Security Vetting

Monday 20th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Before I call the Prime Minister, I wish to make a brief statement. The subject that we are about to discuss is of the utmost seriousness. I expect the discussion to be focused on the facts and the issues at hand, and not on personal attacks against individual Members. Although certain criticisms may be made about the Government collectively, “Erskine May” makes it clear—in paragraph 21.24—that any accusations against individual Members about lying or misleading the House may be made only on a substantive motion; they may not be made as part of an exchange on a statement. The House rule on this is in place to ensure that Members focus on the substantive matters under discussion. If a debate is needed about matters of individual conduct, that must be drawn in the proper terms with notice. I encourage all Members to engage in respectful debate, as our constituents would expect.

15:33

[The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to provide the House with information that I now have about the appointment of Peter Mandelson as our ambassador to the United States.

Before I go into the details, I want to be very clear with this House that while this statement will focus on the process surrounding Peter Mandelson’s vetting and appointment, at the heart of this there is also a judgment I made that was wrong. I should not have appointed Peter Mandelson. I take responsibility for that decision, and I apologise again to the victims of the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, who were clearly failed by my decision.

Last Tuesday evening, 14 April, I found out for the first time that on 29 January 2025, before Peter Mandelson took up his position as ambassador, Foreign Office officials granted him developed vetting clearance, against the specific recommendation of the United Kingdom Security Vetting that developed vetting clearance should be denied. Not only that, but the Foreign Office officials who made that decision did not pass this information to me, to the Foreign Secretary, to her predecessor, now the Deputy Prime Minister, to any other Minister, or even to the former Cabinet Secretary, Sir Chris Wormald.

I found this staggering. Therefore, last Tuesday I immediately instructed officials in Downing Street and the Cabinet Office to urgently establish the facts on my authority. I wanted to know who made the decision, on what basis, and who knew. I wanted that information for the precise and explicit purpose of updating this House, because this is information I should have had a long time ago, and that this House should have had a long time ago. It is information that I and the House had a right to know.

I will now set out a full timeline of the events in the Peter Mandelson process, including from the fact-finding exercise that I instructed last Tuesday. Before doing so, I want to remind and reassure the House that the Government will comply fully with the Humble Address motion of 4 February.

In December 2024, I was in the process of appointing a new ambassador for Washington. A due diligence exercise was conducted by the Cabinet Office into Peter Mandelson’s suitability, including questions put to him by my staff in No. 10. Peter Mandelson answered those questions on 10 December, and I received final advice on the due diligence process on 11 December. I made the decision to appoint him on 18 December. The appointment was announced on 20 December. The security vetting process began on 23 December 2024.

I want to make it clear to the House that, for a direct ministerial appointment, it was usual for security vetting to happen after the appointment but before the individual starting in post. That was the process in place at the time. This was confirmed by the former Cabinet Secretary, Sir Chris Wormald, when he gave evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee on 3 November 2025. Sir Chris made it clear that

“when we are making appointments from outside the civil service…the normal thing is for the security clearance to happen after appointment but before the person signs a contract and takes up post.”

At the same hearing of the same Select Committee, the former permanent secretary to the Foreign Office, Sir Olly Robbins, said that Peter Mandelson

“did not hold national security vetting when he was appointed, but, as is normally the case with external appointments to my Department and the wider civil service, the appointment was made subject to obtaining security clearance.”

After I sacked Peter Mandelson, I changed that process so that an appointment now cannot be announced until after security vetting is passed.

The security vetting was carried out by UK Security Vetting—UKSV—between 23 December 2024 and 28 January 2025. UKSV conducted vetting in the normal way, collecting relevant information, as well as interviewing the applicant, in this case on two occasions. Then, on 28 January 2025, UKSV recommended to the Foreign Office that developed vetting clearance should be denied to Peter Mandelson. The following day, 29 January 2025, notwithstanding the UKSV recommendation that developed vetting clearance should be denied, Foreign Office officials made the decision to grant developed vetting clearance for Peter Mandelson.

To be clear, for many Departments a decision from UKSV is binding, but for the Foreign Office the final decision on developed vetting clearance is made by Foreign Office officials, not UKSV. However, once the decision in this case came to light, the Foreign Office’s power to make the final decision on developed vetting clearance was immediately suspended by my Chief Secretary last week.

I accept that the sensitive personal information provided by an individual being vetted must be protected from disclosure. If that were not the case, the integrity of the whole process would be compromised. What I do not accept is that the appointing Minister cannot be told of the recommendation by UKSV. Indeed, given the seriousness of these issues and the significance of the appointment, I simply do not accept that Foreign Office officials could not have informed me of UKSV’s recommendations while maintaining the necessary confidentiality that vetting requires.

There is no law that stops civil servants from sensibly flagging UKSV recommendations while protecting detailed, sensitive vetting information, to allow Ministers to make judgments on appointments or on explaining matters to Parliament. Let me be very clear: the recommendation in the Peter Mandelson case could and should have been shared with me before he took up his post. Let me make a second point: if I had known before Peter Mandelson took up his post that the UKSV recommendation was that developed vetting clearance should be denied, I would not have gone ahead with the appointment.

Let me now move to September 2025, because events then, and subsequently, show with even starker clarity the opportunities missed by Foreign Office officials to make the position clear. On 10 September, Bloomberg reported fresh details of Mandelson’s history with Epstein. It was then clear to me that Peter Mandelson’s answers to my staff in the due diligence exercise were not truthful, and I sacked him. I also changed the direct ministerial appointments process so that full due diligence is now required as standard. Where risks are identified, an interview must be taken pre-appointment to discuss any risks and conflicts of interest. A summary of that should be provided to the appointing Minister. I also made it clear that public announcements should not now be made until security vetting has been completed.

In the light of the revelations in September last year, I also agreed with the then Cabinet Secretary, Sir Chris Wormald, that he would carry out a review of the appointment process in the Peter Madelson case, including the vetting. He set out his findings and conclusions in a letter to me on 16 September. In that letter, he advised me:

“The evidence I have reviewed leads me to conclude that appropriate processes were followed in both the appointment and withdrawal of the former HMA Washington”.

When the then Cabinet Secretary was asked about that last week, he was clear that when he carried out his review, the Foreign Office did not tell him about the UKSV recommendation that developed vetting clearance should be denied for Peter Mandelson. I find that astonishing. As I set out earlier, I do not accept that I could not have been told about the recommendation before Peter Mandelson took up his post. I absolutely do not accept that the then Cabinet Secretary—an official, not a politician—when carrying out his review could not have been told that UKSV recommended that Peter Mandelson should be denied developed vetting clearance. It was a vital part of the process that I had asked him to review. Clearly, he could have been told, and he should have been told.

On the same day that the then Cabinet Secretary wrote to me, 16 September 2025, the Foreign Secretary and the then permanent secretary of the Foreign Office, Sir Olly Robbins, provided a signed statement to the Foreign Affairs Committee. The statement says:

“The vetting process was undertaken by UK Security Vetting on behalf of the FCDO and concluded with DV clearance being granted by the FCDO in advance of Lord Mandelson taking up post in February.”

It went on to say:

“Peter Mandelson’s security vetting was conducted to the usual standard set for Developed Vetting in line with established Cabinet Office policy”.

Let me be very clear to the House. This was in response to questions that included whether concerns were raised, what the Foreign Office’s response was and whether they were dismissed. That the Foreign Secretary was advised on, and allowed to sign, this statement by Foreign Office officials without being told that UKSV had recommended Peter Mandelson be denied developed vetting clearance is absolutely unforgivable. This is a senior Cabinet Member giving evidence to Parliament on the very issue in question.

In the light of further revelations about Peter Mandelson in February of this year, I was very concerned about the fact that developed vetting clearance had been granted to him. Not knowing that, in fact, UKSV had recommended denial of developed vetting clearance, I instructed my officials to carry out a review of the national security vetting process. But, as I have set out, I do not accept that I could not have been told about UKSV’s denial of security vetting before Peter Mandelson took up his post in January 2025, I do not accept that the then Cabinet Secretary could not have been told in September 2025 when he carried out his review of the process, and I do not accept that the Foreign Secretary could not have been told when making statements to the Select Committee, again in 2025.

On top of that, the fact that I was also not told, even when I ordered a review of the UKSV process, is frankly staggering. I can tell the House that I have now updated the terms of reference for the review into security vetting to make sure it covers the means by which all decisions are made in relation to national security vetting. I have appointed Sir Adrian Fulford to lead the review. Separately, I have asked the Government Security Group in the Cabinet Office to look at any security concerns raised during Peter Mandelson’s tenure.

I know that many Members across this House will find these facts to be incredible. To that, I can only say that they are right. It beggars belief that throughout this whole timeline of events, officials in the Foreign Office saw fit to withhold this information from the most senior Ministers in our system of government. That is not how the vast majority of people in this country expect politics, government or accountability to work, and I do not think it is how most public servants think it should work either.

I work with hundreds of civil servants—thousands, even—all of whom act with the utmost integrity, dedication and pride to serve this country, including officials from the Foreign Office who, as we speak, are doing a phenomenal job representing our national interest in a dangerous world—in Ukraine, the middle east and all around the world. This is not about them, yet it is surely beyond doubt that the recommendation from UKSV that Peter Mandelson should be denied developed vetting clearance was information that could and should have been shared with me on repeated occasions and, therefore, should have been available to this House and ultimately to the British people. I commend this statement to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Leader of the Opposition.

15:49

[Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)]

I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement. His reputation is at stake, and everyone is watching, so it is finally time for the truth.

Earlier today, Downing Street admitted that the Prime Minister inadvertently misled the House. The Prime Minister has chosen not to repeat that from the Dispatch Box. I remind him that, under the ministerial code, he has a duty to correct the record at the earliest opportunity. The Prime Minister says he only found out on Tuesday that Peter Mandelson failed the security vetting. The earliest opportunity to correct the record was Prime Minister’s questions on Wednesday, almost a week ago. This is a breach of the ministerial code. Under that code, he is bound to be as open as possible with Parliament and the public in answering questions today, so let me start with what we do know.

We know the Prime Minister personally appointed Peter Mandelson to be our ambassador to the United States. We know that Mandelson had a close relationship with a convicted paedophile. We know that he had concerning links with Russia and China—links that had already raised red flags. We know that the Prime Minister announced the appointment before vetting was complete—an extraordinary and unprecedented step for the role of US ambassador.

The Prime Minister says that it was “usual” because it was a political appointment, so I remind him, and the rest of the Labour Front Bench who are heckling, that Peter Mandelson was a politician who had been sacked twice from Government for lying. That meant he should have gone through the full security process. We also know that when Peter Mandelson failed the security vetting, he was allowed to continue in the role with access to top secret intelligence and security information. This goes beyond propriety and ethics; this is a matter of national security.

