government will comply fully [3:16] with the humble address motion of the 4th of February. [3:21] Mr Speaker, in December 2024, I was in the process of appointing a new ambassador for Washington. [3:28] A due diligence exercise was conducted by the Cabinet Office into Peter Mandelson's suitability, [3:36] including questions put to him by my staff in Number 10. [3:40] Peter Mandelson answered those questions on the 10th of December, and I received final advice [3:46] on the due diligence process on the 11th. [3:50] I made the decision to appoint him on the 18th of December. [3:54] The appoint was announced on the 20th, and the security vetting process began on the 23rd [4:00] of December 2024. [4:04] Mr Speaker, I want to make clear to the House that for a direct ministerial appointment, [4:11] it was usual for security vetting to happen after the appointment, but before starting in [4:17] post. [4:19] That was the process in place at the time. [4:22] Mr Speaker, this was confirmed by the former Cabinet Secretary, Sir Chris Wormald, at the [4:28] Foreign Affairs Select Committee on the 3rd of November 2025, when he gave evidence. [4:34] Sir Chris made clear, and I'm quoting him now, when we are making appointments from outside [4:40] the civil service, the normal thing is for security clearance to happen after appointment, [4:47] but before the person signs a contract and takes up post. [4:52] At the same hearing of the same Select Committee, the former Permanent Secretary to the Foreign [4:56] Office, Sir Ollie Robbins said, and I quote again, Peter Mandelson did not hold national [5:02] security vetting when he was appointed, but, he went on, as is normally the case with external [5:08] appointments to my department and the wider civil service, the appointment was made subject [5:14] to obtaining security clearance. [5:15] Mr Speaker, after I sacked Peter Mandelson, I changed that process so that now an appointment [5:23] cannot be announced until after security vetting is passed. [5:28] Mr Speaker, the security vetting was carried out by UK Security Vetting, UK SV, between 23rd [5:38] of December 2024 and the 28th of January 2025. UK SV conducted vetting in the normal way, collecting [5:48] relevant information as well as interviewing the applicant, in this case, on two occasions. [5:56] Then on the 28th of January 2025, UK SV recommended to the Foreign Office that developed vetting [6:04] clearance should be denied to Peter Mandelson. The following day, on 29th of January 2025, notwithstanding [6:15] the UK SV recommendation that developed vetting clearance should be denied, Foreign Office officials [6:22] made the decision to grant developed vetting clearance for Peter Mandelson. To be clear, for [6:30] many departments, a decision from UK SV is binding. But for the Foreign Office, the final decision [6:39] on developed vetting clearance is made by Foreign Office officials, not UK SV. However, once the [6:48] decision in this case came to light, the Foreign Office's power to make the final decision on [6:53] developed vetting clearance was immediately suspended by my Chief Secretary last week. Mr Speaker, I accept [7:02] that the sensitive personal information provided by an individual being vetted must be protected [7:09] from disclosure. If that were not the case, the integrity of the whole process would be [7:16] compromised. What I do not accept is that the appointing minister cannot be told of the recommendation [7:25] by UK SV. Indeed, given the seriousness of these issues and the significance of the appointment, [7:34] I simply do not accept that Foreign Office officials could not have informed me of UK SV's recommendations [7:41] whilst also maintaining the necessary confidentiality that vetting requires. There is no law that [7:49] stops civil servants sensibly flagging UK SV recommendations while protecting detailed sensitive vetting information [7:57] to allow ministers to make judgments on appointments or explaining matters to Parliament. So let me be [8:04] very clear. The recommendation in the Peter Mandelson case could and should have been shared [8:11] with me before he took up his post. Mr Speaker, let me make a second point. If I had known before he took up [8:22] his post that UK SV recommendation was that developed vetting clearance should be denied, I would not have gone ahead [8:30] with the appointment. Mr Speaker, Mr Speaker, Mr Speaker, let me now move to September 2025 because events then [8:42] and subsequently show with even starker clarity the opportunities missed by Foreign Office officials [8:51] to make the position clear. Mr Speaker, on September the 10th, Bloomberg reported fresh details of Mandelson's [9:01] history with Epstein. It was then clear to me that Peter Mandelson's answers to my staff in the due [9:08] diligence excise were not truthful and I sacked him. I also changed the direct ministerial appointments [9:15] process so full due diligence is now required as standard where risks are identified and interview must [9:22] be taken pre-appointment to discuss any risks and conflicts of interest. A summary of this should be [9:28] provided to the appointing minister. I also made clear that public announcements should not now be [9:33] made until security vetting has been completed. Mr Speaker, in light of the revelations in September of [9:42] last year, I also agreed with the then Cabinet Secretary, Sir Chris Wormald, that he would carry out a review [9:52] of the appointment process in the Peter Mandelson case, including the vetting. He set out his findings [10:00] and conclusions in a letter to me on the 16th of September. He advised me in that letter, and again [10:09] I quote, the evidence I have reviewed leads me to conclude that appropriate processes were followed in [10:18] both the appointment and the withdrawal of the former HMA Washington. When he was asked about this, [10:26] Mr Speaker, last week, the then Cabinet Secretary was clear that when he carried out his review, [10:35] the Foreign Office did not tell him about the UK SV recommendation that developed vetting [10:43] clearance should be denied to Peter Mandelson. I find that astonishing. As I said, I do not accept [10:51] that I could not have been told about the recommendation before Peter Mandelson took up his post. [10:57] I absolutely do not accept that the then Cabinet Secretary, an official, not a politician, [11:05] when carrying out his review, could not have been told that UK SV recommended that Peter Mandelson should [11:12] be denied develop vetting clearance. It was a vital part of the process that I had asked him to review. [11:20] Clearly, he could have been told, and he should have been told. Mr Speaker, on the same day as the then Cabinet Secretary wrote to me, [11:31] for the day that it is on September 16, 2025. The Foreign Secretary, and the then Permanent Secretary of the Foreign Office, [11:40] Sir Ollie Robbins, provided a signed statement to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. The statement says, [11:49] and again I quote, The vetting process was undertaken by UK Security vetting on behalf of FCDO and concluded with DV clearance [11:58] been granted by the FCDO in advance of Lord Mandelson taking up post in February. [12:06] It went on to say, and again I quote, Peter Mandelson's security vetting was conducted [12:11] to the usual standard set for developed vetting in line with established Cabinet Office policy. [12:20] Mr Speaker, let me be very clear to the House. [12:24] This was in response to questions which included whether concerns were raised, what the Foreign [12:31] Office's response was and whether they were dismissed. [12:36] Mr Speaker, that the Foreign Secretary was advised on and allowed to sign this statement [12:43] by Foreign Office officials without being told that UK SV had recommended Peter Mandelson [12:50] be denied developed vetting clearance is absolutely unforgivable. [12:55] This is a senior Cabinet member giving evidence to Parliament on the very issue in question. [13:03] Mr Speaker, in light of further revelations about Peter Mandelson in February of this year, [13:11] I was very concerned about the fact that developed vetting clearance had been granted to him. [13:17] Not knowing that in fact UK SV had recommended denial of developed vetting clearance, [13:26] I instructed my officials to carry out a review of the national security vetting process. [13:33] As I set out, I do not accept that I could not have been told about UK SV's denial of security vetting [13:40] before Peter Mandelson took up his post in January 25. [13:44] I do not accept that the then Cabinet Secretary could not have been told in September 2025 when [13:49] he carried out his review into the process. [13:52] I do not accept that the Foreign Secretary could not have been told when making statements to the [13:56] Select Committee again in 2025. But Mr Speaker, on top of that, the fact that I was not told even [14:04] when I ordered a review of the UK SV process is frankly staggering. And I can tell the House [14:13] that I have now updated the terms of reference for the review into security vetting to make sure it [14:19] covers the means by which all decisions are made in relation to national security vetting. [14:25] I have appointed Sir Adrian Fulford to lead the review. Separately, I have asked the Government [14:32] Security Group in the Cabinet Office to look at any security concerns raised during Peter Mandelson's tenure. [14:39] Mr Speaker, I know many members across the House will find these facts to be incredible. [14:44] Mr Speaker, to that I can only say they are right. It beggars belief that throughout the whole timeline [15:02] of events, officials in the Foreign Office saw fit to withhold this information from the most senior [15:09] ministers in our system in government. That is not how the vast majority of people in this country [15:15] expect politics, government or accountability to work. And I do not think it's how most public servants [15:22] think it should work either. I work with hundreds of civil servants, thousands even, all of whom act [15:30] with the utmost integrity, dedication and pride to serve this country, including officials from the [15:37] Foreign Office who, as we speak, are doing a phenomenal job representing our national interest in a dangerous [15:44] world in Ukraine, in the Middle East and all around the world. This is not about them. But yet it is [15:52] surely beyond doubt that the recommendation from UK SV that Peter Mandelson should be denied [15:59] development and clearance was information that could and should have been shared with me on repeated [16:05] occasions and therefore should have been available to this House and ultimately to the British people. [16:12] And I commend this statement to the House. [16:18] Thank you, Mr Speaker. And I thank the Prime Minister for advanced sight of his statement. [16:28] His reputation is at stake. Everyone is watching. It is finally time for the truth. Earlier today, [16:37] Mr Speaker, Downing Street admitted that the Prime Minister inadvertently misled the House. The [16:43] Prime Minister has chosen not to repeat that from the dispatch box. I will remind him that under the ministerial code, [16:51] he has a duty to correct the record at the earliest opportunity. The Prime Minister says he only found out on [16:58] Tuesday that Peter Mandelson failed the security vetting. The earliest opportunity to correct the record was [17:04] Prime Minister's questions on Wednesday, almost a week ago. This is a breach of the ministerial code. [17:12] Under that code, he is bound to be as open as possible with Parliament and the public in answering [17:18] questions today. So let me start with what we do know. We know the Prime Minister personally appointed [17:26] Peter Mandelson to be our ambassador to the United States. We know that Mandelson had a close relationship [17:32] with a convicted paedophile. We know that he had concerning links with Russia and China, [17:38] links that had already raised red flags. We know that the Prime Minister announced the appointment [17:45] before vetting was complete, an extraordinary and unprecedented step for the role of US ambassador. [17:54] The Prime Minister says that it was usual for this because it was a political appointment. So I will [18:00] remind him and the rest of the Labour front bench who were heckling that Peter Mandelson was a politician [18:06] who had been sacked twice from government for lying. That meant he should have gone through the full [18:12] security process. And we also know finally, Mr Speaker, that when Peter Mandelson failed the security vetting, [18:20] he was allowed to continue in the role with access to top-secret intelligence and security information. [18:27] This goes beyond propriety and ethics. This is a matter of national security. [18:33] So let me turn to what we do not know. We still do not know exactly why Peter Mandelson failed that vetting. [18:41] We do not know what risks our country was exposed to. And we do not know how it is possible that the [18:48] Prime Minister said repeatedly that this was a failure of vetting, went on television and said things that [18:55] were blatantly incorrect and not a single adviser or a single official told him that what he was saying [19:02] wasn't true. At every turn, with every explanation, the government's story has become murkier and more [19:10] contradictory. It is time for the truth. There are too many questions to ask in the allotted time, Mr Speaker. [19:18] So I am now going to ask the Prime Minister just six questions. And I have taken the unprecedented step [19:26] of providing these questions to the Prime Minister in advance. So he has them in front of him. [19:33] And I have asked for these questions. I have asked for these questions to be put online for the public. [19:43] They and I expect him to answer. The Prime Minister appointed a national [19:49] security risk to our most sensitive diplomatic post. Let's look at how this happened. [19:53] The right honourable gentleman told me at PMQs in September 2025 that full due process was followed [20:01] in this appointment. We now know that in November 2024, Lord Case, the then Cabinet Secretary, told him [20:10] this process required security vetting to be done before the appointment. He did not mention any of what [20:17] Lord Case said in his statement earlier. So first question, does the Prime Minister accept that when he said on [20:23] the floor of the House that full due process was followed, this was not true? Secondly, on the 11th of [20:31] September last year, journalists asked his director of communications if it was true that Mandleton had [20:38] failed security vetting. These allegations were on the front page of a national newspaper. And yet, [20:46] Number 10 did not deny the story. Why? Three, will the Prime Minister repeat from the dispatch box [20:55] his words last week that no one in Number 10 was aware before Tuesday that Mandleton had failed [21:02] his vetting. The Prime Minister says he's furious that he wasn't told the recommendations of the vetting. [21:09] Yet, on the 16th of September, a foreign office minister told Parliament, and I quote, [21:14] the national security vetting process is rightly independent of ministers who are not informed of [21:19] any findings other than the final outcome. This was the government's stated process. So why is the Prime [21:25] Minister so furious that it was followed? On the 4th of February 2026, the Prime Minister, fifth question, [21:34] Mr Speaker, on the 4th of February 2026, the Prime Minister told me from the dispatch box that the [21:40] security vetting he had received had revealed Mandelson's relationship with Epstein. How could he say that [21:48] if he had not seen the security vetting? And finally, Mr Speaker, Systema is a Russian defence company [21:57] closely linked to the Kremlin and Vladimir Putin's war machine. Was the Prime Minister aware before the [22:06] appointment that Peter Mandelson had remained a director of that company long after Russia's invasion [22:13] of Crimea? Mr Speaker, everyone makes mistakes. It is how you face up to those mistakes that shows the [22:21] character of a leader. Instead of taking responsibility for the decisions he made, the Prime Minister has [22:27] thrown his staff and his officials under the bus. This is a man who once said, I will carry the can for [22:35] the mistakes of any organisation I lead. Instead, he has sacked his Cabinet Secretary. He has sacked his [22:42] Director of Communications. He has sacked his Chief of Staff. And he has now sacked the Permanent Secretary [22:48] of the Foreign Office. All of these people fired for a decision he made. The right honourable gentleman's [22:56] defence is that he, a former Director of Public Prosecutions, is so lacking in curiosity that he chose [23:03] to ask no questions about the vetting process. He asked no questions about Mandelson's relationship with [23:10] Epstein. He asked no questions about the security risk Mandelson posed. Apparently, he didn't even [23:15] speak to Peter Mandelson before his appointment. It doesn't appear that he asked any questions at all. [23:23] Why? Because he didn't want to know. He had taken the risk. He had chosen his man. Whitehall had to [23:31] follow. It is the duty of the Prime Minister to ensure he is telling the truth. Or does the ministerial code [23:38] not apply to him? I am only holding the Prime Minister to the same standard to which he held others. [23:45] On 26 January 2022, the right honourable gentleman said to a previous Prime Minister at this dispatch [23:53] box, if he misled the House, he must resign. Does he stand by those words? Or is there one rule for him [24:00] and another for everyone else? Mr Speaker, let me respond to those points. Firstly, when I found out [24:13] what had happened on Tuesday evening last, I wanted to have answers to the question, who made the decision [24:20] to recommend, to give clearance on developed vetting contrary to the advice, why that was done [24:27] and who knew about it, so that I could provide the information to the House. That is the exercise [24:34] that has been conducted since Tuesday evening and today, so that I could come here today to give the [24:39] full account of the House, which I have just set out. Mr Speaker, she asked me about developed vetting [24:46] security clearance after the appointment. I set out that. That wasn't me saying that. I read out the [24:51] evidence of the former permanent secretary about that and the former cabinet secretary in relation to [24:58] that, and I think the quotes that I have given to the House are clear enough in relation to that. [25:03] She also asks why Peter Mandelson failed. Mr Speaker, it is important to make a distinction between the [25:11] information provided to the review and the recommendation. The information in the review must be [25:17] protected and has been protected because otherwise the integrity of the entire system would fall away, [25:23] but the recommendation doesn't need to be protected and should not have been protected. [25:28] Mr Speaker, in relation to her questions, in relation to the answer about full due process, [25:36] that was the information that I had that I put before the House and it was confirmed to be by Sir Chris [25:42] Wormald. In September, I asked him to conduct a review of the process to assure me that the process [25:49] was correctly carried out. He did that and wrote to me on the 16th of September, giving me his conclusions. [25:56] In relation to reports in the media, number 10 was repeatedly asked about the facts surrounding [26:05] Peter Mandelson's clearance and was assured that the proper process was followed in that case. [26:11] Mr Speaker, in relation to those in number 10, let me give the answer. Nobody in number 10 was informed [26:21] about UK SV's recommendation. Mr Speaker, just to be clear and for the record, [26:27] the Cabinet Office Permanent Secretary did receive information recently and then sought the necessary [26:33] and legal advice. Once those checks were completed by the Cabinet Office Permanent Secretary, I was told [26:40] that in the last two weeks or so that was entirely the right procedure to get the legal advice and then to bring [26:46] it to my attention at the first opportunity. It was the right procedure that was followed by my officials in the last few weeks. [26:54] Mr Speaker, in relation to why I was furious about the process, for the very reason, Mr Speaker, I strongly believe I should have been given this information at the very outset. [27:06] Mr Speaker, I strongly believe there were repeated times when I should have been told. I should have been told on appointment. [27:16] I should have been told when Peter Mandelson was sacked. The Cabinet Secretary should have been told when he reviewed the process. [27:23] The Foreign Secretary should have been told before she was asked to sign a statement to the Setlet Committee. [27:28] And I should have been told when I ordered a review of vetting, Mr Speaker. In relation to the point she makes about what I said in February in answer to a question of hers, I make it very clear, Mr Speaker, I had not seen the security vetting file. [27:49] I did not know that UK SV... The question asked me about vetting, I knew about the due diligence and that is why I put before the House what I knew about the due diligence in relation to Epstein. [28:01] The question asked me about vetting and I knew what the due diligence has said and therefore I told the House what the due diligence has said. [28:08] I did not tell them what security vetting had said because I had not seen the file in relation to that. [28:15] Mr Speaker, in relation to the particular details in relation to Peter Mandelson, I acted on all of the information I had available to me. [28:23] The simple fact of the matter is I should have had more information. I did not have that information. [28:28] The House should have had that information and I have now set it out in full to the House. [28:33] The Chair for the Inveral Select Committee, Emily Thornberry. [28:36] Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. The truth is that my committee did ask. We asked on the record and we got a partial truth that can hardly be the whole truth. [28:48] But we are on record as asking the very questions that hecklers on the other side say should have been asked. [28:53] The answers are there on the record to see just what we got when we did ask. [28:58] Mr Speaker, may I just turn to my question. A month before Mandelson's appointment was announced, the then Cabinet Secretary advised that necessary security clearance should be acquired before confirming a political appointment. [29:11] That does not seem to have been the usual practice. I am glad that it has changed because it was clearly abused. [29:16] What happened was that somebody, probably Peter Mandelson himself, leaked to the press his appointment as US ambassador, effectively bouncing the Government into confirming it. [29:27] But then when the confirmation did come forward about his appointment, it did not make clear that it was subject to vetting in either the offer letter to Peter Mandelson or in the Government's press release. [29:42] I am afraid to say, does not this look like, for certain members of the Prime Minister's team, getting Peter Mandelson the job was a priority that overrode everything else and that security considerations were very much second order? [29:56] The Prime Minister. [29:58] Can I thank her for a question? [30:02] Her committee did ask relevant questions and that is why I have indicated that it was unforgivable that the Foreign Secretary was asked to sign a statement in response to those very questions without being told about the recommendation. [30:19] The questions were asked. She was advised and asked to sign a statement without being told the relevant information. That is unforgivable. As for the appointment before developed vetting, I have changed that process. [30:35] I asked that it could never happen again. She heard me quote the evidence of the former Cabinet Secretary and the former permanent Secretary in relation to that. [30:46] Mr. Speaker, can I just deal with the third point she makes? That is that somehow the Downing Street's wish to appoint Peter Mandelson overrode security concerns. [31:03] Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear. If I had been told that Peter Mandelson or anybody else had failed security, had not been given clearance on security vetting, I would not have appointed them. [31:19] I have appointed them. A a deliberate decision was a deliberate decision. Was a deliberate decision was taken to withhold that material from me. A deliberate decision was taken to withhold that material. This was not a lack of asking. This wasn't an oversight. It was a decision. [31:38] It was a it was a decision taken not to share that information on repeated occasions. [31:46] It is 2022 all over again. Back then, when he stood on this side of the House and it [32:01] was Boris Johnson who was accused of misleading Parliament and scapegoating senior officials, [32:07] the then Leader of the Opposition couldn't have been clearer. The public need to know, [32:12] he said, that not all politicians are the same, that not all politicians put themselves [32:18] above their country and that honesty, integrity and accountability matter. So, he promised [32:24] change, Mr Speaker. He promised to break the cycle and stop the chaos. He promised a government [32:31] with, and I quote, more focus on long-term strategy, not the short-term distractions that [32:37] can animate Westminster. I'm afraid the fact that he even had to make the statement today [32:44] shows how badly he has failed, how badly he has let down the millions of people across [32:50] our country who are so desperate for change. He blames his officials. He says he had no [32:57] idea. He gives every impression of a Prime Minister in office, but not in power. The facts remain, [33:06] even on his own account. The Prime Minister appointed Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the [33:12] United States, even after he had been warned about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. The Prime [33:19] Minister announced the appointment before Mandelson had been vetted, despite the clearest to national [33:24] security of putting someone unsuitable in that role. One of his top officials, just three weeks into [33:32] the job, clearly believed the Prime Minister wanted Mandelson to be appointed, regardless of what the vetting [33:38] process turned up. The Prime Minister has relied on the vetting process to defend his decisions, [33:44] so why did he ask so few questions personally about the vetting process itself? We all know the truth, [33:52] Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister knew that appointing Mandelson was an enormous risk. He decided it was a [34:01] risk worth taking. Catastrophic error of judgement. And now that it has blown up in his face, the only decent [34:09] thing to do is to take responsibility. Back in 2022, the Prime Minister rightly accused Boris Johnson of expecting [34:18] others to take the blame while he clung on. That was not acceptable then and it is not acceptable now. So I hope the Prime [34:28] Minister can at least tell the House this, and we will be listening very carefully to his answer. Was he [34:36] given advice by Simon Case, the then Cabinet Secretary, that the necessary security clearances should be [34:43] acquired before he confirmed his choice for US ambassador? And did he follow that advice? Yes or no? [34:52] Mr Speaker, after the years of chaos under the Conservatives, we needed a government focused on the interests of the [34:59] people, the cost of living crisis, the health and care crisis, our national security. We needed a government [35:06] honesty, integrity and accountability. So will the Prime Minister finally accept that the only way he can help to deliver [35:14] that is to resign? [35:16] Prime Minister. [35:18] Mr Speaker, I set out in my statement the full facts, and in September, when the Bloomberg emails came to light, I asked the [35:29] Cabinet Secretary to review the process. He told me the process was as it should have been. And as soon as the [35:38] information about security vetting came to light last Tuesday, I asked for the facts to be established that I could [35:42] update Parliament. He asks me about the announcement before developed vetting. He has heard the evidence that I have [35:50] given to the House from the former Cabinet Secretary and from the former [35:54] Permanent Secretary. In relation to the advice from Simon Case, Mr Speaker, when I asked the [35:59] former Cabinet Secretary to review the process after September 25, he specifically [36:05] addressed whether the process had been followed by referencing the Simon Case letter and assured me that the [36:11] process was the right process to have followed. So in answer to his question, that was specifically looked at by [36:21] Sir Chris Wormald in the review that was conducted in September of last year. [36:28] Sorry, Diana, but the... [36:40] has gone on at considerable length about process and procedure. But ordinary people don't really care about [36:51] process and procedure. They want transparency, and they want to know that they can have confidence in the words of [37:01] elected politicians, like all of us in this chamber. On the question of Peter [37:07] Mandelson, it was in the 90s that Peter Mandelson had to resign for the Cabinet for the first time because of his [37:18] dealings with the millionaire Geoffrey Robinson. It was a few years later he had to resign for the Cabinet for the [37:26] second time because of his relationship with the billionaire Hinduja family. Peter Mandelson has a history. [37:42] He's about history. And what this house wants to know is why, knowing Peter Mandelson's history, going back 30 years, and given what has been known, it's one thing to say as he [38:04] insists on saying, nobody told me. Nobody told me anything. Nobody told me. The question is, why didn't the Prime Minister ask? [38:21] Mr Speaker, in relation to her question, let me be clear. I should not have appointed Peter Mandelson. As soon as the further [38:32] revelations came to light, I did ask. I asked the Cabinet Secretary to review the process so I could be assured about the process. [38:40] He wrote to me on the 16th of September, setting out the conclusions of that review and assuring me the process had been followed properly. [38:47] The Prime Minister has spoken about process and the reviews and trying to put that which went wrong, right. That is to be supported. But he's also asking the House and the country to believe that notwithstanding a front-page media [39:12] splash that Peter Mandelson had failed the vetting process. That there was nobody in number 10 or in any government department that even thought to say, is there any truth in this? Could I have a briefing on that? We need to knock this story down. If nobody asked, that is the shameful thing. And if nobody asked, does it not say that? [39:30] Does it not say to the Prime Minister that the operation of his government, which seems to be process, strategy, review, never my fault, is not sustainable and is not welcomed by the country at large? [39:53] In answer to his question, the FCDO was repeatedly asked in light of inquiries. The same answer came back because a clear decision had been taken that this information was not going to be disclosed. And it wasn't disclosed to me, let alone to anybody else. So yes, repeatedly, the FCDO was asked. The same answer came back as the answer that was not disclosed. [40:12] The decision was that I wasn't to know and nobody else was to know. That was wrong. [40:30] John McNaughton. [40:32] John McNaughton. Can I say that on this side of the House at least, to my hon. Friend, many will appreciate his apology today. But many of us will remain bewildered still why that appointment took place despite the warnings that many of us gave him. [40:55] And isn't the reality this, that when he sought to realise his ambition to become leader of the Labour Party, with very little base within the party, he became dependent on Mac Sweeney and Mandelson and Labour together to organise, fund his election. [41:14] And that when he became Prime Minister, the reward for Max Sweeney was control of number 10 and for Mandelson, the highest diplomatic office. [41:24] And the message, the unspoken message to civil servants was, what Mandelson wants, Mandelson gets. [41:31] This has