Let me turn to what we do not know. We still do not know exactly why Peter Mandelson failed that vetting. We do not know what risks our country was exposed to. We do not know how it is possible that the Prime Minister said repeatedly that this was a failure of vetting, went on television and said things that were blatantly incorrect, and not a single adviser or official told him that what he was saying was not true. At every turn, with every explanation, the Government story has become murkier and more contradictory. It is time for the truth.

There are too many questions to ask in the allotted time, so I will ask the Prime Minister just six. I have taken the unprecedented step of providing these questions to the Prime Minister in advance, so he has them in front of him. I have asked for these questions to be put online for the public. They and I expect him to answer.

The Prime Minister appointed a national security risk to our most sensitive diplomatic post. Let us look at how this happened. The right hon. and learned Gentleman told me at PMQs in September 2025 that

“full due process was followed”—[Official Report, 10 September 2025; Vol. 772, c. 859.]

in this appointment. We now know that in November 2024, Lord Case, the then Cabinet Secretary, told him that this process required security vetting to be done before the appointment. He did not mention any of what Lord Case said in his statement earlier. First, does the Prime Minister accept that when he said on the Floor of the House that “full due process was followed”, that was not true?

Secondly, on 11 September last year, journalists asked his director of communications if it was true that Mandelson had failed security vetting. These allegations were on the front page of a national newspaper, and yet No. 10 did not deny the story—why?

Thirdly, will the Prime Minister repeat at the Dispatch Box his words from last week: that no one in No. 10 was aware before Tuesday that Mandelson had failed his vetting?

Fourthly, the Prime Minister says he is furious that he was not told the recommendations of the vetting, yet on 16 September, a Foreign Office Minister told Parliament that

“the national security vetting process is rightly independent of Ministers, who are not informed of any findings other than the final outcome.”—[Official Report, 16 September 2025; Vol. 772, c. 1387.]

That was the Government’s stated process, so why is the Prime Minister so furious that it was followed?

Fifthly, on 4 February 2026, the Prime Minister told me from the Dispatch Box that the security vetting that Mandelson had received had revealed his relationship with Epstein. How could the Prime Minister say that if he had not seen the security vetting?

Finally, Sistema is a Russian defence company that is closely linked to the Kremlin and Vladimir Putin’s war machine. Was the Prime Minister aware before the appointment that Peter Mandelson had remained a director of that company long after Russia’s invasion of Crimea?

Everyone makes mistakes. It is how a leader faces up to those mistakes that shows their character. Instead of taking responsibility for the decisions he made, the Prime Minister has thrown his staff and his officials under the bus. This is a man who once said,

“I will carry the can for mistakes of any organisation I lead.”

Instead, he has sacked his Cabinet Secretary, he has sacked his director of communications, he has sacked his chief of staff, and he has now sacked the permanent secretary of the Foreign Office. All those people were fired for a decision that he made.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman’s defence is that he, a former Director of Public Prosecutions, is so lacking in curiosity that he chose to ask no questions about the vetting process, no questions about Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein and no questions about the security risk that Mandelson posed. Apparently, he did not even speak to Peter Mandelson before his appointment. It does not appear that he asked any questions at all. Why? Because he did not want to know. He had taken the risk and chosen his man, and Whitehall had to follow.

It is the duty of the Prime Minister to ensure that he is telling the truth—or does the ministerial code not apply to him? I am only holding the Prime Minister to the same standard to which he held others. On 26 January 2022, he said from this Dispatch Box to a previous Prime Minister:

“If he misled Parliament, he must resign.”—[Official Report, 26 January 2022; Vol. 707, c. 994.]

Does he stand by those words, or is there one rule for him and another for everyone else?

[The Prime Minister]

Let me respond to those points. First, when I found out what had happened on Tuesday evening last, I wanted to have answers to the questions of who had made the decision to give clearance on developed vetting contrary to the advice, why that was done, and who knew about it, so that I could provide the information to the House. That is the exercise that has been conducted since Tuesday evening, so that I could come here today to give the full account to the House, which I have just set out.

The right hon. Lady asks me about developed vetting security clearance after the appointment. What I set out was not my words; I read out the evidence of the former permanent secretary and the former Cabinet Secretary in relation to that. I think the quotes that I have given the House are clear enough.

The right hon. Lady asks why Peter Mandelson failed. It is important to make a distinction between the information provided to the review and the recommendation. The information in the review must be, and has been, protected—otherwise, the integrity of the entire system would fall away—but the recommendation does not have to be, and should not have been, protected.

In relation to the answer about full due process, that was the information that I had and which I put before the House, and it was confirmed to me by Sir Chris Wormald. In September, I asked him to conduct a review of the process to assure me that the process was correctly carried out. He did that and wrote to me on 16 September to give me his conclusions. In relation to reports in the media, No. 10 was repeatedly asked about the facts surrounding Peter Mandelson’s clearance, and was assured that the proper process was followed in that case.

In relation to those in No. 10, let me give the answer. Nobody in No. 10 was informed about UKSV’s recommendation. To be clear, and for the record, the Cabinet Office permanent secretary received information recently, and then sought the necessary and legal advice. Once those checks were completed by the Cabinet Office permanent secretary, I was told. That is in the last two weeks or so, and that was entirely the right procedure—to get the legal advice, and then to bring it to my attention at the first opportunity. The right procedure was followed by my officials in the last few weeks.

In relation to why I was furious about the process, it was for the very reason that I strongly believe I should have been given this information at the very outset. I strongly believe there were repeated times when I should have been told. I should have been told on appointment, and I should have been told when Peter Mandelson was sacked. The Cabinet Secretary should have been told when he reviewed the process. The Foreign Secretary should have been told before she was asked to sign a statement to the Select Committee, and I should have been told when I ordered a review of vetting.

In relation to the point that the right hon. Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch) makes about what I said in February, in answer to a question of hers, I make it very clear that I had not seen the security vetting file. I did not know that UKSV—[Interruption.] The question asked was about vetting. I knew about the due diligence, which is why I put before the House what I knew about the due diligence in relation to Epstein. I told the House what the due diligence had said. I did not tell it what security vetting had said, because I had not seen the file in relation to that. As for the particular details on Peter Mandelson, I acted on all the information I had available to me. The simple fact of the matter is that I should have had more information; I did not have that information. The House should have had that information, and I have now set it out in full to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Dame Emily Thornberry.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

The truth is that my Committee did ask. We asked on the record, and we got a partial truth that could hardly be the whole truth. We are on record as asking the very questions that hecklers on the Opposition Benches say should have been asked. The answers are there, on the record; people can see what we got when we did ask.

A month before Mandelson’s appointment was announced, the then Cabinet Secretary advised that the necessary security clearance should be acquired before a political appointment was confirmed. That does not seem to have been the usual practice. I am glad that it has changed, because the process was clearly abused. Someone—probably Peter Mandelson himself—leaked his appointment as US ambassador to the press, which effectively bounced the Government into confirming it. When the confirmation of his appointment came forward, neither the offer letter to Peter Mandelson nor the Government’s press release made it clear that the appointment was subject to vetting. Does it not look as though, for certain members of the Prime Minister’s team, getting Peter Mandelson the job was a priority that overrode everything else, and security considerations were very much second order?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her question. 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. The questions were asked; the Foreign Secretary 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 now, so that it can never happen again; my right hon. Friend the Committee Chair heard me quote the evidence of the former Cabinet Secretary and the former permanent secretary in relation to that.

Let me deal with my right hon. Friend’s third point, which is that somehow Downing Street’s wish to appoint Peter Mandelson overrode security concerns—[Interruption.] No, Mr Speaker, let me be very clear: if I had been told that Peter Mandelson, or anybody else, had failed or not been given clearance on security vetting, I would not have appointed them. A deliberate decision was taken to withhold that material from me. This was not a lack of asking; this was not an oversight—[Interruption.] It was a decision taken not to share that information on repeated occasions.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Sir Ed Davey, Leader of the Liberal Democrats.

[Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)]

It is 2022 all over again. Back then, when the Prime Minister was in opposition, and when it was Boris Johnson who was accused of misleading Parliament and scapegoating senior officials, the then Leader of the Opposition could not have been clearer; he said:

“The public need to know that not all politicians are the same—that not all politicians put themselves above their country—and that honesty, integrity and accountability matter.”—[Official Report, 25 May 2022; Vol. 715, c. 298.]

He promised “change”. He promised to

“break this cycle and stop the chaos.”

He promised a Government with

“more focus on long-term strategy, not the short-term distractions that can animate Westminster.”

I am afraid that the fact that he has even had to make a statement today shows how badly he has failed—how badly he has let down the millions of people across our country who are so desperate for change.

The Prime Minister blames his officials. He says that he had “no idea”. He gives every impression of a Prime Minister in office, but not in power. The facts remain, even by his own account, that the Prime Minister appointed Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United States even after he had been warned about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. The Prime Minister announced the appointment before Mandelson had been vetted, despite the clear risk to national security of putting someone unsuitable in that role. One of his top officials, just three weeks into the job, clearly believed that the Prime Minister wanted Mandelson to be appointed regardless of what the vetting process turned up. The Prime Minister has relied on the vetting process to defend his decisions, so why did he ask so few questions personally about the vetting process?

We all know the truth: the Prime Minister knew that appointing Mandelson was an enormous risk, but he decided that it was a risk worth taking—a catastrophic error of judgment. Now that has blown up in his face, the only decent thing to do is take responsibility. Back in 2022, the Prime Minister rightly accused Boris Johnson of expecting others to take the blame while he clung on. That was not acceptable then, and it is not acceptable now. I hope that the Prime Minister can at least tell the House this. We will be listening very carefully to his answer. Was he given advice by Simon Case, the then Cabinet Secretary, that the necessary security clearances should be acquired before he confirmed his choice for US ambassador? Did the Prime Minister follow that advice—yes or no?

After years of chaos under the Conservatives, we needed a Government focused on the interests of the people—the cost of living crisis, the health and care crisis, and our national security. We needed a Government with honesty, integrity and accountability. Will the Prime Minister finally accept that the only way that he can help to deliver that is by resigning?

[The Prime Minister]

I set out in my statement the full facts. In September, when the Bloomberg emails came to light, I asked the then Cabinet Secretary to review the process. He told me that the process was as it should have been, and as soon as the information about the security vetting came to light last Tuesday, I asked for the facts to be established, so that I could update Parliament.

The right hon. Gentleman asks me about the announcement before developed vetting. He has heard the evidence that I have given to the House from the former Cabinet Secretary and from the former permanent secretary. In relation to the advice from Simon Case, when I asked the former Cabinet Secretary to review the process after September 2025, he specifically addressed whether the process had been followed by referencing the Simon Case letter, and assured me that the process was the right process to have followed. In answer to his question, that was specifically looked at by Sir Chris Wormald in the review that was conducted in September last year.