damaged the party that I've been a member of for 50 years. [41:35] I urge him, I urge him, I urge him to take steps to clear this toxic culture out of our party. [41:45] And take the first step by having an independent inquiry into Labour together. [41:50] Prime Minister. [41:53] Mr Speaker, can I just deal with what's at the heart of that question in relation to an unspoken message to civil servants? [42:00] I don't accept that, Mr Speaker. [42:04] It is simply not good enough on a question of national security, where the recommendation is that clearance be denied, for anyone, particularly senior civil servants, to do anything other than provide me with the relevant information. [42:20] And that is what should have happened in this case. [42:22] Sir Jeremy Wright. [42:24] Very much. [42:25] Mr Speaker. [42:26] The Prime Minister has been very clear about his view of the urgency of his response since he learned of this vetting information. [42:36] So I want to ask him about the events of last week. [42:40] He will know that the Intelligence and Security Committee asked for any information relevant to vetting to be supplied to it in the first tranche of information we were to consider. [42:51] We didn't receive anything about vetting at that time. [42:53] The Prime Minister has told us now that on Tuesday evening he became aware of the information he has set out. [43:02] But the Intelligence and Security Committee was not told about the existence of that information. [43:08] Information the Prime Minister must have recognised was within the terms of the Humble Address and would need to be supplied to the ISC. [43:16] We were not told by his officials about the existence of that information until Thursday after its existence had been published in the Guardian newspaper. [43:28] So I am bound to ask the Prime Minister this. [43:30] If that information's existence had not been disclosed by the press, would we have been told about it? [43:38] And if so, why did the ISC have to learn of its existence from the Guardian and not from the Government? [43:45] The Prime Minister. [43:47] Thank you for his question. [43:48] And the answer is yes, it would have been provided to the Committee. [43:55] And I think, as he acknowledged, it has now been provided to the Committee. [44:02] The reason for the delay is that on Tuesday night I found out simply that the recommendation had been made to deny clearance and yet clearance had been given. [44:14] I wanted to understand who gave that clearance, on what basis and who knew about it, so I could update the House and obviously make the information available to the Committee. [44:24] And that's what I asked on Tuesday night my officials urgently to do so that the full picture could have been put before both the House and the Committee. [44:33] And I'll make sure that the full picture is put before the Committee. [44:36] Hello, Sir Stratford. [44:39] Many of my constituents are rightly appalled that someone who betrayed not just our country but every single victim of Jeffrey Epstein was able to serve in such a prestigious position. [44:50] Whatever the judgement in the security vetting file, that decision to appoint him was wrong. [44:54] And I welcome the Prime Minister's owning and apology for that moment. [44:59] But many of my constituents are also rightly concerned to learn that not a single democratically elected official in Government was informed about that decision. [45:08] Given this, what undertaking is the Prime Minister instigating right across Government to ensure that in the future it's our democratic decision-makers who put in the full picture for these crucial judgments? [45:18] The Prime Minister. [45:19] Can I thank him? [45:23] Mr Speaker, that is precisely why I have asked for the entire developed vetting process to be reviewed by Sir Adrian Falford. [45:33] And I have made it absolutely clear to this House and to the Civil Service that my strong view is that the information that was not provided to me could have been provided and should have been provided. [45:44] The Prime Minister. [45:45] The Prime Minister wants us to focus on process and not his judgment, but this entire episode is the direct result of his decision to make a direct appointment to one of the most senior roles in the FCDO of somebody who was wholly inappropriate for the role. [46:06] So can the Prime Minister at least confirm to the House that this was a singular error of judgment and that his number 10 operation has not proposed political appointee for any other senior role in the FCDO? [46:22] The Prime Minister. [46:23] The Prime Minister. [46:24] The Prime Minister. [46:25] In relation to the decision, yes, it was my decision. [46:27] It was an error of judgment and that is why I have apologised to the victims of Epstein. [46:31] I have done it again today and right to do so. [46:34] In relation to the second point of his question, were there any other political appointments, I will have to just check on that and get back to him. [46:41] The Prime Minister. [46:42] The Prime Minister. [46:43] The Prime Minister. [46:44] The Prime Minister. [46:45] The Prime Minister. [46:46] The Prime Minister. [46:47] I have worked closely with the Prime Minister and know how seriously he takes national security and accountability to this House. [46:48] The House and the public understand the importance of independent security vetting and why sensitive [46:56] personal information must be protected, but they are also shocked that decisions of such [47:01] significance could be taken without the knowledge of the Prime Minister. [47:05] I have worked closely with the Prime Minister and know how seriously he takes national security [47:09] and accountability to this House. [47:12] When the Prime Minister set out, what steps he will take to remove any ambiguity so where [47:18] there are serious concerns, those risks are flagged to Ministers, ensuring that accountability [47:22] to this House and to the country is always upheld. [47:26] I thank her for her question. [47:29] That is why last week the Chief Secretary suspended the power of the FCDO to make a recommendation [47:38] or to take a decision contrary to the recommendation of UK SV. [47:42] Mr David Deff. [47:43] Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister has twice rebuffed both the Leader of the Opposition, then the [47:49] Leader of the Liberal Democrats, when they said that the then Cabinet Secretary's advice [47:53] to the Prime Minister was to get the clearance before the announcement. [47:57] So I am going to read in one sentence from a document entitled Options for HMA Washington [48:03] from the Cabinet Secretary of the day to him, him personally. [48:07] It says, if this is the route you wish to take, you should give us the name of the person [48:12] you would like to appoint. [48:13] And we will develop a plan for them to acquire the necessary security clearances and do due [48:18] diligence on any potential conflicts of interest or other issues of which you should be aware [48:24] before confirming your choice. [48:27] The House doesn't want to hear about what Mr Wilmold said a year later. [48:33] That was the advice then. [48:35] Why didn't he follow it? [48:38] Mr Speaker, he reads out the passage from Mr Casey's advice. [48:44] The process that was followed was what I understood to be the usual process. [48:47] In other words, the appointment was subject to the security vetting. [48:52] It is why, when Sir Chris Wilmold looked at it in September, he addressed the question by [48:58] reference back to Simon Case's letter, because I wanted to know the process that had been [49:03] followed was the right process. [49:05] And that is what Sir Chris Wilmold looked at. [49:09] He looked at it expressly by reference to the Simon Case letter that has just been read [49:13] out and assured me that the right process was followed when he reviewed it. [49:17] Thank you, Mr Speaker. [49:21] Anybody who knows the Prime Minister will know full well that he would never, ever deliberately [49:31] mislead this House. [49:36] But the reality is this, Mr Speaker, ex post facto vetting is utterly pointless when the appointment [49:49] is political. [49:50] And the trouble, Mr Speaker, that we all face is that trust in the Prime Minister and [50:01] in politics is diminishing as this sorry saga continues. [50:08] So in the 17 days we have, leading to those very important elections, never mind question, those [50:17] very important elections, what does the Prime Minister propose to do to win back the trust [50:24] of the country? [50:25] Prime Minister. [50:26] Prime Minister. [50:27] Prime Minister. [50:28] Prime Minister. [50:29] Mr Speaker, in relation to his point about vetting in relation to political appointments, I don't [50:35] agree, but I do agree that the due diligence for direct ministerial appointments should be the same as for any other appointments. [50:43] It clearly wasn't, and that's why in September I ordered that it be changed in order to make sure it is the same process, whether [50:51] it's a direct ministerial appointment or any other appointment. In relation to the country, it is important that we remain [51:00] focused on the cost of living and on dealing with the war on two fronts that we face in this country, and I intend to do that. [51:07] Prime Minister. [51:08] Prime Minister. [51:09] The harshest and most important truth in this entire process is that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom [51:16] chose to proactively ignore the victims of Jeffrey Epstein when he made the political choice to put Peter [51:25] Mandelson in as the UK's most senior diplomat in the United States of America, despite knowing that he had maintained [51:33] a friendship with Jeffrey Epstein himself. We have since seen Peter Mandelson be investigated for potential misconduct in [51:42] public office, and we, of course, now learn through the media that Peter Mandelson had failed his security vetting. [51:49] The Prime Minister blames all of this, all of it, on the judgment of others, but I'm interested in his judgment. [51:58] Does he believe himself to be gullible, incompetent, or both? [52:03] Prime Minister. [52:04] Prime Minister. [52:05] Prime Minister. [52:06] I thank him for his question. I have laid out the relevant facts. It is absolutely clear that [52:14] nobody is suggesting that this information was made available to me. It clearly wasn't made [52:19] available. It should have been made available, and I would not have made the appointment had [52:23] it been made available. That is why I set out the facts in some considerable detail to the [52:27] House, with relevant quotes from all the relevant players in this. [52:31] The Prime Minister is being candid about some of the challenges in this process. I am sure [52:41] he will share the frustration across this House that revelations keep coming, and this matter [52:47] keeps coming back to Parliament. Now, he says that he has acted to prevent any further challenges [52:53] in the vetting system for the Government for senior appointments. Can he therefore give all [52:59] of our constituents and this House the reassurance that he has no further sense there will be any [53:06] challenges to any other senior appointments through the vetting process that this Government [53:12] has made? [53:13] Mr Speaker, that is precisely why I have asked for a review to be carried out of the security [53:21] vetting. I have no reason to believe that to be the case, but I want to be assured about [53:27] the security vetting process, and that is why I have asked Sir Adrian Fulford to look at [53:31] it so that he can give me that further reassurance. I will then, of course, pass that on to the House. [53:35] The Prime Minister of Justice said that after he sacked Peter Mandelson, he changed the process [53:44] so that now an appointment cannot be announced until after security vetting is passed. Why [53:50] did he do that if he did not think there was a problem with the security vetting? [53:54] Mr Speaker, in September, it became clear to me that in relation to the due diligence that [54:03] had been carried out by the Cabinet Office, Peter Mandelson had been asked questions by my staff [54:09] and given answers which were not truthful. That was exposed by the Bloomberg emails. At that point, [54:15] I became concerned about the entire process. I asked for the review of the process by Sir Chris [54:20] Wormald, which he carried out, but I also made it immediately clear that I would change the due [54:25] process so that whether it is direct ministerial appointments or any other appointments, the same [54:30] process was gone through. I also wanted to make it clear that I did not think that it was right [54:35] that appointments should be announced before security vetting was gone through in any circumstances, [54:41] and therefore I changed it straight away. [54:43] Rachel Blake. [54:44] Thank you, Mr Speaker. My constituents are deeply concerned about the appointment of [54:52] Peter Mandelson, and they want to see complete transparency going forward. I am really concerned [54:59] to read that the civil servants in the Cabinet Office may have had this information about a [55:05] month ago, and it has taken them this long to be able to be in a position where they can share [55:10] the information with the democratically elected person making this appointment. What can the [55:16] Prime Minister share with us today so that we do not have to face this type of issue going forward? [55:22] The Prime Minister. [55:24] Can I address that head-on? What happened was that the information came to the attention of senior civil servants, [55:33] who were in fact doing the compliance work on the Humble Address. When they saw the information about [55:41] developed vetting, they took legal advice straight away to ask whether it was legal to disclose that to me. [55:50] They got that advice, and as soon as the advice was given, they disclosed it to me straight away last Tuesday. [55:55] That was the right and appropriate thing for them to do. There is no criticism of what they did. [55:59] Rachel Gilmour. [56:05] We know that last September MI6's finding that Mandelson's compromising business interests was accurate. [56:12] I mentioned it myself on September 15th in 2025. He failed his security vetting. [56:22] We also know the former Cabinet Secretary advised the Prime Minister to carry out security clearance [56:27] for Mandelson before his appointment. It was reported in the Times yesterday that Mandelson was given [56:35] strap, very, very highest security vetting, well beyond DV, despite being failed for DV. [56:43] It is likely that the Americans will have serious questions about what secrets of theirs a compromised British ambassador might have accessed. [56:53] Despite all this, we also know that the PM and No. 10 were utterly determined to appoint Mandelson as ambassador to DC, come hell or high water. [57:05] My question is why? [57:07] The Prime Minister. [57:08] The Prime Minister. [57:09] I have ordered a review of any national security issues arising in relation to what I found out last Tuesday. [57:16] I will obviously update the House when that review is complete. [57:19] Dr Rupert Hutt. [57:21] Dr Rupert Hutt. [57:22] Dr Rupert Hutt. [57:23] Dr Rupert Hutt. [57:24] Dr Rupert Hutt. [57:25] Dr Rupert Hutt. [57:26] Dr Rupert Hutt. [57:27] I also thank the Prime Minister for his heartfelt statement and, if we are judging parties on actions, not words, for reviving the post of anti-corruptions art. [57:32] It was vacant for three of his predecessors, years and years, starting with Boris Johnson's lockdown breaches. [57:39] So can I ask the Prime Minister, now that we have the heavyweight Margaret Hodge in post, what plans does he have for this broader policy area? [57:48] Dr Rupert Hutt. [57:49] Well, I am sure that Margaret Hodge will do a very good job in that role, as she has done in so many other roles previously. [57:57] Sir Julian Lewis. [57:58] Who first suggested to the Prime Minister that Mandelson should be appointed as our ambassador to the United States, or was it just his own idea? [58:10] Did it never cross his mind that Mandelson was at risk of failing the vetting process? [58:17] And before sacking Oliver Robbins last week, did the Prime Minister ask him why he overruled the verdict of the security vetters? [58:27] And if so, what was his explanation? [58:31] I did ask him, and I did not accept his explanation. That is why I sat down. [58:39] Thank you, Mr Speaker. At the beginning of February, in February 2026, we learnt that Peter Mandelson had shared highly sensitive government information with Geoffrey Epstein from the former Prime Minister Gordon Brown. [58:57] At that juncture, if I was in his shoes, I would have been forensic in recognising a security risk and wanting detailed answers. [59:08] What is not adding up for me is why we are now in mid-April before we get this information, and why the Prime Minister did not drill down to ensure that we had the security information, which clearly we learnt that Peter Mandelson had breached. [59:25] Mr Speaker, it was at that point that I did order the review of the security vetting because I was concerned that it had failed. [59:36] In fact, because of information I wasn't given, it hadn't failed. It had actually given the recommendation that clearance should be denied. [59:45] The fact that when I ordered a review of UK SV, senior officials in the Foreign Office didn't at that stage, if at no other stage, bring to my attention the information they hadn't told me is astonishing, [1:00:00] because I was ordering a review of the process which looked as though it had failed when in fact it had flagged the relevant concerns. [1:00:12] Sir Oliver Dalton. [1:00:14] Thank you, Mr Speaker. Further to the point from my honourable friend, the member for New Forest West, I think the Prime Minister does owe it to the House to tell us what Sir Oli Robbins' response to him was when he said he had overruled that advice. [1:00:28] Because in my experience, senior officials are actually very keen to deliver on the wishes of ministers, particularly a newly elected Prime Minister. [1:00:38] And my concern here is that implicitly, as other members have made the point, Sir Oli Robbins was responding to a desire from the Prime Minister, [1:00:49] because it was perfectly clear in all of the newspapers the allegations were out there about Peter Mandelson, but the Prime Minister decided to proceed anyway. [1:00:57] The official wished to deliver on the desire of the Minister. That's why he overruled the advice and, I fear, also gave the Prime Minister a degree of plausible deniability. [1:01:10] Let me answer that in relation to Sir Oli. Let me start by saying he's had a distinguished career, and I must say that, and I do say that. [1:01:20] Still, notwithstanding that, he should have provided this information to me and he could have provided it to me. [1:01:26] He's giving evidence tomorrow, but I can say to the House that when I spoke to him on Thursday, his view to me was that he couldn't provide this information to me because he wasn't allowed to provide the information to me. [1:01:42] Well, I don't want to put words in his mouth because it's very important that he gives his own evidence. In relation to the question that's being asked of me, when I said why wasn't this shared with me, I've been asked what questions I put to him and I've been asked the answer and I'm trying to give that answer. [1:02:01] I'm trying to give it without putting words into Oli's mouth because I don't think that's fair of me to do so. But what he said to me was essentially that he took the view that this process did not allow him to disclose to me the recommendation of UK SV. [1:02:18] No doubt he'll be asked further questions about that. That is the reason that he gave to me. [1:02:24] There are 61 conflicts raging around the world. I've never known international diplomatic relationships be more fractured. FCDO is pushing through 40% cuts of aid and 25% cuts of staff, all under the watch of the permanent Under Secretary. [1:02:48] So can I ask the Prime Minister what risk assessment was carried out before he was removed? [1:02:54] Mr Speaker, I was dealing with a very serious issue. I asked my team to establish urgently the facts on Tuesday night. I spoke to the former Permanent Secretary on Thursday night. As a result of the information I had and the exchanges I had, I made it clear that I no longer had confidence in him. [1:03:18] Lee Anderson. Thank you, Mr Speaker. The problem the Prime Minister's got is no one believes him. The public don't believe him. The MPs on this side of the House don't believe him. His own gullible backbenchers don't believe him. So does the Prime Minister agree with me? He's been lying. [1:03:40] Sorry, we don't use those words and I'm sure the members have withdrawn it. [1:03:45] Mr Speaker, I have the greatest respect for you and your office, but I will not withdraw. That man couldn't lie straight in bed. [1:03:52] The Order. Mr Anderson, you'll have to leave. Phil Brittle. [1:03:59] Speaker, when Sir Ollie Robbins came before the Foreign Affairs Committee on the 3rd of November last year, he was asked by my honourable friend, the member for Liverpool Walton, whether in the context of vetting, Lord Mandelson's appointment was escalated. [1:04:15] Citing a need to maintain the integrity of the vetting system, Sir Ollie replied, and I quote, I certainly cannot comment on that, I'm afraid. [1:04:25] Does the Prime Minister not find it perverse that when specifically asked by members of this Parliament about Mandelson's vetting, Sir Ollie declined to discuss the very topic we are now debating in this House? [1:04:37] The Prime Minister. [1:04:38] I've read that evidence and it remains my strong view that the recommendation of UK SV could and should have been shared with me and could and should have been shared with the Foreign Secretary and thus with the Select Committee, and it should have been. [1:04:55] Andrew Mitchell. [1:04:56] Thank you, Mr Speaker. Further to the question raised by my right honourable friend, the member for Hartsware, is it not pretty poor form that the Prime Minister shovels the blame for this, particularly onto Ollie Robbins, a fine and experienced civil servant who was appointed two days after the Prime Minister's Mandelson announcement? [1:05:24] Surely, Mr Speaker, the buck stops at the top. [1:05:28] Sir Ollie Robbins has had a distinguished career and I've worked with him over a number of years. [1:05:38] Nonetheless, he could and should have shared this crucially relevant information with me before Peter Mandelson took up his post and he should have done at various points after that. [1:05:52] And it was because of that that I lost confidence in him. [1:05:56] That doesn't mean he hasn't got a distinguished career. [1:05:58] He does have a distinguished career. [1:05:59] The Prime Minister for his statement. [1:06:05] I know the Prime Minister is aware that public confidence in politicians needs to drastically improve in order to retain the public's trust. [1:06:14] With this in mind, reform has been accepting donations from millionaires in cryptocurrency, making it difficult to trace who actually funds them. [1:06:23] Does the Prime Minister agree that the reform relying on millionaires dodgy cryptocurrency is a security risk? [1:06:33] Mr Speaker, we have taken a number of measures in relation to cryptocurrency. [1:06:36] The Prime Minister is relevant. [1:06:37] Let's move on. [1:06:38] Stephen Barclay. [1:06:39] Mr Speaker, in the readout of the Prime Minister's meeting on the 15th of April on vetting, it says, and I quote, [1:06:47] there is no evidence that the decision to grant DV despite the UKSV advice had been disclosed to anyone outside FCPO and UKSV until the vetting document itself was shared with the permanent secretary of the cabinet office. [1:07:02] Is he therefore saying that neither the chair of the Joint Committee on Intelligence nor the National Security advisor were aware of this security risk with our most important strategic ally until the vetting document itself was shared with Cat Little? [1:07:21] The Prime Minister. [1:07:23] The Prime Minister. [1:07:24] The Prime Minister. [1:07:25] I'm so sorry. [1:07:26] I understand that to be the case. [1:07:29] Obviously, no, I'm only saying that it wasn't my decision to withhold it. [1:07:36] I understand, if I've understood Sir Oli's position correctly, that his argument is he can't share it or he couldn't share it with anyone. [1:07:45] It certainly wasn't shared with the National Security Advisor. I don't think it was shared with anybody else. As far as I know, until it was seen by my officials, legal advice was taken and shown to me, it wasn't shared with anybody else. [1:08:02] The Prime Minister. [1:08:03] Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and the clarity contained within that and for his apology again. [1:08:12] Despite the protestations of leaders of parties opposite and members opposite and including some on these benches as well, I'm sure everybody in this House agrees that the Government of the day should take advice of our intelligence and vetting services and act on it. [1:08:29] In view of everything we have heard, and this is a fundamental question for me, how can government act on intelligence service and vetting advice if ministers never get to receive that advice? [1:08:40] The Prime Minister. [1:08:41] Well, Mr Speaker, in many instances it's the recommendation of UK SV that is effectively the final decision, so of course it's known. In the Foreign Office there is the additional part of the process in which the final decision is in fact taken by the Foreign Office officials rather than the recommendation of UK SV. That is what has now been suspended, so that in the Foreign Office as well, the recommendation of UK SV, [1:09:08] the recommendation of UK SV is what matters. [1:09:11] David Robinson. [1:09:12] Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister knows that he is the main character in an ongoing national scandal. Given all the blame apportioned in his statement, it is incredible that only one person has lost their position. [1:09:29] But would the Prime Minister also recognise that it is incredible to learn that in Northern Ireland a political appointment was made following the refusal to clear an individual for security access, that they have continued in their post, engaged on issues connected with the legacy of our troubled past, with full security clearance, despite security service concerns, and they continue to this day. [1:10:03] If the Prime Minister is ordering a review by Sir Adrian Fulford, will he ensure it includes within its terms of reference or separately a deep dive into the appointment of Marie Andersen, the Northern Ireland Police Ombudsman, why she was appointed, why the security information was ignored, and how this can be the case? [1:10:29] The Prime Minister. [1:10:30] The Prime Minister. [1:10:31] Can I thank him? I will ensure the review covers all the relevant issues and material, and I will take into account what he is just saying. [1:10:40] The Prime Minister. [1:10:41] The Prime Minister has the right to expect that his senior civil servants will always tell him the truth and the whole truth. He will recall that Mrs Thatcher used to say of Lord Young that she liked David because he always brought her solutions and not problems, while her other ministers brought her problems. [1:11:06] Does he believe that there is a problem within the civil service, that promotion and advancement is on the back of not giving your ministers problems, and that on this occasion the senior official at the FCDO knew that if he did tell the Prime Minister what he ought to have told the Prime Minister, he was bringing him a problem? [1:11:32] The Prime Minister. [1:11:34] The Prime Minister. [1:11:35] Thank you. Can I just be clear? We have thousands of civil servants acting every day with integrity and professionalism, doing the job of their very best ability. As I understand what Sir Olly is saying, he is saying that he believed he could not give me this information, that he was prohibited from doing so. I disagree with him. I think he could and should have given me this information, but I do not think that [1:12:02] that that is any reason to suggest that across the civil service people act for any improper motive. [1:12:09] Sir Bernard Jenkins. [1:12:10] Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I just point out that the developed vetting process has always been highly protected, because otherwise it would not work. People would not give information to the developed vetting process if they thought that any detail of that was likely to be disclosed, or even if the [1:12:33] result, the assessment, low, medium or high risk was likely to be exposed. That is why the previous Labour Government in 2010 wrote into the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act, Section 3, in order to prohibit that disclosure. If he is now saying that developed vetting is now going to be available to ministers on a routine basis, wouldn't it be undermining the very [1:13:02] process upon which we depend on the very process upon which we depend for our national security? [1:13:09] Sir Bernard Jenkins. [1:13:10] I do not agree with his analysis. I certainly agree that the information that is provided into the process by the applicant has to be protected, because, as anybody who has been through the process will know, it is an incredibly detailed and intrusive process. It is very important that individuals give full and truthful accounts of all the questions they are giving to them. That is why that needs to be protected. I do not accept that that means that the recommendation [1:13:39] of the UK SV cannot be shared with ministers including the Prime Minister. I think there is a distinction between the two. I accept the first. I utterly reject the second. [1:13:46] Jane Kirkham. The Foreign Office shared the outcome of the vetting process, but not the conclusions of the vetting reports. Not just the detail, but the conclusions too. If the Prime Minister is going to own a decision, he needs to know what is within it. What changes will he be making to stop this happening again? [1:14:12] The Prime Minister. I thank you for a question. That is why I have asked for a review of the entire process, so it can be looked at from start to finish, including the question of whether there should be any circumstances in which the recommendation of UK SV cannot be followed. [1:14:29] The Prime Minister. [1:14:30] The Prime Minister. [1:14:31] Why did the Prime Minister choose to ignore the advice from the then Cabinet Secretary, Simon Case, to seek security vetting before confirming Peter Mandelson as his pick? [1:14:48] The Prime Minister. [1:14:49] The Prime Minister. [1:14:50] The Prime Minister. [1:14:51] The Prime Minister. [1:14:52] The Prime Minister. [1:14:53] I understood the procedure to be that the appointment was made subject to the security vetting. That is what I was told. The question I raised in September, which is why I asked Sir Chris Walmore to look at the process and, in particular, he looked at the advice – the letter from Simon Case – to answer the question was the process followed. [1:15:16] process followed. He gave me the answer that he thought right, having concluded that process. [1:15:23] The Prime Minister for clarity, could he confirm to who and when the UK security vetting [1:15:36] report outcomes were made available? What guidance is given to senior officials on matters [1:15:43] that must be escalated to their ministers? The process was that UKSV informed FCDO of their [1:15:59] findings and recommendation. Then there is an escalation process. It is part of the process [1:16:06] in the sense that it is the FCDO in these particular cases to make the final decision, which is [1:16:13] what they did in this case. [1:16:15] Ian Duncan-Smith [1:16:16] The Prime Minister knew, as we all knew, about his representation as to who shall actually [1:16:28] be the ambassador. In this particular case, a man who had been sacked twice out of Cabinet, [1:16:33] but more than that, in the public domain at the time were all his links clear with the [1:16:38] Chinese companies and his meetings with Xi. Furthermore, his time in Sistema, where he [1:16:44] stayed there after 2014 in the invasion—not just for that, but his meetings with Putin—and, [1:16:49] of course, his relationship with Dera Prasca, who was negotiating on the tax levels and the [1:16:56] tariffs on aluminium when