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Ind)]

The Prime Minister has gone on at considerable length about process and procedure, but ordinary people do not really care about process and procedure; they want transparency, and they want to know that they can have confidence in the words of elected politicians like all of us in this Chamber.

It was in the ’90s that Peter Mandelson had to resign from the Cabinet for the first time, because of his dealings with the millionaire Geoffrey Robinson. A few years later, he had to resign from the Cabinet for the second time, because of his relationships with the billionaire Hinduja family. Peter Mandelson has a history. Knowing that history, which goes back 30 years, and given what is known, it is one thing to say, as the Prime Minister insists on saying, “Nobody told me; nobody told me anything,” but what this House wants to know is: why did the Prime Minister not ask?

[The Prime Minister]

In relation to the right hon. Lady’s question, let me be clear: I should not have appointed Peter Mandelson. As soon as the further revelations came to light, I did ask the Cabinet Secretary to review the process, so that I could be assured about the process. He wrote to me on 16 September, setting out the conclusions of that review, and assuring me that the process had been followed properly.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

The Prime Minister has spoken about process, the reviews, and trying to put that which went wrong right. That is to be supported, but he is asking the House and the country to believe that notwithstanding a front-page media splash saying that Peter Mandelson had failed the vetting process, there was nobody in No. 10 or in any Government Department who 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; 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, or welcomed by the country at large?

[The Prime Minister]

In answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office was repeatedly asked, in the 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 was not disclosed to me, let alone anybody else. So, yes, repeatedly the FCDO was asked, and the same answer came back as the answer given to me—that the decision was that I was not to know and nobody else was to know. That was wrong.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

Many on the Labour Benches, at least, will appreciate my right hon. and learned Friend’s apology today, but many of us remain bewildered about why the appointment took place, despite the warnings that many of us gave him. Is not the reality this? 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 McSweeney, Mandelson and Labour Together to organise and fund his election. When he became the Prime Minister, the reward for McSweeney was control of No. 10, and the reward for Mandelson was the highest diplomatic office. The unspoken message to civil servants was, “What Mandelson wants, Mandelson gets.” This has damaged the party that I have been a member of for 50 years. I urge the Prime Minister to take steps to clear this toxic culture out of our party, and to take the first step by having an independent inquiry into Labour Together.

[The Prime Minister]

Let me deal with what is at the heart of that question, in relation to an unspoken message to civil servants. I do not accept that. 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. That is what should have happened in this case.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)]

The Prime Minister has been very clear about his view of the urgency of his response since he learned of this vetting information, so I want to ask him about the events of last week. 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. We did not receive anything about vetting at that time.

The Prime Minister has now told us that he became aware on Tuesday evening of the information he has set out, but the Intelligence and Security Committee was not told about the existence of that information—information that the Prime Minister must have recognised was within the terms of the Humble Address and would need to be supplied to the ISC. 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. As such, I am bound to ask the Prime Minister this: if that information’s existence had not been disclosed by the press, would we have been told about it? If so, why did the ISC have to learn of its existence from The Guardian and not from the Government?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his question. The answer is yes, it would have been provided to the Committee, and as I think he acknowledged, it has now been provided to the Committee. 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. I wanted to understand who gave that clearance, on what basis and who knew about it, so that I could update the House and obviously make the information available to the Committee. That is what I asked on Tuesday night my officials to do urgently, so that the full picture could be put before both the House and the Committee, and I will make sure that the full picture is put before the Committee.

[Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)]

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. Whatever the judgment in the security vetting file, that decision to appoint him was wrong, and I welcome the Prime Minister’s owning of, and apology for, that moment. However, many of my constituents are also rightly concerned to learn that not a single democratically elected official in Government was informed about the decision. Given this, what conversations is the Prime Minister instigating right across Government to ensure that, in future, our democratic decision-makers are given the full picture of these crucial judgments?

[The Prime Minister]

That is precisely why I have asked for the entire developed vetting process to be reviewed by Sir Adrian Fulford, 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.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

The Prime Minister wants us to focus on process and not his judgment, but this entire sorry 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 that role. Will the Prime Minister at least confirm to the House that this was a singular error of judgment, and that his No. 10 operation has not proposed a political appointee for any other senior role in the FCDO?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, it was my decision. It was an error of judgment, and that is why I have apologised to the victims of Epstein. I have done that again today, and it is right to do so. In relation to the second point of the hon. Member’s question and any other political appointments, I will have to check on that and get back to him, because I am not across—[Interruption.] There are very many appointments made to senior positions, and I will just check that for him.

[Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)]

The House and the public understand the importance of independent security vetting and why sensitive personal information must be protected, but they are also shocked that decisions of such significance could be taken without the knowledge of the Prime Minister. I have worked closely with the Prime Minister, and I know how seriously he takes national security and accountability to this House. Will he set out what steps he will take to remove any ambiguity, so that where there are serious concerns, those risks are flagged to Ministers, ensuring that accountability to this House and to the country is always upheld?

[The Prime Minister]

That is why last week the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister suspended the power of the FCDO to make a recommendation or to take a decision contrary to the recommendation of UKSV.

[David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)]

The Prime Minister rebuffed first the Leader of the Opposition and then the leader of the Liberal Democrats for saying that the then Cabinet Secretary’s advice to the Prime Minister was to get the clearance before the announcement. I will read one sentence from a document entitled “Options for HMA Washington”, from the Cabinet Secretary of the day to the Prime Minister personally. It states:

“If this is the route that you wish to take you should give us the name of the person you would like to appoint and we will develop a plan for them to acquire the necessary security clearances and do due diligence on any potential Conflicts of Interest or other issues of which you should be aware before confirming your choice.”

The House does not want to hear about what Mr Wormald said a year later. That was the advice then; why did the Prime Minister not follow it?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Member reads out the passage from Mr Case’s advice. The process that was followed was what I understood to be the usual process—in other words, the appointment was subject to security vetting. It is why, when Sir Chris Wormald looked at it in September, he addressed the question by reference back to Simon Case’s letter, because I wanted to know that the process that had been followed was the right process. That is what Sir Chris Wormald looked at. He looked at it expressly by reference to the Simon Case letter that has just been read out, and assured me that the right process was followed when he reviewed it.

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Ind)]

Anybody who knows the Prime Minister will know full well that he would never, ever deliberately mislead this House, but the reality is this: ex post facto vetting is utterly pointless when the appointment is political. The trouble that we all face is that trust in the Prime Minister and in politics is diminishing as this sorry saga continues. In the 17 days we have leading up to those very important elections, what does the Prime Minister propose to do to win back the trust of the country?

[The Prime Minister]

I do not agree with the hon. Member’s point about vetting in relation to political appointments, but I do agree that the due diligence for direct ministerial appointments should be the same as for any other appointments. It clearly was not, and that is why in September I ordered that it be changed to make sure that it is the same process, whether it is a direct ministerial appointment or any other appointment. In relation to the country, it is important that we remain focused on the cost of living and on dealing with the war on two fronts that we face, and I intend to do that.

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

The harshest and most important truth in this entire process is that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom chose to proactively ignore the victims of Jeffrey Epstein when he made the political choice to put Peter Mandelson in as the UK’s most senior diplomat in the United States of America, despite knowing that he had maintained a friendship with Jeffrey Epstein himself. We have since seen Peter Mandelson investigated for potential misconduct in public office, and we of course now learn through the media that Peter Mandelson had failed his security vetting. The Prime Minister blames all this—all of it—on the judgment of others, but I am interested in his judgment. Does he believe himself to be gullible, incompetent, or both?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. [Laughter.] I have laid out the relevant facts. It is absolutely clear that nobody is suggesting that this information was made available to me. It clearly was not made available. It should have been made available, and I would not have made the appointment had it been made available. That is why I have set out the facts in some considerable detail to the House, with relevant quotes from all the relevant players in this.

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Prime Minister is being candid about some of the challenges in this process. I am sure that he will share the frustration felt across the House as revelations keep coming and this matter keeps coming back to Parliament. He says that he has acted to prevent any further challenges in the vetting system for the Government in respect of senior appointments. Can he therefore give all our constituents, and the House, the reassurance that he has no further sense that there will be any challenges to any other senior appointments through the vetting process that this Government have made?

[The Prime Minister]

That is precisely why I have asked for a review of the security vetting to be carried out. I have no reason to believe that to be the case, but I want to be assured about the security vetting process, and that is why I have asked Sir Adrian Fulford to look at it, so that he can give me that further reassurance. I will then, of course, pass that on to the House.

[Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)]

The Prime Minister has just told us that after he sacked Peter Mandelson, he changed the process so that now an appointment cannot be announced until after security vetting is passed. Why did he do that if he did not think there was a problem with the security vetting?

[The Prime Minister]

In September it became clear to me that in relation to the due diligence that had been carried out by the Cabinet Office, Peter Mandelson had been asked questions by my staff and given answers which were not truthful. That was exposed by the Bloomberg emails. At that point, I became concerned about the entire process. I asked for the review of the process by Sir Chris Wormald, which he carried out, but I also made it immediately clear that I would change the due process so that, whether in the case of direct ministerial appointments or that of any other appointments, the same process was gone through. I also wanted to make it clear that I did not think it right that appointments should be announced before security vetting was gone through in any circumstances, and therefore I changed it straight away.

[Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)]

My constituents are deeply concerned about the appointment of Peter Mandelson, and they want to see complete transparency going forward. I am very concerned to read that the civil servants in the Cabinet Office may have had this information about a month ago, and it has taken them this long to be in a position to share it with the democratically elected person making the appointment. What can the Prime Minister share with us today so that we do not have to face this type of issue in the future?

[The Prime Minister]

May I address that head-on? What happened was that the information came to the attention of senior civil servants who were, in fact, doing the compliance work on the Humble Address. When they saw the information about developed vetting they took legal advice straight away, asking whether it was legal to disclose that to me. They got that advice, and as soon as the advice was given they disclosed it to me straight away, last Tuesday. That was the right and appropriate thing for them to do. There is no criticism of what they did.

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

We know that MI6’s finding last September that Mandelson had compromising business interests was accurate—I mentioned it myself on 15 September 2025. He failed his security vetting. We also know that the former Cabinet Secretary advised the Prime Minister to carry out security clearance for Mandelson before his appointment. It was reported in The Times yesterday that Mandelson was given STRAP—the very highest security vetting, well beyond DV—despite being failed for DV. It is likely that the Americans will have serious questions about what secrets of theirs a compromised British ambassador might have accessed. 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. My question is: why?