he was the EU commissioner responsible. With all of that going on, his announcement [1:17:05] of this man into the ambassadorial position, why did he think that, therefore, he did not [1:17:12] know something about him? He knew he was corrupt, he was corrupting, and he was the wrong choice. [1:17:18] Surely that is why he overturned Case's advice to have the review before he made the decision. [1:17:24] Yes, exactly. Prime Minister. No, that's not the case. But the judgment call to appointed [1:17:30] was my judgment call, and that was an error, and I have apologised for it, particularly to [1:17:34] the victims of Epstein. But the developed vetting process was carried out in the way I have indicated [1:17:42] to the House. I should have been told at the time of the recommendation. Had I been told, [1:17:47] I wouldn't have made the appointment. [1:17:57] Today's statement will be a process and procedure, but surely, Prime Minister, the real issue is [1:18:04] why, when Peter Mandelson's reputation was already known, was he ever considered for such [1:18:10] an important role? Prime Minister. Mr Speaker, I have accepted that that was my decision, and [1:18:17] I have apologised for it. [1:18:25] The Prime Minister says it is staggering and unforgivable that he was not told about the [1:18:28] vetting. But what is really staggering and unforgivable is that he appointed Peter Mandelson [1:18:33] before the vetting, that he appointed Peter Mandelson knowing about his friendship with [1:18:39] the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein. What is unforgivable is that the Prime Minister was more concerned [1:18:44] with pandering to Donald Trump than with standing with the victims and survivors? [1:18:49] The Prime Minister has not accepted a simple sorry from his civil servant. He thinks that [1:18:55] is inadequate. The country thinks a simple sorry is inadequate from him. Will he take personal [1:19:00] responsibility for his staggering and unforgivable errors of judgement and resign? [1:19:06] Prime Minister. I have set out to the House the facts of what happened in this particular [1:19:11] case. I am staggered, and I find it unbelievable that I was not given the information I should [1:19:15] have been given. [1:19:16] Richard Bergen. [1:19:19] The Prime Minister made the political decision to appoint Peter Mandelson, but central to that [1:19:27] decision, along with other policy and political position decisions, would have been the Prime [1:19:35] Minister's former Chief of Staff, Morgan McSweeney. So can the Prime Minister confirm to the House [1:19:42] whether Morgan McSweeney passed all his security vetting and confirm whether or not Morgan McSweeney [1:19:50] ever handled documents for which he had anything other than the appropriate level of clearance? [1:19:57] Prime Minister. All the appropriate and necessary developed vetting has taken place in No. [1:20:03] 10, and everyone has passed that. [1:20:06] If, as we have been assured, there was no law that prevented the permanent under-secretary [1:20:18] telling the Prime Minister the outcome of Mandelson's developed vetting, then presumably by the same [1:20:24] token there was no law that prevented the Prime Minister from asking. So can he be very clear with the House on one point? Did he, as Prime Minister, [1:20:38] ever ask the question, did Mandelson fail his vetting? And if he did ask that question, who did he ask that question of and when did he ask it? [1:20:53] Prime Minister. [1:20:54] Peter Mandelson was given developed vetting clearance. That was the clear position. He was given clearance. That's the facts as I've set them out. [1:21:04] Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has always behaved with the utmost integrity and honour when he's been dealing with this House. And he is an eminent lawyer who understands the consequences of deliberately coming here to mislead Parliament. On top of that, he also understands the likelihood of a paper trail unravelling such a deception. So it's inconceivable that he would intentionally mislead this House. But does he agree with me that all of the documents, [1:21:25] relevant to this matter must be made public in accordance with the humble address that was passed on the 4th of February and that no ministers or officials should engage in trying to prevent any of those documents being made public? [1:21:44] Prime Minister. Yes, we will comply with the humble address in full. That is the process that's going on. [1:22:04] Thank you, Mr Speaker. [1:22:05] Prime Minister. The Prime Minister said today, I know many members across this House will find these facts to be incredible. [1:22:14] He's right. We do. Along with his staggering lack of curiosity and his inability to take on board warnings about his good friend, Peter Mandelson. [1:22:28] Because the Prime Minister was given a due diligence document by the Cabinet Office which told him several reasons why Peter Mandelson should not be appointed. [1:22:38] Fired twice from government, business dealings in Russia and China and the fact that he'd maintained a relationship with Epstein after his imprisonment for paedophilia. [1:22:50] The Prime Minister knew this but appointed him anyway. Why, Prime Minister? Why? [1:22:59] Peter Mandelson was asked various questions on the back of the due diligence exercise and he didn't tell the truth in those answers. [1:23:07] But look, the decision to appoint him was an error. It was my error and I've apologised for it. [1:23:12] Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is accepted by many on these benches that the Prime Minister did not know the outcome of the vetting. [1:23:22] But the Cabinet Secretary came on Tuesday and she had clearly spent a month researching whether or not she could provide the advice that she did. [1:23:30] So she clearly thought very carefully about the information that she brought. [1:23:33] When the Prime Minister then launched an investigation, rather than coming straight to the House with the information that she had provided, [1:23:42] was that because the information was insufficient to present to the House? [1:23:46] And if so, when was he planning to come to the House? [1:23:50] It was insufficient because all it told me was that the recommendation of UK SV was to deny clearance. [1:24:04] What it didn't tell me was who then provided the clearance, why did they do it and who knew. [1:24:12] And they were questions that the House obviously would want to raise with me. [1:24:16] And that's why I urgently asked for those facts to be established so I could come to the House today and provide the full account that I have provided to the House. [1:24:26] Colin Miller. [1:24:27] Development vetting should be carried out before someone has, and I quote, [1:24:32] frequent and uncontrolled access to top secret material or any access to top secret or coded otherwise known as strapped material. [1:24:41] The Prime Minister has promised full transparency, so I ask him three questions. [1:24:45] Did Peter Mandelson have access to any top secret or strapped material before his DV clearance on the 29th of January? [1:24:52] Did Peter Mandelson have any restrictions placed on his access to top secret or strapped material during his time in Washington? [1:25:00] And if so, has the Prime Minister assured himself that Mandelson did not leak any of this material just as he had leaked commercially confidential material to Geoffrey Epstein under Gordon Brown? [1:25:11] I did not understand that he had access to strapped material before he took up his post as ambassador. [1:25:17] He did have access after he took up his post, and that is why I have ordered a review of any security concerns that may arise. [1:25:24] We all find it staggering, don't we, that someone can fail their security vetting and still be appointed to such a sensitive and critical role. [1:25:34] And it's even more staggering as we've heard that the Prime Minister wasn't informed of that failure. [1:25:38] Now, I agree with what the Prime Minister said. He didn't need to know the details, but he did need to know that he'd failed the security vetting. [1:25:46] And it's in terms of the detail that I want to ask the Prime Minister this. [1:25:50] If people didn't know what the concerns were on security for Peter Mandelson, how could any minister, how could any official, how could any other state deal with him on sensitive security issues? [1:26:01] I understand the Prime Minister's doing an inquiry into that. [1:26:04] But it's very important that Parliament has oversight of that issue, because I'm very concerned there's been another failure there to manage our security interests. [1:26:11] The Prime Minister, I thank you. In a case such as this, in relation to such a sensitive post, I don't think it's right that somebody should be appointed at all if the UK SV are recommending that clearance is not given. So that would be my position on this. [1:26:29] Sir John Pace. [1:26:30] Thank you, Mr Speaker. When I was privileged to serve as security minister, the Prime Minister was my shadow. [1:26:36] And dealing with matters of the most significant national security, he was straightforward with me, as I was with him. [1:26:44] So I hope you'll answer this straightforward question. [1:26:48] The Humble Address makes clear that the ISC will see any material related to national security or international relations. [1:26:57] In the course of our work, we've clearly liaised with the Cabinet Office. [1:27:02] When did the Cabinet Office know about this failure in vetting? Who knew? And why didn't they bring that material to the ISC when they found it? [1:27:15] For we hadn't received it when he found out that this vetting had failed, and yet others must have known that it had failed. [1:27:25] The Prime Minister. [1:27:27] The Prime Minister. [1:27:33] The situation was that as part of the work that was being done on the Humble Address, this information came to light. [1:27:39] Senior officials immediately took legal advice on whether it could be disclosed. [1:27:44] Having got that legal advice, they immediately disclosed it to me. I think that was the proper process. [1:27:48] I think it has now been disclosed to the committee, albeit, I think, on the Thursday rather than the Tuesday. [1:27:57] But that's the process. And just to defend that process, I do think it was right for the senior officials, having got this information, [1:28:04] to get legal advice on whether they could disclose it and who to. I think that was the right thing to do. [1:28:09] As soon as they got that advice, they brought it to my attention. [1:28:13] Lawrence Turner. [1:28:14] He has faced himself and, by extension, brought shame upon these two houses of which he was formerly a member. [1:28:24] Does the Prime Minister agree that the famous Armstrong memorandum on the conduct of the civil service was correct and holds true today [1:28:33] when it said, it is the duty of a civil servant to make available to the minister all the information and experience at his or her disposal, [1:28:41] which may have a bearing on the policy decisions to which he is committed or preparing to make and to give to the minister honest and impartial advice, [1:28:50] without fear or favour, and whether that advice accords with the minister's view or not? [1:28:56] The Prime Minister. [1:28:57] Yes, I do agree with that, and that's why this information could and should have been shared with me at the first opportunity, [1:29:04] and that was before Peter Mandelson took up his post as ambassador. [1:29:07] The Prime Minister is hiding behind a thicket of legalese and procedure, [1:29:15] but he has a track record of appointing Labour's most favoured sons and daughters to plumb government jobs and into the House of Lords. [1:29:24] In Wales, we know all about Labour's crony culture. [1:29:29] Who could forget UK Labour's favourite First Minister, Vaughan Gething, [1:29:33] propped up by No. 10 in spite of dodgy donations and now tipped for a peerage. [1:29:39] But the timing, how will he explain to his party his role in bringing down Labour's century of dominance in Wales in the forthcoming elections? [1:29:54] The Prime Minister. [1:29:55] Well, Mr Speaker, I'm addressing the question today about the process in relation to Peter Mandelson. [1:29:59] I've said that I've added some detail to the House and answered a number of questions. [1:30:03] Ambassador Begum. [1:30:04] In December 2024, the Prime Minister said in announcing Peter Mandelson as US ambassador that he had unrivalled experience. [1:30:11] This was despite the gravity of what was known about his record and available publicly. [1:30:16] Is it not the case that Peter Mandelson's political appointment, which was personally decided by the Prime Minister and announced in public before the security vetting was completed, [1:30:27] needed to progress and had to happen, however it happened, because of Mandelson's role in the Prime Minister's own leadership campaign [1:30:34] and because it served the interests of one particular faction in the Labour Party. [1:30:40] Prime Minister. [1:30:42] Mr Speaker, I don't accept that that is a reason for withholding from me the information about security clearance. [1:30:50] The result of the Prime Minister's terrible failure of judgement is that for over a year this country's interests were represented in the United States [1:31:02] by someone that our own security services deemed to be a security risk. [1:31:09] Will he assure us that an investigation will take place into all aspects where our national security may have been damaged [1:31:16] and that the results of that will be made available to the Intelligence and Security Committee and, where possible, to Parliament? [1:31:22] Prime Minister. [1:31:24] Yes, I will. [1:31:27] I believe there are two sides to this. [1:31:35] One is about process and the other one is about judgement. [1:31:39] On process, I believe the Prime Minister, where the Prime Minister was not told about the security vetting clearance [1:31:47] and had he have known he would have sacked it. [1:31:50] That we don't have a problem with, but the problem is why wasn't he told that and who is actually running the country [1:31:56] and whether other ministers are kept in the dark by civil servants. [1:32:01] On judgement issue, it was wrong and completely wrong in the first place to put Mandelson forward as an ambassador. [1:32:10] Will the Prime Minister write to me confirming this week that no one is in position who has failed the advanced security vetting process of all political appointments that have been made? [1:32:23] That is included in the review that I have set up, and as soon as I have got the findings, I will share them with the House. [1:32:31] Dave Duggan. [1:32:32] This saga is drawing to a close, and it will come to a conclusion with the Prime Minister's resignation, whether he can accept that or not. [1:32:41] What I can't accept is the ask-me-no-secrets-and-I'll-tell-you-no-lies regime that he expects us to believe prevailed at the very top of government between officials and not just ministers but the Prime Minister. [1:32:54] He talked a lot today about what he didn't know and what he wasn't told. [1:32:58] Well, he knew that Mandelson had a serious human frailty for other people's wealth. [1:33:03] We knew that Mandelson was involved with the Russians. [1:33:06] We knew that Mandelson was sacked twice as a government minister. [1:33:09] Can the Prime Minister explain what was Mandelson's actual qualities that he was pursuing in the role as US ambassador, [1:33:17] and what steps has he taken to contain the serious and measurable breach in national security that his appointment of Peter Mandelson facilitated? [1:33:28] The Prime Minister. [1:33:30] I have made it clear that it was an error to appoint Peter Mandelson. [1:33:33] There is a review going on into any security issues that may arise. [1:33:37] I welcome the Prime Minister saying that he should not have appointed Peter Mandelson. [1:33:43] In November, in the Foreign Affairs Committee, I asked about who seized vetting and was told by Sir Ollie Robbins, [1:33:49] who was the Prime Minister's office and the Prime Minister's office. [1:33:50] Obviously, the vast majority are relatively straightforward. [1:33:53] Ones that require more senior judgment and potentially