[The Prime Minister]

I assure the hon. Lady that I have ordered a review of any national security issues arising in relation to what I found out last Tuesday. I will obviously update the House when that review is complete.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

I thank the Prime Minister for his heartfelt statement and—if we are judging parties on actions, not words—for reviving the post of anti-corruption tsar. It was vacant for years and years under three of his predecessors, starting with Boris Johnson’s lockdown breaches. Now that we have the heavyweight Margaret Hodge in post, what plans does the Prime Minister have for this broader policy area?

[The Prime Minister]

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.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

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? Did it never cross his mind that Mandelson was at risk of failing the vetting process? Before sacking Oliver Robbins last week, did the Prime Minister ask him why he overruled the verdict of the security vetters, and if so, what was his explanation?

[The Prime Minister]

I did ask him, and I did not accept his explanation. That is why I sacked him.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

At the beginning of February 2026, we learned from former Prime Minister Gordon Brown that Peter Mandelson had shared highly sensitive Government information with Jeffrey Epstein. At that juncture, if I had been in the Prime Minister’s shoes, I would have been forensic in recognising a security risk and wanting detailed answers. What is not adding up for me is why we are now getting this information in mid-April, and why the Prime Minister did not drill down to ensure that we had the security information that we have learned Peter Mandelson clearly breached.

[The Prime Minister]

It was at that point that I ordered the review of the security vetting, because I was concerned that it had failed. In fact, because of information I was not given, it had not failed; it had actually given the recommendation that clearance should be denied. The fact that when I ordered a review of UKSV, senior officials in the Foreign Office did not, at that stage if at no other stage, bring to my attention the information they had not told me is astonishing, 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.

[Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)]

Further to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), I think the Prime Minister owes it to the House to tell us what Sir Olly Robbins’s response to him was when he said he had overruled that advice. In my experience, senior officials are very keen to deliver on the wishes of Ministers, particularly a newly elected Prime Minister. My concern is that implicitly, as other Members have said, Sir Olly Robbins was responding to a desire from the Prime Minister, because it was perfectly clear in all the newspapers that there were allegations about Peter Mandelson, but the Prime Minister decided to proceed anyway. The official wished to deliver on the desire of the Minister, and that is why he overruled the advice. I fear that it gave the Prime Minister a degree of plausible deniability.

[The Prime Minister]

Let me answer that in relation to Sir Olly, and let me start by saying he has had a distinguished career. I must say that, and I do say that. Still, notwithstanding that, he should have provided this information to me, and he could have provided it to me. He is 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 could not provide this information to me because he was not allowed to provide the information to me. [Interruption.] Well, I do not want to put words in his mouth, because it is very important he gives his own evidence. In relation to the question that is being asked of me, when I said, “Why wasn’t this shared with me?” he did—[Interruption.] I have been asked what questions I put to him. I have been asked for the answer, and I am trying to give that answer. I am trying to give it without putting words into Olly Robbins’s mouth, because I do not think that it is fair of me to do so. 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 UKSV. No doubt he will be asked further questions about that; that is the reason that he gave to me.

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

There are 61 conflicts raging around the world, and I have never known international diplomatic relationships to be more fractured. The FCDO is pushing through 40% cuts of aid and 25% cuts of staff, all under the watch of the permanent secretary, so can I ask the Prime Minister what risk assessment was carried out before he was removed?

[The Prime Minister]

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.

[Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)]

The problem the Prime Minister has got is no one believes him. The public do not believe him, the MPs on this side of the House do not believe him and his own gullible Back Benchers do not believe him. So does the Prime Minister agree with me he has been lying?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sorry, but we do not use that word, and I am sure the Member will withdraw it.

[Lee Anderson]

Mr Speaker, I have the greatest respect for you and your office, but I will not withdraw: that man could not lie straight in bed.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Mr Anderson, you will have to leave.

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

When Sir Olly Robbins came before the Foreign Affairs Committee on 3 November last year, he was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Walton (Dan Carden) whether, in the context of vetting, Lord Mandelson’s appointment was escalated. Citing a need to maintain the integrity of the vetting system, Sir Olly replied:

“I certainly cannot comment on that, I’m afraid”.

Does the Prime Minister not find it perverse that, when specifically asked by Members of this Parliament about Mandelson’s vetting, Sir Olly declined to discuss the very topic we are now debating in this House?

[The Prime Minister]

I have read that evidence, and it remains my strong view that the recommendation of UKSV 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.

[Sir Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)]

Further to the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden), is it not pretty poor form that the Prime Minister shovels the blame for this particularly on to Olly Robbins, a fine and experienced civil servant, who was appointed two days after the Prime Minister’s Mandelson announcement? Surely, the buck stops at the top.

[The Prime Minister]

I say again that Sir Olly Robbins has had a distinguished career, and I have worked with him over a number of years. None the less, 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. It was because of that that I lost confidence in him. That does not mean he has not got a distinguished career; he does have a distinguished career.

[Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. I know he is aware that public confidence in politicians needs to drastically improve to retain the public’s trust. With that in mind, Reform has been accepting donations from millionaires in cryptocurrency, making it difficult to trace who actually funds it. Does the Prime Minister agree that Reform relying on millionaires’ dodgy cryptocurrency is a security risk?

[The Prime Minister]

We have taken a number of measures in relation to crypto—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. That is irrelevant. Let’s move on.

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

In the readout of the Prime Minister’s meeting on 15 April on vetting, it states:

“There is no evidence that the decision to grant DV despite the UKSV advice had been disclosed to anyone outside FCDO and UKSV”

until the vetting document itself was shared with the permanent secretary of the Cabinet Office. Is the Prime Minister therefore saying that neither the Chair of the Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security nor the National Security Adviser were aware of the security risk with our most important strategic ally until the vetting document itself was shared with Cat Little?

[The Prime Minister]

I understand that to be the case. Obviously—[Interruption.] No, I am only saying that it was not my decision to withhold it. I understand, if I have understood Sir Olly’s position correctly, that his argument is that he cannot share it, or he could not share it, with anyone. That is as I understand it. It certainly was not shared with the National Security Adviser and I do not think it was shared with anybody else. As far as I know, until it was seen by my officials—legal advice was taken—and then shown to me, it was not shared with anybody else.

[Gurinder Singh Josan (Smethwick) (Lab)]

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and for the clarity contained within it, and for his apology again. Despite the protestations of Opposition party leaders and Opposition Members, and including some Members on the Government Benches too, I am sure that everybody in this House agrees that the Government of the day should take the advice of our intelligence and vetting services and act on it. In view of everything we have heard—this is the fundamental question for me—how can the Government act on intelligence service and vetting advice if Ministers never get to receive that advice?

[The Prime Minister]

In many instances, it is the recommendation of UKSV that is effectively the final decision, so of course it is known. In the Foreign Office, there is the additional part of the process in which the final decision is, in fact, taken by Foreign Office officials rather than the recommendation of UKSV. That is what has now been suspended so that in the Foreign Office as well, the recommendation of UKSV is what matters.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

The Prime Minister knows 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. Does 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 and engaged on issues connected with the legacy of our troubled past with full security clearance, despite security service concerns; and that they continue to this day? 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 Anderson, the Northern Ireland police ombudsman: why she was appointed, why the security information was ignored, and how that can be the case?

[The Prime Minister]

I will ensure that the review covers all relevant issues and material, and I will take into account what the right hon. Gentleman has just said.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)]

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. 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?

[The Prime Minister]

Let me be clear. We have thousands of civil servants who act with integrity and professionalism every day and do the job to the very best of their ability. As I understand it, what Sir Olly is saying is that he believed that 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 the information. But I do not think that is any reason to suggest that across the civil service, people act for any improper motive.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

May 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 it was likely to be disclosed, or even if they thought that the result—the assessment of low, medium or high risk—was likely to be exposed. That is why the previous Labour Government wrote section 3 into the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010: in order to prohibit that disclosure. If the Prime Minister is saying that developed vetting information will now be available to Ministers on a routine basis, would he not be undermining the very process upon which we depend for our national security?

[The Prime Minister]

With respect, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman’s analysis. I certainly agree that the information that is provided into the process by the applicant has to be protected; as anybody who has been through the process will know, it is incredibly detailed and intrusive, and it is very important that individuals give full and truthful accounts for all the questions they are asked. That is why that information needs to be protected. I do not accept that that means that the recommendation of UKSV cannot be shared with Ministers, including the Prime Minister. I think there is a distinction between the two; I accept the first, but I utterly reject the second.

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

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. 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?

[The Prime Minister]

That is why I have asked for a review of the entire process: so that it can be looked at from start to finish, including the question of whether there should be any circumstances in which the recommendation of UKSV could not be followed.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

I am going to try again, because a number of right hon. and hon. Members have asked this question, and I am not quite sure I have heard an answer from the Prime Minister. Why did he choose to ignore the advice from the then Cabinet Secretary, Simon Case, to seek security vetting before confirming Peter Mandelson as his pick?

[The Prime Minister]

I understood the procedure to be that the appointment was made subject to the security vetting. [Interruption.] That is what I was told. The question the hon. Lady raises is the question I raised in September, which is why I asked Sir Chris Wormald to look at the process, and in particular at the advice in the letter from Simon Case, to answer the question of whether the process was followed, and he—[Interruption.] Well, he gave me the answer that he thought right, having concluded that process.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. For clarity, could he confirm to whom, and when, the UK Security Vetting report outcomes were made available? Could he also say what guidance is given to senior officials on matters that must be escalated to their Ministers?

[The Prime Minister]

The process was that UKSV informs the FCDO of its findings and its recommendation, and then there is an escalation process, which is part of the process in the sense that it is for the FCDO, in these particular cases, to make the final decision, which is what it did in this case.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

Can I return to the nub of what this is about? The Prime Minister knew, as we all knew, of the representations about who should be the ambassador—in this case, a man who had been sacked twice out of Cabinet but, more than that, a man whose clear links with Chinese companies and whose meetings with Xi were in the public domain at the time, as were his time at Sistema, where he stayed after the invasion in 2014, and his meetings with Putin. There was also, of course, his relationship with Deripaska, who was negotiating on the tax levels and tariffs on aluminium when he was the EU commissioner responsible. With all that going on at the time of the Prime Minister’s announcement of that man into the ambassadorial position, why did he think he did not know something about him? The Prime Minister knew that he was corrupt, he was corrupting and he was the wrong choice. Surely that is why the Prime Minister overturned Case’s advice to have the review before he made the decision.

[The Prime Minister]

No, that is not the case. The judgment call to appoint him was my judgment call. That was an error and I have apologised for it, particularly to the victims of Epstein. The developed vetting process was carried out in the way I have indicated to the House. I should have been told at the time of the recommendation. Had I been told, I would not have made the appointment.

[Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)]

Today’s statement may well be about process and procedure, but surely the real issue for the Prime Minister is why, when Peter Mandelson’s reputation was already known, he was ever considered for such an important role.

[The Prime Minister]

I have accepted that that was my decision and I have apologised for it.

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

The Prime Minister says it is “staggering” and “unforgiveable” that he was not told about the vetting, but what is really staggering and unforgiveable is that he appointed Peter Mandelson before the vetting—that he appointed Peter Mandelson knowing about his friendship with the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein. What is unforgiveable is that the Prime Minister was more concerned with pandering to Donald Trump than with standing with the victims and survivors. The Prime Minister has not accepted a simple “sorry” from his civil servant—he thinks that is inadequate. The country thinks that a simple “sorry” is inadequate from him. Will he take personal responsibility for his staggering and unforgiveable errors of judgment—and resign?

[The Prime Minister]

I have set out to the House the facts of what happened in this particular case. I am staggered and I find it unbelievable that I was not given the information I should have been given.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister made the political decision to appoint Peter Mandelson, but central to that decision, along with other decisions about policy and political position, would have been the Prime Minister’s former chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney. Can the Prime Minister confirm to the House whether Morgan McSweeney passed all his security vetting and whether he ever handled documents for which he had anything other than the appropriate level of clearance?

[The Prime Minister]

All the appropriate and necessary developed vetting has taken place in No. 10. Everybody has passed that. [Interruption.] They have all passed it.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

If, as we have been assured, there was no law that prevented the permanent under-secretary from telling the Prime Minister the outcome of Mandelson’s developed vetting, then presumably by the same token there was no law that prevented the Prime Minister from asking. Can he be very clear with the House on one point? Did he as Prime Minister ever ask the question, “Did Mandelson fail his vetting?” and if he did ask that question, who did he ask it of and when did he ask it?

[The Prime Minister]

Peter Mandelson was given developed vetting clearance. That was the clear position.

[Mr Francois]

Come on.

[The Prime Minister]

He was given clearance—those are the facts as I have set them out.

[Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister has always behaved with the utmost integrity and honour when dealing with this House, and he is an eminent lawyer who understands the consequences of deliberately coming to the House to mislead Parliament. On top of that, he also understands the likelihood of a paper trail unravelling such a deception, so it is inconceivable that he would intentionally mislead this House. But does he agree with me that all the documents relevant to this matter must be made public in accordance with the Humble Address that was passed on 4 February and that no Ministers or officials should engage in trying to prevent any of the documents from being made public?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, we will comply with the Humble Address in full. That is the process that is going on.

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

The Prime Minister said today, “I know that many Members across this House will find these facts to be incredible.” He is right: we do—along with his staggering lack of curiosity and his inability to take on board warnings about his good friend Peter Mandelson. 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, including that he was fired twice from Government, had business dealings in Russia and China, and had maintained a relationship with Epstein after his imprisonment for paedophilia. The Prime Minister knew this but appointed him anyway. Why, Prime Minister, why?

[The Prime Minister]

Peter Mandelson was asked various questions on the back of the due diligence exercise and he did not tell the truth in his answers. The decision to appoint him was an error: it was my error, and I have apologised for it.

[Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)]

It is accepted by many on the Government Benches that the Prime Minister did not know the outcome of the vetting, but the Cabinet Secretary came forward on Tuesday, having spent a month researching whether or not she could provide the advice that she did, so she had clearly thought very carefully about the information that she brought forward. The Prime Minister then launched an investigation, rather than coming straight to the House with the information that she had provided. Was that because the information was insufficient to present to the House? If so, when was the Prime Minister planning to come to the House?

[The Prime Minister]

It was insufficient because all it told me was that the recommendation of UKSV was to deny the clearance. What it did not tell me was who then provided the clearance, why they did it and who knew about it. They were questions that the House would obviously want to raise with me, which is why I urgently asked for those facts to be established: so that I could come to the House and provide the full account that I have provided to the House.

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

Developed vetting should be carried out before someone has “frequent and uncontrolled access” to top-secret material or any access to top-secret or coded—otherwise known as STRAP—material. The Prime Minister has promised full transparency, so I ask him these three questions. Did Peter Mandelson have access to any top-secret or STRAP material before his DV clearance on 29 January? Did Peter Mandelson have any restrictions placed on his access to top-secret or STRAP material during his time in Washington? If so, has the Prime Minister assured himself that Mandelson did not leak any of this material, just as he leaked commercially confidential material to Jeffrey Epstein under Gordon Brown?

[The Prime Minister]

I do not understand that he had access to STRAP material before he took up his post as ambassador. 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.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)]

We all find it staggering that someone can fail their security vetting and still be appointed to such a sensitive and critical role. It is even more staggering that the Prime Minister was not informed of that failure. I agree with what the Prime Minister said: he did not need to know the details, but he did need to know that Mandelson had failed the security vetting. My question to the Prime Minister is about the detail. If people did not know what the security concerns were of Peter Mandelson, how could any Minister, official or state deal with him on sensitive security issues? I understand that the Prime Minister is doing an inquiry into that, but it is very important that Parliament has oversight of the issue, because I am very concerned that there has been another failure there—the failure to manage our security interests.

[The Prime Minister]

In a case such as this—in relation to such a sensitive post—I do not think it is right that somebody should be appointed at all if the UKSV recommends that clearance is not given. That would be my position.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

When I was privileged to serve as Security Minister, the Prime Minister was my shadow. As we dealt with matters of the most significant national security, he was straightforward with me, as I was with him, so I hope that he will answer this straightforward question. The Humble Address made it clear that the Intelligence and Security Committee will see any material related to national security or international relations. In the course of the Committee’s work, we have liaised with the Cabinet Office, clearly. When did the Cabinet Office know about this failure in vetting, who knew, and why did they not bring that material to the Committee when they found it? We had not received it when the Prime Minister found out that the vetting had failed, yet others must have known that it had failed.

[The Prime Minister]

The situation was that, as part of the work being done on the Humble Address, this information came to light. Senior officials immediately took legal advice on whether it could be disclosed. Having got that legal advice, they immediately disclosed it to me. I think that was the proper process, and I think it has now been disclosed to the Committee—albeit, I think, on the Thursday rather than the Tuesday. That was the process. Just to defend that process, I do think it was right for the senior officials, having got that information, to get legal advice on whether they could disclose it, and who to. As soon as they got that advice, they brought it to my attention.

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

Peter Mandelson’s conduct has disgraced himself and, by extension, brought shame upon the two Houses of which he was formerly a Member. Does the Prime Minister agree that the famous Armstrong memorandum on the conduct of the civil service was correct and holds true today, as it says that

“it is the duty of the civil servant to make available to the Minister all the information and experience at his or her disposal which may have a bearing on the policy decisions to which the Minister is committed or…preparing to make, and to give to the Minister honest and impartial advice, without fear or favour, and whether the advice accords with the Minister’s view or not”?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, I do agree with that. That is why this information could and should have been shared with me at the first opportunity—and that was before Peter Mandelson took up his post as ambassador.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

The Prime Minister is hiding behind a thicket of legalese and procedure, but he has a track record of appointing Labour’s most favoured sons and daughters to plum Government jobs and into the House of Lords. In Wales, we know all about Labour’s crony culture—who could forget UK Labour’s favourite First Minister, Vaughan Gething, who was propped up by No. 10 in spite of dodgy donations and is now tipped for a peerage? On the timing, how will the Prime Minister explain to his party his role in bringing down Labour’s century of dominance in Wales in the forthcoming elections?

[The Prime Minister]

I am addressing the question about the process in relation to Peter Mandelson. I have set that out in some detail to the House and answered a number of questions.

[Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

In December 2024, the Prime Minister said in announcing Peter Mandelson as US ambassador that he had “unrivalled experience”. That was despite the gravity of what was known about Peter Mandelson’s record and available publicly. 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, needed to progress and had to happen—however it happened—because of Mandelson’s role in the Prime Minister’s own leadership campaign and because it served the interests of one particular faction in the Labour party?

[The Prime Minister]

I do not accept that that is a reason for withholding from me the information about security clearance.

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

The result of the Prime Minister’s terrible failure of judgment is that for over a year this country’s interests were represented in the United States by someone that our own security services deemed to be a security risk. Will he assure us that an investigation will take place into all aspects where our national security may have been damaged, and that the results of that will be made available to the Intelligence and Security Committee and, where possible, to Parliament?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, I will.

[Tahir Ali (Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley) (Lab)]

I believe that there are two sides to this. One is about process, and the other is about judgment. On process, I believe that the Prime Minister was not told about the security vetting clearance, and that, had he known, he would have sacked Peter Mandelson. We do not have a problem with that. The problem is this: why was he not told that, and who is actually running the country? Are other Ministers being kept in the dark by civil servants? On the issue of judgment, it was completely wrong to put Mandelson forward as an ambassador in the first place. Will the Prime Minister write to me this week confirming that in all the political appointments that have been made, no one is in position who has failed the advanced security vetting process?

[The Prime Minister]

That is included in the review that I have set up, and as soon as I have the findings I will share them with the House.

[Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)]

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. What I cannot 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. He has talked a lot today about what he did not know and what he was not told. Well, he knew that Mandelson had a serious human frailty for other people’s wealth. We knew that Mandelson was involved with the Russians. We knew that Mandelson was sacked twice as a Government Minister. Can the Prime Minister explain what Mandelson’s actual qualities were that he was pursuing for the role as US ambassador, and what steps he has taken to contain the serious and measurable breach in national security that his appointment of Peter Mandelson facilitated?

[The Prime Minister]

I have made it clear that it was an error to appoint Peter Mandelson. There is a review going on into any security issues that may arise.

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

I welcome the Prime Minister saying that he should not have appointed Peter Mandelson. In November, in the Foreign Affairs Committee, I asked who saw the vetting and was told this by Sir Olly Robbins:

“Obviously, the vast majority of those are relatively straightforward. Ones that require more senior judgment, and potentially a discussion about managing and mitigating risks, are escalated appropriately.”

Questions being asked by the Foreign Secretary, by Ministers or by officials in No. 10 should have been a signal to the civil servants to escalate this matter, given the controversial nature of this political appointment. Were concerns about links to Epstein, to other countries or to anything else raised in conversations with Peter Mandelson, just before the time of the appointment, that would have signalled that civil servants should escalate this?

[The Prime Minister]

There were two different processes. One was the due diligence process carried out by the Cabinet Office, in which Peter Mandelson was asked questions. Separately, there was the developed vetting process in which the recommendation of UKSV was not shared with me until Tuesday evening.

[Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

It seems to me that there are two different ways in which a Minister can inadvertently mislead this House: one is by the things that they say, and the other is by the things that they do not say. That is why I am particularly interested in the letter from Lord Case that my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) raised, because it seems to have been written to the Prime Minister in November 2024, advising that a political appointment to an ambassadorial role ought to be preceded by full security vetting before being announced. It was announced by the Prime Minister in December 2024. Did he write that he wanted his decision to be subject to Peter Mandelson passing the full security vetting? What did he write on his box note?