a discussion about managing and mitigating risks are escalated appropriately. [1:34:01] Questions being asked by the Foreign Secretary or ministers or officials in Number 10 should have been a signal to the civil servants to escalate this matter, [1:34:10] given the controversial nature of this political appointment. [1:34:13] So I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether concerns about links to Epstein, to other countries or anything else were raised by him in conversations about his appointment, [1:34:24] just before the time of his appointment, that would have signalled that civil servants should escalate this. [1:34:30] Prime Minister. [1:34:31] Prime Minister. [1:34:32] Prime Minister. [1:34:33] Prime Minister. [1:34:34] Prime Minister. [1:34:35] Prime Minister. [1:34:36] Prime Minister. [1:34:37] Prime Minister. [1:34:38] Prime Minister. [1:34:39] Prime Minister. [1:34:40] Prime Minister. [1:34:41] Prime Minister. [1:34:42] Prime Minister. [1:34:43] Prime Minister. [1:34:44] Prime Minister. [1:34:45] Prime Minister. [1:34:46] Prime Minister. [1:34:47] Prime Minister. [1:34:48] Prime Minister. [1:34:49] Prime Minister. [1:34:50] Prime Minister. [1:34:51] Prime Minister. [1:34:52] Prime Minister. [1:34:56] Prime Minister. [1:34:57] Prime Minister. [1:34:58] Prime Minister. [1:34:59] Prime Minister. [1:35:00] Prime Minister. [1:35:01] Prime Minister. [1:35:02] things that they say but one is why the things that they don't say and that is [1:35:08] why I'm particularly interested in the letter that my right honourable friend [1:35:12] the member for for Gould and Pockington raised the one from Lord Case because [1:35:19] that seems to have been written to the Prime Minister in November 2024 advising [1:35:23] that a political appointment to an ambassadorial role ought to be preceded [1:35:29] by full security of vetting when it was before it was announced now it was [1:35:33] announced by the Prime Minister in December 2024 did he write on his [1:35:39] decision there that he wanted it to be subject to him passing the full security [1:35:46] vetting what did he write on his box note Mr Speaker I understood it to be subject [1:35:53] to develop vetting but it was because of the process that in September 25 I asked [1:36:01] Chris Walmore to do a review for me of the process and he did that by reference back [1:36:05] to the Simon case letter thank you I'm sure the Prime Minister is aware of the [1:36:11] damage that this saga has done to public trust in politics and in politicians [1:36:16] however I would like him to confirm that his focus and the focus of his [1:36:20] government is on the issues that matter most to my constituents in Banbury in [1:36:25] particular tackling the cost of living well absolutely mr speaker the focus of me [1:36:31] and the government is on the fact that we're facing a war on two fronts with [1:36:34] serious consequences for our country and that we absolutely need to deal with [1:36:38] the cost of living which is the number one issue for all of our constituents up [1:36:42] and down the country Richard Ford how did views from the United States [1:36:48] administration affect the decision in the Foreign Office to persist with [1:36:52] Mandelson as UK ambassador to Washington DC after the vetting advice was [1:36:58] received there Prime Minister I don't believe that they did this was UK [1:37:05] security vetting carried out in the way I've described to the house the [1:37:10] issue is that the recommendation was not shared with me that was a matter here in [1:37:16] the United Kingdom very old lot thank you mr speaker and can I thank the [1:37:21] Prime Minister for his statement could the Prime Minister provide the house with an [1:37:27] update on the proposed legislation to remove peerage from disgraced peers like [1:37:32] Peter Mandelson who has fallen so far below what is expected of those serving in [1:37:38] the House of Lords Prime Minister yes I made a commitment in relation to that [1:37:44] legislation and work is progressing on it Dan Caroline Dianich thank you very much [1:37:49] mr speaker at the risk of stating the obvious the Prime Minister has based his [1:37:56] defense today and over this whole sorry saga around his claim that he wasn't [1:38:01] told he wasn't told that Mandelson failed security vetting in fact he said 11 [1:38:06] times in his statement that he wasn't told I'm just wondering how many times and [1:38:12] on which specific dates did he himself directly ask for that information [1:38:17] the Prime Minister the clearance the clearance was given on the 29th of [1:38:29] January 2025 that information was not provided to me in September I did ask [1:38:36] specifically about the process I did ask about the process Chris Walmart so Chris [1:38:44] Waldman has made it clear to me that in carrying out that review he was not told [1:38:48] about the security clearance recommendation was made I think on both [1:38:54] occasions that information should have been provided both to me and to the then [1:38:58] cabinet secretary I thank the Prime Minister for his statement in answer to my [1:39:06] honorable friend earlier in this statement the Prime Minister said that he [1:39:09] delayed coming to this house so that he could answer amongst other questions why [1:39:13] UK SV was overruled it seems wholly incredible that this decision was made on [1:39:19] a personal whim by a senior civil servant and is it not that it was made [1:39:24] because of a political pressure from number 10 to advance a man who a particular [1:39:28] faction in the Labour Party has looked to for moral and spiritual leadership for [1:39:32] years so can the Prime Minister explicitly now confirm his understanding of why the [1:39:39] decision to overrule UK SV was made Mr Speaker I don't accept that the view of [1:39:50] anyone about Peter Mandelson could provide an explanation for not providing me with [1:39:55] the information that he had the recommendation was not to grant him [1:39:59] security clearance we're talking about a very serious issue on a very sensitive [1:40:05] case I clearly should have been given that information whatever the pressures [1:40:10] that are always there in government every day [1:40:12] Robert Jenner [1:40:16] it's brief that he's furious angry Starmer but why is it that he only ever seems to [1:40:23] get angry when he's trying to save his own skin is he not angry about the 600 men [1:40:28] who crossed the English Channel on small boats on Saturday is he not angry about the [1:40:33] people who are queuing up for fuel at the forecourts and can't afford the [1:40:37] Chancellor's taxes isn't the truth that his government is now so paralyzed you [1:40:43] that it's only agenda is cleaning up the mess left by the paedophile pal I think [1:40:53] any minister of any government that hadn't been provided with this relevant [1:40:57] information would rightly be frustrating and angry Emily Darlington I wanted to [1:41:05] take a moment during the statement to focus on the young women who were [1:41:08] exploited abused raped by Jeffrey Epstein and his friends years of being [1:41:13] trafficked for rape no one to turn to and years of people not believing them the [1:41:20] idea that Mandelson would call Epstein's conviction wrongful is disgusting and I [1:41:27] cannot imagine how it felt for the survivors to hear that the PM was right [1:41:34] to sack him so can I ask the Prime Minister to take the opportunity again to [1:41:38] say to those young women that this house believes them and this government [1:41:42] stands by them and is he confident that no person with financial or personal [1:41:48] links with sex traffickers would receive to add DV in the future can I thank [1:41:57] which is right to focus on the victims in this and that's why I started this [1:42:02] statement by making it clear that this was a judgment error on my part and the [1:42:06] apology I have made is to the victims because I know the impact that this will [1:42:11] have had on them who have already suffered so very much [1:42:15] Katie Lam the opposition asked this question but I don't believe received a [1:42:23] response was the Prime Minister aware that Peter Mandelson was a director of [1:42:26] justice system before he was appointed [1:42:28] Prime Minister Mr Speaker I acted on the information that was provided to me in the [1:42:35] due diligence process the information that was dealt with in the security vetting [1:42:41] process has not been made available to me nor can that detail be made available to [1:42:45] me it's the recommendation that should have been made available to me [1:42:48] Mr Brash one of the things that I find most difficult to understand in this [1:42:54] process is that when this scandal erupted in September of last year and before the [1:43:01] Prime Minister came to this place and elsewhere to make statements about it [1:43:06] statements that he must have known would have involved talking about the vetting [1:43:11] why he simply didn't order officials to share the vetting with him why didn't he and does he [1:43:18] regret not doing it well I I did ask sir Chris Walmore to carry out a review I I [1:43:26] I worked on the basis that all the information would be shared with him it [1:43:32] was only last week that I found out from sir Chris that he himself had not been [1:43:37] provided with information that he should have been provided for when he was [1:43:41] carrying out the review on my behalf [1:43:42] Jeremy Corbyn thank you mr speaker can I take the Prime Minister back to the [1:43:47] question asked by the member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington some while ago [1:43:51] when she asked a quite simple question why the Prime Minister didn't ask any [1:43:56] questions whatsoever about the nature of the security clearing that Mandelson had [1:44:02] achieved or why there was any doubt about him or was he so obsessed with his [1:44:08] determination to appoint this tainted figure to be the ambassador to [1:44:12] Washington he just wanted to ignore the rest and the officials just went along with [1:44:16] it why didn't he ask the simple straight question mr speaker Peter Mandelson was [1:44:23] given security clearance and that was clear to everyone including myself but I [1:44:28] what I didn't read he was given clearance he was cleared and he wouldn't have [1:44:33] started the role if he hadn't been given clearance as soon as it came to my [1:44:36] attention last week that that was against the recommendation of UK SV I did [1:44:41] ask for the information I've now put before the house [1:44:43] well in the war thank you mr speaker we all agree that Peter Mandelson should [1:44:49] never have been appointed and the Prime Minister has said this clearly and [1:44:54] consistently and taking responsibility including by apologizing that is the [1:44:59] right thing to do can the Prime Minister give further assurance that the [1:45:03] government will continue to comply with the humble address in full yes I can get [1:45:09] that assurance we will we got that mr speaker the Prime Minister said various [1:45:17] things over the course last few weeks and months and which have now turned out [1:45:20] not to be true around the vetting process of Peter Mandelson does the [1:45:25] Prime Minister accept he inadvertently let it misled the House of Commons yeah [1:45:28] prime minister no I did not mislead the House of Commons I accept I accept that [1:45:34] information that I should have had and information that the House should have [1:45:39] had should have been before the House but I did not mislead the House and that's [1:45:43] why I've set out the account in full [1:45:44] thank you mr speaker the Bloomberg files which caused the Prime Minister to sack [1:45:52] Peter Mandelson revealed that Mandelson had been leaking confidential [1:45:56] government information to a convicted paedophile during Gordon Brown's [1:46:00] government in his role as ambassador to Washington there will have been [1:46:03] access to highly sensitive and top-secret documents so knowing that this was [1:46:08] his previous behavior is there any investigation by the government or [1:46:12] security services into potential leaks during Mandelson's tenure as ambassador [1:46:17] that's why I've asked for review to be carried out in relation to the material [1:46:22] that could of course any issues in relation to national security [1:46:26] Luke Taylor thank you mr speaker and on the 12th of September it was revealed in the [1:46:32] independent newspaper that Mandelson did not pass vetting by MI6 and therefore by UK SV on [1:46:39] the 16th of September in this chamber my hon. friend the member for Tiviton and [1:46:44] Minehead made the same claim in the presence of the Minister the right hon. [1:46:48] member for Cardiff South and Penarth on hearing this information did the [1:46:53] Minister or the Prime Minister feel the need to ask if the specific claim that was [1:46:57] true and in the response that was given that DV clearance was granted by the [1:47:03] FCDO as a KC how did he not see the clear difference between the question that [1:47:08] was asked and the answer that was given and does he not agree with me that in [1:47:13] his own words his explanation beggars belief [1:47:16] mr. speaker at various points questions were asked and questions were [1:47:24] therefore put to FCDO the answer back was the same because they took the view that [1:47:28] was not information they could share with anyone including myself [1:47:31] Dr Olusonga thank you mr. speaker early today NBC released an interview with [1:47:37] hospice worker Rachel Benavides who was 22 years old when she became one of the [1:47:43] victims of Jeffrey Epstein's abuse for 27 years she has been waiting for the [1:47:48] crimes committed against her to be recognized and as she told NBC and I [1:47:52] quote until we are heard until survivors are heard and believed then I don't [1:47:57] think there's ever going to be justice does the Prime Minister agree that we owe it [1:48:03] to the hundreds of victims like Rachel to put them first in these debates not [1:48:07] political point scoring and that he was absolutely right to sack someone like [1:48:11] Peter Mandelson who refused to believe these victims and if he did did not care [1:48:16] well I do agree with her and can I thank her for making sure that the victims are [1:48:21] central in this as they should be Dr Andrew Merrison [1:48:26] thank you mr. speaker the Prime Minister has been on his feet now for nearly two [1:48:29] hours so can I put it to him that the most charitable explanation that can be put [1:48:35] forward to explain this sorry saga is that it has been a bad probably terminal [1:48:41] case of the three wise monkeys see no evil hear no evil speak no evil [1:48:50] Mr. Speaker set out the procedure in some detail information should have been [1:48:56] provided to me it was not provided to me if it had been provided I would not [1:49:00] have allowed the appointment of Peter Mandelson to proceed in the way that it did [1:49:03] thank you mr. speaker as we have heard it is absolutely staggering that vital [1:49:11] information on UKSB recommendations can be withheld from ministers taking [1:49:16] decisions can the Prime Minister assure the house that in the review he is [1:49:23] commissioning that we examine whether any other instances in which UKSB [1:49:31] recommendations against granting DB status and whether there are any other [1:49:38] instances of that over not just the period of this government but the last 14 [1:49:43] years because they have potential to have very serious security implications [1:49:49] well I do think that is to be subject to the review and that's why but amongst the [1:49:54] reasons I put the review in place [1:49:56] Christine Jarding thank you very much mr. speaker it must be clear to the Prime [1:50:02] Minister that many of us in this house are totally scunnered with this whole mess [1:50:07] but believe me that's nothing compared to what I'm being told in the doors in [1:50:12] Scotland by voters who feel that they expected and will have the right to [1:50:17] expect more from this government after what they were promised we focused on [1:50:22] process today but the Prime Minister wouldn't have had to come here wouldn't have had to [1:50:26] stand