[The Prime Minister]

I understood it to be subject to developed vetting, but it was because of the process that, in September 2025, I asked Chris Wormald to do a review for me of the process, and he did that by reference back to the Simon Case letter.

[Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)]

I am sure that the Prime Minister is aware of the damage that this saga has done to public trust in politics and in politicians. However, will he confirm that his focus and that of his Government is on the issues that matter most to my constituents in Banbury, in particular tackling the cost of living?

[The Prime Minister]

Absolutely, my focus and that of the Government is on the fact that we are facing a war on two fronts, with serious consequences for our country, and that we absolutely need to deal with the cost of living, which is the No. 1 issue for all our constituents up and down the country.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

How did views from the United States Administration affect the decision in the Foreign Office to persist with Mandelson as UK ambassador to Washington DC after the vetting advice was received there?

[The Prime Minister]

I do not believe that they did. This was UK security vetting carried out in the way I have described to the House. The issue is that the recommendation was not shared with me. That was a matter here in the United Kingdom.

[Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab)]

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. Could he update the House on the proposed legislation to remove peerages from disgraced peers such as Peter Mandelson, who has fallen so far below what is expected of those serving in the House of Lords?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, I made a commitment in relation to that legislation, and work is progressing on it.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

At the risk of stating the obvious, the Prime Minister has based his defence today and over this whole sorry saga on his claim that he was not told that Mandelson failed security vetting. In fact, he said 11 times in his statement that he was not told. How many times and on which specific dates did he himself directly ask for that information?

[The Prime Minister]

It is not a claim that I was not told; I was not told, and I do not think anybody is disputing that. The clearance was given on 29 January 2025. That information was not provided to me. In September, I did ask specifically about the process. Sir Chris Wormald had made it clear to me that, in carrying out that review, he was not told about the security clearance recommendation that was made. I think on both occasions that information should have been provided, both to me and to the then Cabinet Secretary.

[Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)]

In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Sarah Russell), the Prime Minister said that he delayed coming to this House so that he could answer, among other questions, why UKSV was overruled. It seems wholly incredible that this decision was made on a personal whim by a senior civil servant. Is it not that it was made because of political pressure from No. 10 to advance a man who a particular faction of the Labour party has looked to for moral and spiritual leadership for years? Can the Prime Minister explicitly now confirm his understanding of why the decision to overrule UKSV was made?

[The Prime Minister]

I do not accept that the view of anyone about Peter Mandelson provides an explanation for not providing me with the information that the recommendation was not to grant him security clearance. We are talking about a very serious issue on a very sensitive case. I clearly should have been given that information whatever the pressures, which are always there in government every day.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Reform)]

The Prime Minister’s aides have briefed that “angry Starmer” is “furious”, but why is it that he only ever seems to get angry when trying to save his own skin? Is he not angry about the 600 men who crossed the English channel on small boats on Saturday? Is he not angry about the people who are queuing for fuel at the forecourts and cannot afford the Chancellor’s taxes? Is not the truth that his Government are now so paralysed that their only agenda is cleaning up the mess left by the paedophile pal Peter Mandelson?

[The Prime Minister]

I think any Minister, of any Government, who had not been provided with this relevant information would rightly be frustrated and angry.

[Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)]

I want to take a moment to focus on the young women who were exploited, abused and raped by Jeffrey Epstein and his friends. For years they were trafficked for rape, with no one to turn to, and for years people did not believe them. The idea that Mandelson would call Epstein’s conviction “wrongful” is disgusting, and I cannot imagine how it felt for the survivors to hear that. The Prime Minister was right to sack him. Will he take this opportunity to say again to those young women that this House believes them and the Government stand by them, and is he confident that no person with financial or personal links to sex traffickers will receive developed vetting status in future?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right to focus on the victims in this. I started this statement by making it clear that this was a judgment error on my part, and the apology that I have made is to the victims, because I know the impact that this will have had on them, who have already suffered so very much.

[Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition asked this question, but I do not believe that she received a response. Was the Prime Minister aware that Peter Mandelson was a director of Sistema before he was appointed?

[The Prime Minister]

I acted on the information that was provided to me in the due diligence process. The information that was dealt with in the security vetting process was not made available to me—nor can that detail be made available to me. It is the recommendation that should have been made available to me.

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

One of the things that I find most difficult to understand in this process is why, when this scandal erupted in September of last year, before the Prime Minister made statements in this place and elsewhere—statements that he must have known would have involved talking about the vetting—he did not simply order officials to share the vetting information with him. Why did he not do so, and does he regret it?

[The Prime Minister]

I did ask Sir Chris Wormald to carry out a review. I worked on the basis that all the relevant information would be shared with him. It was only last week that I found out from Sir Chris that he himself had not been provided with information that he should have been provided with when he was carrying out the review on my behalf.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

Can I take the Prime Minister back to the question asked by the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott)? She asked quite simply why the Prime Minister did not ask any questions whatsoever about the nature of the security clearing that Mandelson had achieved or why there was any doubt about him. Was the Prime Minister so obsessed with his determination to appoint that tainted figure to be ambassador to Washington that he ignored the rest, and the officials just went along with it? Why did he not ask the simple straight question?

[The Prime Minister]

Peter Mandelson was given security clearance, and that was clear to everyone, including myself. [Interruption.] He was given clearance; he was cleared. He would not have started the role if he had not been given clearance. As soon as it came to my attention last week that that was against the recommendation of UKSV, I asked for the information that I have now put before the House.

[Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)]

We all agree that Peter Mandelson should never have been appointed. The Prime Minister has said that clearly and consistently, and has taken responsibility, including by apologising. That is the right thing to do. Can he give further assurance that the Government will continue to comply in full with the Humble Address?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, I can give that assurance. We will.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

The Prime Minister has said various things about Peter Mandelson’s vetting process over the past weeks and months that have now turned out not to be true. Does he accept that he inadvertently misled the House of Commons?

[The Prime Minister]

No, I did not mislead the House of Commons. I accept that information that I should have had, and that the House should have had, should have been before the House, but I did not mislead the House, and that is why I have set out the account in full.

[Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)]

The Bloomberg files, which caused the Prime Minister to sack Peter Mandelson, revealed that Mandelson had been leaking confidential Government information to a convicted paedophile during Gordon Brown’s Government. Mandelson will have had access to highly sensitive and top secret documents in his role as ambassador to Washington, so given his previous behaviour, has there been any investigation by the Government or the security services of potential leaks during his tenure?

[The Prime Minister]

That is why I have asked for a review to be carried out in relation to material that could have caused any national security issues.

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

On 12 September, it was revealed in The Independent that Mandelson did not pass vetting by MI6, and therefore by UKSV. On 16 September, in this Chamber, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) made the same claim in the presence of the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty). On hearing that information, did the Minister or the Prime Minister feel the need to ask whether that specific claim was true? The response given was that DV clearance was “granted by the FCDO”. As a KC, how did the Prime Minister not see the clear difference between the question that was asked, and the answer that was given? Does he agree that, in his own words, his explanation “beggars belief”?

[The Prime Minister]

At various points questions were asked, and questions were put to the FCDO. The answer back was the same, because it took the view that it was not information it could share with anyone, including myself.

[Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

Earlier today, NBC released an interview with hospice worker Rachel Benavidez, who was 22 years old when she became one of the victims of Jeffrey Epstein’s abuse. For 27 years she has been waiting for the crimes committed against her to be recognised, and as she told NBC:

“Until we are heard, until survivors are heard and believed, then I don’t think there’s ever going to be justice.”

Does the Prime Minister agree that we owe it to the hundreds of victims like Rachel to put them first in these debates, not political point scoring, and that he was absolutely right to sack someone like Peter Mandelson, who refused to believe those victims, and if he did, did not care?

[The Prime Minister]

I do agree with my hon. Friend, and I thank her for making sure that the victims are central to this, as they should be.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

The Prime Minister has now been on his feet for nearly two hours. May I put it to him that the most charitable explanation that could be put forward to explain this sorry saga, is that it has been a bad, probably terminal case of the three wise monkeys: see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil?

[The Prime Minister]

I have set out the procedure in some detail. Information should have been provided to me. It was not provided to me. If it had been provided, I would not have allowed the appointment of Peter Mandelson to proceed in the way that it did.

[Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

As we have heard, it is staggering that vital information on UKSV recommendations can be withheld from Ministers taking decisions. Can the Prime Minister assure the House that in the review he is commissioning, we examine whether there are any other instances in which UKSV recommends against granting DV status, during not just this Government but over the last 14 years? That has the potential to have very serious security implications.

[The Prime Minister]

I think that needs to be subject to the review, and that is among the reasons why I put the review in place.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

It must be clear to the Prime Minister that many of us in this House are totally scunnered with this whole mess, although that is nothing compared with what I am being told on the doors in Scotland by voters who feel that they expected, and that they were right to expect, more from this Government after what they were promised. We have focused on process today, but the Prime Minister would not have had to come here and stand at the Dispatch Box to answer all these questions if he had not made the decision, which he accepts was wrong, to appoint Peter Mandelson. That is the root of this whole thing. Having accepted responsibility, what does the Prime Minister think the consequence should be for that, and how do we restore faith?

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. A lot of Members are still trying to catch my eye, so can I help the Prime Minister and everybody in the Chamber? Please help each other; let us speed up the questions.

[The Prime Minister]

I have accepted the error of judgment on my behalf, but I was not provided with information. Had I been provided with it, I would not have made the appointment.

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)]

This morning the Secretary of State for Scotland said that to deal with an “unconventional” US Administration, we needed an “unconventional ambassador”. Prime Minister, does “unconventional” now mean appointing a man to a senior position when we know his lies, corruption and misconduct had allowed corruption at the very heart of our democracy? Will the Prime Minister tell us when he first knew about the evidence and the advice—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Please, let us get other people in.

[The Prime Minister]

I first knew last Tuesday, as I have set out to the House.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

For the third time of asking, at the time when the Prime Minister appointed Peter Mandelson as ambassador, was he aware that Mandelson had been a director of Sistema?

[The Prime Minister]

I was aware of what was in the due diligence—I have dealt with that—but I was not aware of the issues that were dealt with in the security vetting, nor the recommendation of UKSV.

[Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

Mandelson’s appointment was a huge failure of the British state, and I welcome the Prime Minister’s candour in accepting his responsibility for his part in it. Does the Prime Minister agree that restoring public trust is a mammoth task that requires leaders on all sides to be careful with their language and to ensure that they understand the processes that they are talking about, rather than throw about baseless accusations of “lying”?

[The Prime Minister]

I do agree with that.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

The Prime Minister has been absolutely clear that he should have been shown the recommendation of UKSV. He knew he had not seen it, so why did he not ask for it?