at the dispatch box answer all these questions if he had not make the [1:50:30] made the decision which he accepts was wrong to appoint Peter Mandelson that's [1:50:36] the root of this whole thing so having accepted responsibility what does the [1:50:41] Prime Minister think the consequence should be for that and how do we restore [1:50:45] faith can I just help the Prime Minister and help everyone in the room there's a lot [1:50:48] still trying to catch my word there lots now please help each other let's speed up [1:50:52] the questions Prime Minister mr. speaker I've accepted the air of judgment on my [1:50:56] behalf but I was not provided with information had I been provided with it I [1:51:00] wouldn't have made the appointment Kim Johnson thank you mr. speaker this [1:51:04] morning the Scottish minister said that to deal with an unconventional US [1:51:10] administration we needed an unconventional ambassador so Prime [1:51:16] minister does unconventional not mean appointing a man to a senior position [1:51:21] when we know his lies his corruption and misconduct has provided corruption at [1:51:30] the very heart of our democracy now and can the Prime Minister tell us when he [1:51:35] first knew with the evidence and the advice please let's get other people in I [1:51:43] first knew last Tuesday as I've set out to the house John Mayer after the third [1:51:51] time of asking at the time when the Prime Minister appointed Peter Mandelson as [1:51:56] ambassador was he aware that he had been a director of systemo I was aware of [1:52:04] what was in the due diligence and I've dealt with that I was I wasn't aware of [1:52:09] what were the issues that were dealt with in the security vetting nor the [1:52:12] recommendation of UK SV thank you mr. speaker Manson's appointment was a huge [1:52:24] failure of the British state and I welcome the Prime Minister's candor in [1:52:27] accepting his responsibility for his part in it but does the Prime Minister [1:52:32] agree that restoring public trust is a mammoth task and requires leaders on all [1:52:38] sides to be careful with their language and to ensure that they understand the [1:52:43] processes that they're talking about rather than throw about baseless [1:52:47] accusations of quote lying I do agree with that mr. speaker thank you mr. [1:52:58] speaker the Prime Minister has been absolutely clear that he should have [1:53:03] been shown the recommendation of UK security vetting he knew he hadn't seen it [1:53:10] so why didn't he ask for it mr. speaker the first I knew that there'd been a [1:53:17] recommendation to deny clearance was Tuesday evening of last week the [1:53:24] security clearance had been given by the Foreign Office before Peter Mandelson [1:53:29] took up the post as soon as it came to my attention I sort the information I put [1:53:34] before the House today I'm going to take Kevin Bonnet and then I'm going to take [1:53:39] Steve Daly Kevin thank you mr. speaker members of the public watching this [1:53:43] matter would have been baffled by all speculation about who said what and when [1:53:47] so thank I thank the Prime Minister for his calm clear answer today but no [1:53:51] Prime Minister wants or should be in a situation like this where governmental [1:53:55] processes mean that critical information are not brought to the [1:53:58] attention of ministers so I welcome the thought of a review but will the [1:54:01] Prime Minister look at the wider relationship between government [1:54:04] ministers and civil servants so that trust can be restored yes I will look [1:54:11] at that but I I do just want to assert again thousands of civil servants act with [1:54:18] professionalism and integrity every day on this occasion this information [1:54:22] should have been brought to my attention had it been that the appointment would not [1:54:25] have been proceeded with thank you mr. speaker during this session of [1:54:35] Parliament we have seen the head of the OBR carry the can and resign due to an [1:54:42] error by a member of his team what will it take for this Prime Minister to carry [1:54:47] the can my minister I was not provided with information I should have been [1:54:53] provided with had I been provided I wouldn't have made the decision was a [1:54:57] deliberate decision it wasn't negligence was a deliberate decision not to tell me [1:55:01] Natalie thank you mr. speaker I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and I [1:55:08] thank him even more for the apologies on the appointment of Peter Mandelson and [1:55:11] being here today I want to commit the words once again to the record of [1:55:17] Virginia Dufresne I think they are particularly relevant to Peter Mandelson she [1:55:22] said don't be fooled by those in Epstein's circle who say they didn't know what [1:55:27] Epstein was doing anyone who spent a significant amount of time with him saw [1:55:33] him touching girls that you wouldn't want a creepy old man touching your [1:55:38] daughter they can say they did not know he was raping children but they were not [1:55:44] blind now on the house across the house there is consensus that we need to get to [1:55:50] the bottom of this I absolutely accept the Prime Minister did not know about the [1:55:55] security vetting but can the Prime Minister please update the house and when we can [1:55:59] have the next tranche of documents from the humble address so that we can get to [1:56:03] the bottom of who did know what and when Prime Minister can I thank her for her [1:56:07] campaigning on behalf of these victims and many other victims in relation to [1:56:11] abuse sexual abuse in particular and her insistence always that we must put the [1:56:15] victims first we are complying complying with the humble address as quickly as [1:56:21] possible and we will comply with it fully [1:56:22] for blundered in the Foreign Affairs Committee meeting back in November last [1:56:30] year I asked Sir Oliver Robbins whether the Foreign Office had a different view [1:56:34] about who should be recommended for the posting of ambassador so Oliver Robbins said [1:56:39] to me that the Prime Minister took advice and formed a view himself and we then [1:56:45] acted on that view isn't it the case that the Prime Minister was repeatedly [1:56:50] warned before the appointment that Peter Madison carried reputational and [1:56:54] political risk including that due diligence was not exhaustive and that [1:56:59] vetting was not yet complete and yet he chose to proceed regardless announcing the [1:57:04] appointment overriding civil service advice and putting our national security at risk [1:57:08] Mr Speaker I simply don't accept that there's any good reason why I couldn't have been [1:57:14] provided with the information that was withheld from me had it been provided to [1:57:18] me I wouldn't have made I wouldn't have proceeded with the appointment [1:57:21] Anderson Taylor thank you Mr Speaker can I thank the Prime Minister for such a [1:57:26] clear and comprehensive statement I'm sure the whole house is grateful to him for [1:57:30] doing so listening to the party opposite the old adage about throwing stones and [1:57:35] glass houses comes to mind I don't think there are enough glass houses in [1:57:39] Scotland to replace the ones that they are breaking today however Mr Speaker having [1:57:44] set the record straight does the Prime Minister agree with me that it is now the [1:57:48] time to return to the important business of government in preserving the [1:57:52] country's peace and security [1:57:54] Prime Minister yes I do agree that the absolute focus needs to be on the fact [1:57:58] that we're facing a war on two fronts and a cost-of-living crisis which this [1:58:02] government is gripping Sammy Wilson the Prime Minister has told us that the [1:58:10] Cabinet Secretary gave him bad advice Peter Mandelson lied to him and the [1:58:15] Foreign Office didn't tell him anything he's really in danger of being known as [1:58:21] the mushroom Prime Minister kept in the dark and fed I don't know if I'm [1:58:26] allowed to say it Mr Speaker I'm not said but it is a question that he wished to [1:58:33] remain in the dark he knew in September there was a security vetting and yet he [1:58:39] never asked about it until April of this year surely that's an indication that he [1:58:45] was quite happy to be kept in the dark because he'd made his mind up anyway [1:58:48] Prime Minister what I did was ask for the process to be reviewed and Sir Chris [1:58:56] Warmore carried out that review what transpired last week is the information [1:58:59] was withheld from him in the review so I asked for the review I did ask the [1:59:03] questions he gave me his conclusions what neither he knew nor I knew was that [1:59:08] he too was not told the relevant material in the course of that review [1:59:12] Moraz Mr Speaker and I welcome the Prime Minister's statement and I've sat here [1:59:18] and I've listened today to one Conservative member after another preaching at [1:59:23] us about standards of honesty and integrity can the Prime Minister remind us [1:59:29] whether these are the same Conservatives who voted to change the rules on [1:59:33] standards investigations in November 2021 just to get their colleague Owen [1:59:39] Paterson off the hook and can he remind us whether or not the leader of the [1:59:43] opposition chose to abstain in that debate it's not relevant don't worry [1:59:47] Brendan O'Hara [1:59:54] most reasonable people have included that if the Prime Minister knew and he [1:59:58] inadvertently misled Parliament then he should resign if he didn't know then he's [2:00:03] running an incompetent shambolic government and really should resign and if [2:00:07] he was lied to yet again then he's simply too gullible and lacking in basic [2:00:13] curiosity to serve as Prime Minister is the Prime Minister so detached from reality [2:00:19] that he's only person who cannot see that [2:00:21] Mr Speaker the information was withheld from me it was help withheld from the [2:00:27] Cabinet Secretary was conducting a conducting a review on my behalf that [2:00:31] became clear yesterday and I've set out the facts to Parliament [2:00:34] on the 4th of February at column 780 my right hon. Friend the Leader of the [2:00:43] Opposition asked the Prime Minister did the official security vetting that he [2:00:50] received mentioned that Mandelson had an ongoing relationship with Jeffrey Epstein [2:00:56] Prime Minister yes it did what on earth was it that he received that he was [2:01:04] talking about which the the right hon. lady referred to as the official [2:01:09] security vetting and he said yes he had received it [2:01:12] The due diligence report [2:01:15] Thank you Mr Speaker [2:01:20] I have a degree of sympathy for the Prime Minister I truly do because he set [2:01:25] out very succinctly how he followed the processes and procedures but as a [2:01:30] member of the bar we are taught at a very embryonic stage in our profession that if [2:01:34] you take on a client and there's something suspicious then you contact the [2:01:38] ethics line as a member of the bar and King's Council that would have been a [2:01:43] trait that he was all too familiar with so can the Prime Minister answer the [2:01:47] basic question for the British public why didn't he take that basic step [2:01:51] Peter Munster was granted developed vetting clearance by the Foreign Office [2:01:56] before he took up post it was only last Tuesday that I found out that that was [2:02:01] against the recommendation of UK SV Joe Morrissey the Times reported last week [2:02:09] that you repeatedly sought assurances from the FCDO that Peter Mandelson had [2:02:13] passed security vetting is this correct and when did you seek these [2:02:17] assurances the Prime Minister Mr Speaker he got DV clearance before he took up his [2:02:24] post as ambassador that clearance was given by the Foreign Office I found out [2:02:29] that was against the recommendation on Tuesday evening of last week [2:02:33] Helen Maguire [2:02:35] Two brief questions was the decision not to give Mandelson DV the view of the head of [2:02:39] security in FTDO or only that of Ollie Robbins and secondly what information did the [2:02:44] Prime Minister know after sacking Peter Mandelson that made him change the [2:02:47] appointment process so that I quote now an appointment cannot be announced until [2:02:51] after security vetting is passed it seems all to me that this decision was made if [2:02:55] the Prime Minister didn't know that Peter Mandelson had failed the vetting [2:02:58] process so what key information did the Prime Minister know then that made him [2:03:02] review the appointment process well the decision to grant clearance was made by the [2:03:07] the FCDO after in September it became clear to me the answers to the due [2:03:12] diligence that Peter Mandelson had given were not truthful and that's why I set in [2:03:17] place the various reviews that I did and also changed the approach in relation to [2:03:21] when developed vetting checks are carried out [2:03:24] Dave Mandelson [2:03:27] Thank you Mr Speaker is the Prime Minister really saying that in the [2:03:32] appointment of Peter Mandelson he didn't himself consider that there might be [2:03:36] issues with his vetting process given his track record and isn't it even more [2:03:42] incredible that he then didn't query whether there had been any issues with [2:03:47] that vetting process [2:03:50] The part of the matter is he was given developed vetting clearance before he took [2:03:55] up his post as the ambassador and that was a decision was taken by FCDO [2:04:02] Zora Sultan [2:04:03] In September the Prime Minister stood at this dispatch box and told the House he [2:04:07] had full confidence in Peter Mandelson a man whose relationship with [2:04:11] convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein was public knowledge the Prime Minister knew and [2:04:15] backed him anyway now he claims he had no idea that this twice-fired government [2:04:19] minister had failed MI6 vetting despite journalists putting that directly to [2:04:23] Downing Street that very same month Mr Speaker we all know that the Prime [2:04:27] Minister appointed Mandelson because he owes his job to him he appointed him he [2:04:32] defended him and now he claims to know nothing he is gas slicing the nation so [2:04:36] let's call this out for what it is the Prime Minister is a barefaced liar and if [2:04:40] you hadn't decently learned [2:04:42] Order sit and leave leave now I'll name you otherwise I'd go now if I were you [2:04:47] Leave I'm not leave I have no name I've given the option to leave I'd leave if I were you very [2:04:59] quickly move before I read it and give me one option right give me that you have no [2:05:03] duties it's my duty to carry out and control this house one chance do you want to leave [2:05:09] no we're not right I name Zara Sultana minister I beg to move that the name the [2:05:19] said member be suspended from the house Jane Kitchen the question is the Zara [2:05:30] Sultana be named and leave this house all those in favor leave I'm sorry you've [2:05:38] done this I really am right seven months ago a national newspaper ran the story that [2:05:59] Mandelson had failed security vetting so how is it even possible that no one in [2:06:05] number 10 knew until last week a number of inquiries were made questions were [2:06:12] asked of FCDO and the answer they gave was the same they did not disclose to me [2:06:19] or anyone in number 10 that UK SV had advised recommended against clearance [2:06:26] Dr Alde Pinkerton when the Prime Minister asked his officials in January [2:06:33] 20 25 as he surely did perhaps with an element of surprise in his voice so Peter [2:06:39] actually passed his security clearance did he what was the scenario that then [2:06:44] unfolded did sir Ollie Robbins declare I'm sorry I can't tell you Prime Minister [2:06:48] I'm not at liberty to say did he actively seek to mislead the Prime Minister by [2:06:53] simply saying yes Prime Minister or as seems more likely did that scenario never [2:06:58] take place because the Prime Minister never thought to ask Mr Speaker what [2:07:03] happened in January was that developed vetting clearance was given by the [2:07:08] Foreign Office that was