[The Prime Minister]

The first I knew that there had been a recommendation to deny clearance was Tuesday evening of last week. The security clearance had been given by the Foreign Office before Peter Mandelson took up the post. As soon as it came to my attention, I sought the information that I have put before the House today.

[Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)]

Members of the public watching this matter will have been baffled by all the speculation about who said what and when, so I thank the Prime Minister for his calm and clear answers today. No Prime Minister wants to be or should be in a situation like this, where governmental processes mean that critical information is not brought to the attention of Ministers, so I welcome the Fulford review. Will the Prime Minister look at the wider relationship between Ministers and civil servants, so that trust can be restored?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, I will look at that. I want to assert again that thousands of civil servants act with professionalism and integrity every day. On this occasion, this information should have been brought to my attention. Had it been, the appointment would not have been proceeded with.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

During this Session of Parliament, we have seen the head of the Office for Budget Responsibility carry the can and resign due to an error by a member of his team. What will it take for this Prime Minister to carry the can?

[The Prime Minister]

I was not provided with the information that I should have been provided with. Had I been provided with it, I would not have made the same decision. It was not negligence; it was a deliberate decision not to tell me.

[Natalie Fleet (Bolsover) (Lab)]

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement, and I thank him even more for his apology about the appointment of Peter Madndelson. Speaking in the Chamber today, I want to once again commit to the record the words of Virginia Giuffre, which are particularly relevant to Peter Mandelson:

“Don't be fooled by those in Epstein's circle who say they didn't know what Epstein was doing. Anyone who spent any significant amount of time with Epstein saw him touching girls in ways you wouldn’t want a creepy old man touching your daughter. They can say they didn’t know he was raping children. But they were not blind.”

There is consensus among Members from across the House that we need to get to the bottom of this. I accept that the Prime Minister did not know about the security vetting, but can he update the House on when we can have the next tranche of documents from the Humble Address, so that we can get to the bottom of who did know what and when?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for her campaigning on behalf of those victims and many other victims in relation to abuse and sexual abuse in particular and for her insistence always that we must put the victims first. We are complying with the Humble Address as quickly as possible, and we will comply with it fully.

[Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)]

In a Foreign Affairs Committee meeting in November last year, I asked Sir Oliver Robbins whether the Foreign Office had a different view about who should be recommended for the posting of ambassador. Sir Oliver Robbins said to me that

“the Prime Minister took advice and formed a view himself, and we then acted on that view.”

Is it not the case that the Prime Minister was repeatedly warned before the appointment that Peter Mandelson carried reputational and political risk, including that due diligence was not exhaustive and vetting was not yet complete, yet he chose to proceed regardless, announcing the appointment, overriding civil service advice and putting our national security at risk?

[The Prime Minister]

I simply do not accept that there is any good reason why I could not have been provided with the information that was withheld from me. Had it been provided to me, I would not have proceeded with the appointment.

[Alison Taylor (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)]

I thank the Prime Minister for such a clear and comprehensive statement, and I am sure that the whole House is grateful to him for it. In listening to the Conservatives, the old adage about throwing stones in glass houses comes to mind; I do not think there are enough glass houses in Scotland to replace the ones that they are breaking today. However, having set the record straight, does the Prime Minister agree that it is now time to return to the important business of Government in preserving the country’s peace and security?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, I agree. The absolute focus needs to be on the fact that we are facing a war on two fronts and a cost of living crisis that this Government are gripping.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

The Prime Minister has told us that the Cabinet Secretary gave him bad advice, Peter Mandelson lied to him and the Foreign Office did not tell him anything. He is really in danger of being known as the mushroom Prime Minister: he is kept in the dark and fed—I do not know if I am allowed to say it, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

No, you’re not!

[Sammy Wilson]

I will not say it.

Is it not the case that the Prime Minister wished to remain in the dark? He knew in September that there was a security vetting, yet he never asked about it until April. Surely that is an indication that he was quite happy to be kept in the dark, because he had made his mind up anyway.

[The Prime Minister]

No. What I did was ask for the process to be reviewed, and Sir Chris Wormald carried out that review. What transpired last week was that information was withheld from him in the review, so I asked for the review. I did ask the questions, and he gave me his conclusions, but neither he nor I knew that he too was not told the relevant material in the course of that review.

[Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)]

I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement. I have sat here and listened today to one Conservative Member after another preaching at us about standards of honesty and integrity. Will the Prime Minister remind us whether these are the same Conservatives who voted to change the rules on standards investigations in November 2021 just to get their colleague Owen Paterson off the hook? Will he also remind us whether the Leader of the Opposition chose to abstain in that debate?

[The Prime Minister]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. That is not relevant, don’t worry.

[Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)]

I suspect that most reasonable people have concluded that if the Prime Minister knew and inadvertently misled Parliament, he should resign. If he did not know, he is running an incompetent, shambolic Government and really should resign. If he was lied to yet again, he is simply too gullible and lacking in basic curiosity to serve as Prime Minister. Is he so detached from reality that he is the only person who cannot see that?

[The Prime Minister]

The information was withheld from me and from the Cabinet Secretary, who was conducting a review on my behalf. That became clear yesterday, and I have set out the facts to Parliament.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

On 4 February, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister:

“did the official security vetting that he received mention Mandelson’s ongoing relationship with… Jeffrey Epstein?”—[Official Report, 4 February 2026; Vol. 780, c. 259.]

The Prime Minister replied, “Yes, it did.” What on earth was it that the Prime Minister received and was talking about that my right hon. Friend referred to as the official security vetting? He said that he had received it.

[The Prime Minister]

The due diligence report.

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

I have a degree of sympathy for the Prime Minister, I truly do, because he has set out very succinctly how he followed the processes and procedures. However, as members of the Bar, we are taught at a very embryonic stage in our profession that if you take on a client and there is something suspicious, you contact the ethics line. As a member of the Bar and a King’s Counsel, that would have been a trait that the Prime Minister was all too familiar with, so can he answer the basic question for the British public of why he did not take that basic step?

[The Prime Minister]

Peter Mandelson was granted developed vetting clearance by the Foreign Office before he took up the post. It was only last Tuesday that I found out that that was against the recommendation of UKSV.

[Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

The Times reported last week that the Prime Minister repeatedly sought assurances from the FCDO that Peter Mandelson had passed security vetting. Is this correct, and when did he seek those assurances?

[The Prime Minister]

Peter Mandelson got DV clearance before he took up his post as ambassador. That clearance was given by the Foreign Office. I found out that that was against the recommendation on Tuesday evening of last week.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

I have two quick questions. First, was the decision not to give Mandelson DV the view of the head of security in the FCDO, or only that of Olly Robbins? Secondly, what information did the Prime Minister know after sacking Peter Mandelson that made him change the appointment process so that

“now an appointment cannot be announced until after security vetting is passed”?

It seems odd to me that this decision was made if the Prime Minister did not know that Peter Mandelson had failed the vetting process, so what key information did the Prime Minister know then that made him review the appointment process?

[The Prime Minister]

The decision to grant clearance was made by the FCDO. In September, it became clear to me that the answers to the due diligence that Peter Mandelson had given were not truthful, and that is why I set in place the various reviews that I did and also changed the approach in relation to when developed vetting checks are carried out.

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)]

Is the Prime Minister really saying that in the appointment of Peter Mandelson, he did not himself consider that there might be issues with his vetting process, given his track record? Is it not even more incredible that he then did not query whether there had been any issues with that vetting process?

[The Prime Minister]

The fact of the matter is that Peter Mandelson was given developed vetting clearance before he took up his post as the ambassador, and that was a decision that was taken by the FCDO.

[Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Your Party)]

In September, the Prime Minister stood at that Dispatch Box and told the House that he had full confidence in Peter Mandelson, a man whose relationship with convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein was public knowledge. The Prime Minister knew, and backed him anyway; now, he claims he had no idea that this twice-fired Government Minister had failed MI6 vetting, despite journalists putting that directly to Downing Street that very same month. We all know that the Prime Minister appointed Mandelson because he owes his job to him. He appointed him, he defended him, and now he claims to know nothing. He is gaslighting the nation, so let us call this out for what it is: the Prime Minister is a barefaced liar, and if he had any decency left—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Leave now—I will name you otherwise. I would go now, if I were you.

[Zarah Sultana]

Mr Speaker, I have a duty—

[Mr Speaker]

I am about to name you. I have given you the option to leave—I would leave if I were you, very quickly. Move before I read this out; I am giving you one option.

[Zarah Sultana]

I have a duty—

[Mr Speaker]

You have no duties. I have a duty to carry out, which is to control this House. One chance—do you want to leave now, or not?

[Zarah Sultana]

Mr Speaker, I have a duty to the House and my constituents to also tell the truth that the Prime Minister is a liar.

[Mr Speaker]

Right—I call the Whip to move the motion.

Zarah Sultana, Member for Coventry South, was named by Mr Speaker for disregarding the authority of the Chair (Standing Order No. 44).

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 44), That Zarah Sultana be suspended from the service of the House.—(Gen Kitchen.)

Question agreed to.

Mr Speaker directed Zarah Sultana to withdraw from the House, and the Member withdrew accordingly.

[Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)]

Seven months ago, a national newspaper ran the story that Mandelson had failed security vetting, so how is it even possible that no one in No. 10 knew until last week?

[The Prime Minister]

A number of inquiries were made, questions were asked of the FCDO, and the answer they gave was the same. They did not disclose to me or anyone in No. 10 that UKSV had advised and recommended against clearance.

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

When the Prime Minister asked his officials in January 2025, as he surely did—perhaps with an element of surprise in his voice—“So, Peter actually passed his security clearance, did he?”, what was the scenario that then unfolded? Did Sir Olly Robbins declare, “I’m sorry, I can’t tell you, Prime Minister, I’m not at liberty to say”? Did he actively seek to mislead the Prime Minister by simply saying “Yes, Prime Minister”, or, as seems more likely, did that scenario never take place because the Prime Minister never thought to ask?

[The Prime Minister]

What happened in January was that developed vetting clearance was given by the Foreign Office. That was the simple fact of the matter. It was only last week that I found out the further circumstances that I have now set out to the House.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

In the box note to the Prime Minister dated 11 November 2024, the former Cabinet Secretary, Simon Case, advised the Prime Minister that before announcing a political appointee, he should get security clearance. The Prime Minister ignored that advice. The Prime Minister’s response in that box note is redacted, so I ask him a very simple question: what was his answer on that box note, and will he publish what he said?