the simple fact of the matter it was only last week I [2:07:11] found out the further circumstance I've now set out to the House [2:07:17] in the box note to the Prime Minister dated the 11th of November 2024 the former [2:07:22] Cabinet Secretary Simon Case advised the Prime Minister that before appointing a [2:07:26] political appointee he should get security clearance before announcing the [2:07:31] Prime Minister ignored that advice the Prime Minister's response in that box [2:07:36] note is redacted so I asked him a very simple question what was his answer on [2:07:41] that box note and will he publish what he said [2:07:45] Mr Speaker I made it clear that my position was that the appointment was [2:07:49] subject to developed vetting I can't in all conscience remember what exactly was [2:07:54] been redacted well he's asking me what a redacted the the the process I've understood [2:08:05] to be subject to developed vetting that's why I asked Chris Walmold to look at the [2:08:10] process in reference back to Simon Case I'm running this 10 more minutes that's it [2:08:14] Paul Culler thank you Mr Speaker the Foreign Office has raised severe concerns [2:08:18] regarding Peter Mandelson's links with Epstein Russia and China in the due diligence [2:08:21] report he received before the appointment was announced the Prime Minister however brushed [2:08:26] these concerns aside and asked Mandelson as ambassador nonetheless given what the due [2:08:30] diligence exercise had already flagged it was surely predictable Mandelson would fail [2:08:35] security vetting for those reasons but number 10 had already told the Foreign Office before [2:08:40] Sir Oli Robbins took up his post to proceed with the appointment notwithstanding these issues [2:08:45] that's exactly what he did by putting in place necessary safeguards so can the Prime Minister [2:08:50] please explain why he's sacked a loyal and brilliant public servant Prime Minister because he [2:08:55] didn't bring to my attention information he should have brought to my attention had he done so I [2:08:59] wouldn't have made the appointment [2:09:00] Mike Walmold thank you Mr Speaker the Prime Minister dissembles over what he [2:09:05] knew about Sistema and Mandelson but the Cabinet Office due diligence report sent to the Prime Minister [2:09:11] on 24th sorry on the 11th of December 2024 said Mandelson served as a non-executive director of the [2:09:18] Russian conglomerate Sistema which is itself a majority shareholder of RTI a defence technology company [2:09:24] Mandelson remained on the board until June 2017 long after Putin's annexation of Crimea in 2014 [2:09:31] so will the Prime Minister finally confirm that he knew that Mandelson was a director of Sistema long [2:09:38] after the invasion of Crimea but appointed him anyway very good as I made clear I did know what [2:09:45] was in the due diligence report I made that clear to the house number of times today I've actually made [2:09:49] it clear to the house on previous occasions thank you Mr Speaker my concern is Mr Speaker that this [2:09:55] Prime Minister is going to run out of buses before he runs out of people to throw under them and the [2:09:59] issue is this because the Prime Minister has said that he will never turn on his staff and that you [2:10:03] should never turn on your staff well Sue Gray scapegoated Tim Allen canned Sir Chris Wormald [2:10:08] forced out Morgan McSweeney acts and now Ollie Robbins is sat will the Prime Minister accept that the [2:10:13] buck stops with him this is his this is his fault and do the honourable thing Prime Minister Mr Speaker [2:10:19] the information was withheld by me from me by FCDO in the circumstance I've set out to the house [2:10:29] my question to the Prime Minister is a straightforward one did Morgan McSweeney or any of your advisors past [2:10:33] and present to know about this issue before last Thursday no Clare Young to override the outcome of the [2:10:44] developed vetting process the FCDO must have been under pressure from someone ditching a tried and [2:10:50] tested ambassador for a high-risk one seems odd behaviour for a Prime Minister who claims to be so [2:10:58] fond of proper process so whose idea was it and who was applying the pressure Mr Speaker can I just [2:11:05] reject the idea that any pressure is a good reason not to disclose to the Prime Minister that UK SV [2:11:13] recommended against clearance for a very senior sensitive appointment I simply don't accept that [2:11:19] that's an adequate reason whatever the pressure the Prime Minister is suggesting that the idea the [2:11:25] security services had concerns about this appointment was a bolt out of the blue to him two weeks ago [2:11:29] despite the fact it was on the front page of a national newspaper in September but my question is [2:11:34] not about the vetting file because we all know the answer the Prime Minister is going to give separate [2:11:38] to the vetting file at any stage was he made aware of an element of security services raising concerns [2:11:44] about the appointment of Mandelson Prime Minister no Mr Speaker what I knew was that security clearance [2:11:50] had been given by the Foreign Office in the way of set out to the House Saoirse Eastman thank you Mr [2:11:55] Speaker my constituents in Ligon Valley and across Northern Ireland and across the UK will be discussed [2:12:00] that we have spent this amount of time discussing this issue when it should have been put to the [2:12:04] floor the first time it came in the press does the Prime Minister understand that every time we do [2:12:10] this and we go through this we destroy the reputation of this place no matter who the government of the [2:12:15] day is your party don't even stand for election in my neck of the woods so this is not party political [2:12:20] this is about protecting the reputation of this place do you understand [2:12:25] Prime Minister that's why I wanted to give the House all the relevant information which I've given at [2:12:29] some length this afternoon thank you so we have now established that the Prime Minister did indeed [2:12:36] know that Peter Mandelson had been a director of Sistema when he appointed him why on earth would be [2:12:43] would the Prime Minister be so reckless with our national security to do that yeah Prime Minister [2:12:49] Mr Speaker I've made it clear that I knew what was in the due diligence I've also made it clear that FCDO [2:12:55] granted a security clearance before Peter Mandelson took up his post John Milne [2:13:00] thank you Mr Speaker there's a simple question that we still don't have an answer to did Peter Mandelson [2:13:04] fail his vetting procedure because of his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein or was it some other reason [2:13:10] as yet undisclosed Prime Minister the information that was fed into the review and the reasons for the [2:13:20] review is protected because otherwise the integrity this is not a Peter Mandelson issue it's the integrity of [2:13:25] the process what I don't accept is that that means I can't be told the recommendation that comes out of it [2:13:30] Rebecca Smith thank you Mr Speaker I wonder if the Prime Minister knew the difference between the [2:13:34] due diligence information from the Cabinet Office and the security vetting that hadn't taken place when [2:13:39] he appointed Peter Mandelson on the 18th of December Prime Minister I did know the difference [2:13:44] and we'll refer to go thank you Mr Speaker after years of sleaze and scandal under the previous [2:13:51] government the Prime Minister promised integrity and accountability but my constituents in Stratford [2:13:57] Donavon are not seeing change they're seeing more of the same a continuity government where warnings [2:14:04] are ignored and standards sleep why should anyone believe that he is still capable of delivering the [2:14:11] change that he promised Prime Minister I made sure the relevant inquiries were made so I could put the [2:14:17] full picture before the House that is the approach that I've taken as members have seen this afternoon [2:14:22] Thank you Mr Speaker this is a humiliating day for the Prime Minister and for the House and for the [2:14:29] whole country and yet even still Mr Speaker the Prime Minister isn't being open with us he's relying on [2:14:36] some later inquiry when the when the Cabinet Secretary told him in writing in the official briefing that [2:14:44] he must seek a vetting prior to the appointment of a political appointee that's true isn't it Prime Minister [2:14:53] and can you give a straight answer just for once the process was that the appointment was subject to [2:15:00] developed vetting checks being carried out had I been made aware of the recommendation of UK SV [2:15:06] I wouldn't have made the appointment what I did after the event was ask Sir Chris Wilmore to look back [2:15:11] at the process which he did according to and by reference to the Simon case letter and he assured [2:15:16] me the process being carried out properly Mr Speaker if Ollie Robbins could and should have provided this [2:15:23] information to the Prime Minister at the first opportunity as he said today surely the same applies to [2:15:28] Cat Little and Antonio Romeo and the Cabinet Office officials who sat on this information for nearly a [2:15:34] month before bringing it to the Prime Minister when the Guardian started asking questions of number 10 so surely if he [2:15:40] why does he accept that they needed legal advice to do what he is saying should have been obvious he sacked [2:15:45] Ollie Robbins for not bringing him that information immediately why are they still imposed Mr Speaker they [2:15:52] acted entirely appropriately they they came across the information as as part of the humble address [2:15:58] exercise they took legal advice on who it could be disclosed to and disclosed it to me as soon as they [2:16:03] got that legal advice that was the right thing to do and about subjective thank Mr Speaker on the 4th of February [2:16:08] Peter Mandelson was notified by the Appointments and Interchange Officer from the FCDO that he [2:16:12] required strap level access in addition to his DV he started the role on the 10th of February on what [2:16:17] date did Peter Mandelson receive strap level access Prime Minister I don't know the precise date but [2:16:23] I'll endeavour to find out Mr Speaker given this widely known Peter Mandelson who has maintained the [2:16:29] friendship with convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein close links in both China and Russia in terms of [2:16:34] business sat from two government posts what I really want to ask the prime minister is this [2:16:39] what are the unique defining human qualities of the man I've just described it so attracted to you [2:16:45] that he should be politically appointed as US ambassador and why now is he still defending him [2:16:51] behind process instead of calling out what's wrong and taking the responsibility and resigning [2:16:55] I'm not defending him behind process I'm sending out the process to the house [2:16:59] Dr Neil Chasrihaus thank you very much Mr Speaker Keith custodian Ipsos custodes the prime minister [2:17:06] will know that who guard the guards themselves with that in mind and holding those in power to [2:17:10] account can he explain why he took more than a week or almost a week to come to this house when [2:17:16] the public will have been expecting answers much much sooner Prime Minister because I wanted to know who [2:17:21] took the decision the basis upon which they took it and who knew about the decision so I could set out [2:17:26] a full account of the house which is what I've done this afternoon Mr Malister does it come to this [2:17:31] Mr Speaker that this house and the country is being asked to believe that though he is the prime minister [2:17:39] making the most critical diplomatic appointment that the United Kingdom can make that he the prime minister [2:17:46] in the midst of the raging controversy that that provoked never asked if his nominee had been security [2:17:54] vetted isn't that that that is staggering and incredible and when it comes to our national security [2:18:02] advisor what was his role what does he know could the house be told that Mr Speaker the um attention [2:18:13] on the process um began very much in September 25 when the Bloomberg emails uh were published that is when [2:18:20] I uh agreed with the cabinet secretary carat a review of the entire um process and and I've set that [2:18:26] out at some length this afternoon David Reed thank you Mr Speaker the prime minister has chosen to blame [2:18:31] his officials for this debacle so can he confirm that he knows the names of the FCDO civil servants that [2:18:35] made the decision to override UK SV on the 29th of January 2025 yes or no and has he made the decision to [2:18:42] spend them all from juicy pending a full independent inquiry yes or no Mr Speaker I've set out the facts to the [2:18:49] house uh this afternoon I have ordered um a uh review by a straighter and fullford of uh security vetting [2:18:57] um so that if any further changes are needed we can put them in place [2:19:02] I understand that Peter Mandelson's vetting clearance was conditional on him being accompanied to meetings [2:19:06] with former clients such as Palantir will the prime minister clarify why there is no record of his and [2:19:13] Peter Mandelson's meeting with Palantir in Washington and will he tell the house what it was all about [2:19:18] the prime minister mr speaker that was a routine meeting in the course of a visit uh i was on uh in [2:19:24] the u.s uh terrible the prime minister is repeatedly telling us that he either was not told or he was [2:19:31] not allowed to be told but what culture has the prime minister created around him and across the civil [2:19:37] service that no one felt that they could or should tell him this sensitive information [2:19:42] prime minister i reminded her that in the last two weeks my senior officials have brought this to my [2:19:47] attention uh which is which is which is what they have before the guardian they brought it to my [2:19:54] attention on tuesday evening that is what led me to ask further questions and make this statement to [2:19:58] the house the prime minister once promised to end the chaos and to restore honesty and integrity to [2:20:05] government does he think that appointing a man who called a convicted child sex offender his best [2:20:09] pal and whose connections with Epstein were already well known is consistent with that promise and if it [2:20:15] isn't will he step aside and let someone else end his chaos and restore honesty and integrity to [2:20:20] government mr speaker i've uh accepted that i made an error in the appointment and apologized to the [2:20:26] victims as i must and as i did thank you mr speaker on the 4th of february my right honorable friend the [2:20:32] leader of the opposition asked the prime minister whether the vetting process had disclosed information [2:20:38] about epstein the prime minister answered yes it did in his response to my honorable friend the member [2:20:43] for new so new forest west he said oh i'm i've got confused between vetting and disclosure but then [2:20:49] in the answer to my friend the honorable member for southwest devon he said he knew the difference so [2:20:54] if that's not misleading the house what is the due diligence is part of the vetting process [2:21:01] um and um rather than as it were rest on a technicality i gave the house the uh information [2:21:07] that i had about what i knew from the due diligence it was clear what the leader of the opposition was [2:21:12] asking it was about epstein i knew that was in the in the due process uh uh a due diligence and that's [2:21:18] why i told the house about it the prime minister promised that unlike the tories his government would [2:21:24] govern well and restore public trust yet this whole sorry manderson saga has reforced the belief in [2:21:30] yoga and beyond that no government or politician can change can the prime minister explain to my [2:21:35] constituents why he annoyed the then cabinet secretary's advice to get the security clearance [2:21:40] before he confirmed madison as ambassador right minister mr speaker i've dealt with that issue