[The Prime Minister]

I have made it clear that my position was that the appointment was subject to developed vetting. I cannot in all conscience remember what exactly has been redacted. [Interruption.] The hon. Member is asking me about what was in a redacted note. I understood that the process had been subject to developed vetting. That is why I asked Chris Wormald to look at the process and reference back to Simon Case.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

I am running this for 10 more minutes and then that is it.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

The Foreign Office raised severe concerns regarding Peter Mandelson’s links with Epstein, Russia and China in the due diligence report that the Prime Minister received before the appointment was announced. The Prime Minister, however, brushed those concerns aside and announced Mandelson as ambassador none the less. Given what the due diligence exercise had already flagged, it was surely predictable that Mandelson would fail security vetting for those reasons, but No. 10 had already told the Foreign Office, before Sir Olly Robbins had taken up his post, to proceed with the appointment. Notwithstanding these issues, that is exactly what he did by putting in place the safeguards. Can the Prime Minister please explain why he has sacked a loyal and brilliant public servant?

[The Prime Minister]

Because he did not bring to my attention information that he should have brought to my attention. Had he done so, I would not have made the appointment.

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

The Prime Minister dissembles over what he knew about Sistema and Mandelson, but the Cabinet Office due diligence report sent to the Prime Minister on 11 December 2024 stated:

“Mandelson served as a non-executive director of the Russian conglomerate Sistema, which is itself the majority shareholder of RTI, a defence technology company…Mandelson remained on the board until June 2017, long after Putin’s annexation of Crimea in 2014.”

Will the Prime Minister finally confirm that he knew that Mandelson was a director of Sistema long after the invasion of Crimea, but appointed him anyway?

[The Prime Minister]

As I have made clear, I did know what was in the due diligence report, and I have made that clear to the House a number of times today. I have actually made it clear to the House on previous occasions.

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

My concern is that this Prime Minister will run out of buses before he runs out of people to throw under them. The issue is this. The Prime Minister has said:

“I never turn on my staff and you should never turn on your staff.”

Well, we have Sue Gray scapegoated, Tim Allan canned, Sir Chris Wormald forced out, Morgan McSweeney axed and now Olly Robbins sacked. Will the Prime Minister accept that the buck stops with him? This is his fault. He should do the honourable thing.

[The Prime Minister]

The information was withheld from me by the FCDO in the circumstances I have set out to the House.

[Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)]

My question to the Prime Minister is straightforward: did Morgan McSweeney or any of the Prime Minister’s advisers—past or present—know about this issue before last Thursday?

[The Prime Minister]

No.

[Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)]

To override the outcome of the developed vetting process, the FCDO must have been under pressure from someone. Ditching a tried and tested ambassador for a high-risk one seems odd behaviour for a Prime Minister who claims to be so fond of proper process. Whose idea was it, and who was applying the pressure?

[The Prime Minister]

I reject the idea that any pressure is a good reason not to disclose to the Prime Minister that UKSV recommended against clearance for a very senior, sensitive appointment. I simply do not accept that that is an adequate reason, whatever the pressure.

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

The Prime Minister is suggesting that the idea that the security services had concerns about this appointment was a bolt from the blue to him two weeks ago, despite the fact it had been on the front page of a national newspaper in September. However, my question is not about the vetting file, because we all know the answer that the Prime Minister is going to give on that. This is separate from the vetting file. Was he at any stage made aware of any element of the security services raising concerns about the appointment of Mandelson?

[The Prime Minister]

No. What I knew was that security clearance had been given by the Foreign Office, in the way that I have set out to the House.

[Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)]

My constituents in Lagan Valley, and others across the Northern Ireland and throughout the UK, will be disgusted that we have spent such an amount of time discussing this issue, when it should have been put to the fore the first time it appeared in the press. Does the Prime Minister understand that every time we do this and go through this, we destroy the reputation of this place, no matter who is in the Government of the day? His party does not even stand for election in my neck of the woods, so this is not party political. It is about protecting the reputation of this place. Does the Prime Minister understand?

[The Prime Minister]

That is why I wanted to give the House all the relevant information, which I have given at some length this afternoon.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

We have now established that the Prime Minister did indeed know that Peter Mandelson had been a director of Sistema when he appointed him. Why on earth would the Prime Minister be so reckless with our national security as to do that?

[The Prime Minister]

I have made it clear that I knew what was in the due diligence. I have also made it clear that the FCDO granted security clearance before Peter Mandelson took up his post.

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

There is a simple question to which we still do not have an answer. Did Peter Mandelson fail his vetting procedure because of his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, or was there some other reason as yet undisclosed?

[The Prime Minister]

The information that was fed into the review, and the reasons for the review, are protected. This is not a Peter Mandelson issue; it is about the integrity of the process. What I do not accept is that that means I cannot be told the recommendation that comes out of it.

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

I wonder whether the Prime Minister knew the difference between the due diligence information from the Cabinet Office and the security vetting that had not taken place when he appointed Peter Mandelson on 18 December.

[The Prime Minister]

I did know the difference.

[Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)]

After years of sleaze and scandal under the previous Government, the Prime Minister promised integrity and accountability, but my constituents in Stratford-on-Avon are not seeing change; they are seeing more of the same—a continuity Government in which warnings are ignored and standards slip. Why should anyone believe that the Prime Minister is still capable of delivering the change that he promised?

[The Prime Minister]

I made sure that the relevant inquiries were made so that I could put the full picture before the House. That is the approach I have taken, as Members have seen this afternoon.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

This is a humiliating day for the Prime Minister, and for the House, and for the whole country, yet still the Prime Minister is not being open with us. He is relying on some later inquiry, when the Cabinet Secretary told him in writing, in the official briefing, that he must seek vetting prior to the appointment of a political appointee. That is true, is it not, Prime Minister? And can you give a straight answer, just for once?

[The Prime Minister]

As I have said, the process was that the appointment was subject to developed vetting checks being carried out. Had I been made aware of the recommendation of UKSV, I would not have made the appointment. What I did after the event was ask Sir Chris Wormald to look back at the process, which he did according to and by reference to the Simon Case letter, and he assured me that the process had been carried out properly.

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)]

If Olly Robbins could and should have provided this information to the Prime Minister at the first opportunity, as the Prime Minister has said today, surely the same applies to Cat Little, Antonia Romeo and the Cabinet Office officials who sat on this information for nearly a month before bringing it to the Prime Minister when The Guardian started asking questions of No. 10. Why does he accept that they needed legal advice to do what he is saying should have been obvious? He sacked Olly Robbins for not bringing him that information immediately; why are the others still in post?

[The Prime Minister]

They acted entirely appropriately. They came across the information as part of the Humble Address exercise. They took legal advice on who it could be disclosed to, and disclosed it to me as soon as they got that legal advice. That was the right thing to do.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

On 4 February, Peter Mandelson was notified by the appointments and interchange officer from the FCDO that he required STRAP-level access in addition to his DV. He started the role on 10 February. On what date did Peter Mandelson receive STRAP-level access?

[The Prime Minister]

I do not know the precise date, but I will endeavour to find out.

[Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)]

Given that it is widely known that Peter Mandelson maintained a friendship with the convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, had close business links in both China and Russia, and was sacked from two Government posts, what I really want to ask the Prime Minister is this: what are the unique and defining human qualities of the man I have just described that so attracted the Prime Minister to the idea that he should be politically appointed as ambassador to the US, and why is he still defending him behind process, instead of calling out what is wrong, taking responsibility and resigning?

[The Prime Minister]

I am not defending him behind process. I am setting out the process to the House.

[Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)]

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? As the Prime Minister will know, that means “Who guards the guards themselves?” With that in mind, and on the subject of holding those in power to account, can he explain why he took almost a week to come to this House, when the public will have been expecting answers much sooner?

[The Prime Minister]

Because I wanted to know who took the decision, the basis upon which they took it, and who knew about the decision, so that I could set out a full account to the House, which is what I have done this afternoon.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

This House and the country are being asked to believe that, although the right hon. and learned Gentleman is the Prime Minister, and provoked a raging controversy while making the United Kingdom’s most critical diplomatic appointment, he never asked if his nominee had been security vetted. Is that not staggering and incredible? What was the role of our National Security Adviser? What does he know? Could the House be told that?

[The Prime Minister]

The attention to the process began very much in September ’25, when the Bloomberg emails were published. That is when I agreed with the Cabinet Secretary that he would carry out a review of the entire process, and I have set that out at some length this afternoon.

[David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)]

The Prime Minister has chosen to blame his officials for this debacle, so can he confirm that he knows the names of the FCDO civil servants who made the decision to override UKSV on 29 January 2025—yes or no? Has he made the decision to suspend them all from duty, pending a full independent inquiry—yes or no?

[The Prime Minister]

I have set out the facts to the House this afternoon. I have ordered a review of security vetting by Sir Adrian Fulford, so that if any further changes are needed, we can put them in place.

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

I understand that Peter Mandelson’s vetting clearance was conditional on his being accompanied to meetings with former clients, such as Palantir. Will the Prime Minister clarify why there is no record of his and Peter Mandelson’s meeting with Palantir in Washington, and will he tell the House what it was all about?

[The Prime Minister]

That was a routine meeting in the course of a visit I was on in the US.

[Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

The Prime Minister is repeatedly telling us that either he was not told, or he was not allowed to be told, but what culture has he created around him and across the civil service that meant that no one felt that they could or should tell him this sensitive information?

[The Prime Minister]

I remind the hon. Lady that, in the last two weeks, my senior officials have brought this to my attention, which is—[Interruption.] No, before the Guardian. They brought it to my attention on Tuesday evening. That is what led me to ask further questions and make this statement to the House.

[Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)]

The Prime Minister once promised to end the chaos, and to restore honesty and integrity to Government. Does he think that appointing a man who called a convicted child sex offender his “best pal”, and whose connections with Epstein were already well known, is consistent with that promise? If it is not, will he step aside and let someone else end his chaos and restore honesty and integrity to Government?

[The Prime Minister]

I have accepted that I made an error in the appointment, and apologised to the victims, as I must.

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

On 4 February, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister whether the vetting process had disclosed information about Epstein. The Prime Minister answered, “Yes, it did.” In his response to my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne), he said, “I got confused between vetting and disclosure,” but in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith), he said that he knew the difference. If that is not misleading the House, what is?

[The Prime Minister]

I was asked about the vetting process, and the due diligence is part of the vetting process. Rather than rest on a technicality, I gave the House the information that I had about what I knew from the due diligence. It was clear what the Leader of the Opposition was asking; it was about Epstein. I knew that was in the due diligence, and that is why I told the House about it.

[Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)]

The Prime Minister promised that, unlike the Tories, his Government would govern well and restore public trust, yet this whole sorry Mandelson saga has reinforced the belief, in Yeovil and beyond, that no Government or politician can change. Can the Prime Minister explain to my constituents why he ignored the then Cabinet Secretary’s advice to get security clearance for Mandelson before he confirmed Mandelson as ambassador?

[The Prime Minister]

I have dealt with that issue on a number of occasions.