Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Government’s accountability to the House in connection to the appointment of Peter Mandelson as Ambassador to the United States of America.
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this important debate.
The Prime Minister personally decided to appoint a serious, known national security risk to our most sensitive diplomatic post. Peter Mandelson was not just a man who had already been sacked twice from Government for lying and not just a man who had a public relationship with a convicted paedophile, but a man with links to the Kremlin and China—links so close that they were raised as red flags with the Prime Minister before his appointment.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister did not deny that he knew about those links before he appointed Mandelson. He could not deny that because by his own admission he had seen the documents that proved the links. I cannot overstate how serious a matter this is. The Prime Minister sent a known security risk to Washington, to a position where he would see our most important ally’s top secret intelligence. What if he had seen something and leaked it to one of our enemies? How much would that have damaged our security partnership? We cannot even be sure that that did not happen.
What is most extraordinary is that the Prime Minister appointed Peter Mandelson before vetting was complete. He did that despite a letter from the then Cabinet Secretary, Lord Case, clearly expressing to the Prime Minister that the process required security vetting to be done before the appointment. So how can he then have claimed on the Floor of the House that the process was followed, when he knew that it had not been? The Prime Minister mentioned the word “process” more than 100 times in Parliament yesterday, but he was the one who did not follow that process.
This morning, we have heard the bombshell testimony of the former permanent secretary of the Foreign Office, Sir Olly Robbins. Sir Olly Robbins had a long and distinguished career serving Ministers. He is not the sort of person to give us a frank personal account of how things played out last January. So when he told us today that Downing Street put the Foreign Office under “constant pressure” to clear Peter Mandelson, that No. 10 showed a “dismissive approach” to Mandelson’s vetting process, that it would have been “very difficult indeed” to deny clearance and that doing so would have “damaged US-UK relationships”, we know he is giving us only the slightest indication of how bad things were. And that there was actually an overwhelming drive from the Prime Minister’s office to ensure Peter Mandelson was installed as ambassador.
Sir Olly Robbins has told us that No. 10 showed no interest in the vetting—no desire to wait and ensure that due process was followed. In fact, the Cabinet Office even questioned the need for Peter Mandelson to be vetted at all: the same Cabinet Office that had discovered Mandelson’s links to Epstein, China and Russia in its due diligence—the Cabinet Office that the Minister is in charge of right now. Instead, according to Robbins,
“The focus was on getting Mandelson out to Washington quickly”,
and before the vetting even started Peter Mandelson had already been granted access to
“highly classified briefing on a case-by-case basis”.
This is what the Prime Minister calls full due process.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
Did my right hon. Friend not find it astonishing that in the testimony today the ex-leader of the Foreign Office said that he was made to understand that before they had completed their clearances, Mandelson already had STRAP clearance, which gave him access to the most secure and most dangerous information held by Government?
Mrs Badenoch
I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. He is absolutely right: it is extraordinary and it is shocking.
The Prime Minister might have refused to answer my question around his knowledge of Mandelson’s links to the Russian defence company Sistema yesterday, but that is only because he knows that we know the answer. It was there in the due diligence: his choice of ambassador retaining an interest in a Russian company linked to Vladimir Putin after the invasion of Crimea. And the Prime Minister’s response to seeing that information? According to Robbins, “constant pressure” on the Foreign Office to get the appointment done.
The Prime Minister, as my right hon. Friend has just mentioned, placed top secret intelligence in the hands of a man he knew to be a national security risk. He did so before the official security vetting not just knowingly but deliberately, and to an extent that left a senior civil servant with a distinguished career under the clear and obvious impression that the vetting must return only one possible outcome: that Peter Mandelson should be appointed. None of that was following full due process by the letter or the spirit of that phrase. This is no longer just about what the Prime Minister was or was not told; this is about what he did before the vetting process had even started.
And we now know that Mandelson was not a one-off. According to Sir Olly Robbins, No. 10 also asked for the disgraced Matthew Doyle, the Prime Minister’s then director of communications, to be made an ambassador. Astonishingly, the Prime Minister’s office even told Robbins to keep the request a secret from the Foreign Secretary. The idea that it is No. 10 who are the victims of others not following due process is, quite frankly, laughable.
The Prime Minister told Parliament yesterday that it was “staggering” that Olly Robbins had not shared the recommendations of UK Security Vetting with the then Cabinet Secretary, Chris Wormald. But today we learned from Robbins that he had never seen the original vetting file. If the Prime Minister is furious that Sir Olly Robbins did not share the vetting details with him or the former Cabinet Secretary, why is he not furious with the Cabinet Office for not sharing it? Put simply, why exactly did he sack Olly Robbins?
It is no surprise that the Prime Minister is not here today. These are difficult questions. He cannot claim not to have known about the risk that Mandelson posed, because, as he said yesterday, he saw the due diligence that disclosed it. I still find it inconceivable that, despite that failure of vetting being a front-page news story, no one in No. 10 was aware of it. He cannot deny that his decision put Britain at risk. The British public deserve to know how this failure happened and they deserve to hear it from the Prime Minister himself.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister had the chance to set the record straight, but Members on all sides—and no doubt the public—were left wholly unsatisfied with the answers he gave. I am sure they will share my deep disappointment that the Prime Minister has chosen not to be here today. There remain serious questions about the decisions that he took over the appointment of Peter Mandelson, but the Prime Minister does not want to answer any more questions today, so, in typical fashion, he has thrown someone else under the bus. I feel for the Minister sent out as a human shield for the Prime Minister. It is not this Minister who made the Mandelson appointment; that was above his pay grade. He cannot tell us what the Prime Minister was thinking when he made those decisions and he will not be able to provide this House with the answers that it deserves to hear.
This is simply what the Prime Minister does. Sue Gray, Matthew Doyle, Morgan McSweeney, Chris Wormald, Olly Robbins, Peter Mandelson—those appointments were the Prime Minister’s decision, people the Prime Minister chose to appoint and all people he then chose to sack. Are we meant to believe that all these people are the problem, rather than the Prime Minister’s judgment?
As usual, the Prime Minister’s explanations yesterday left us with even more questions than answers. He says that he was justified in appointing Mandelson before vetting because of advice he received from the then Cabinet Secretary, Chris Wormald. But how can that make sense, when that advice only came after the scandal had erupted? Post hoc advice is pointless. Soon after that, he then sacked Chris Wormald. Why is the Prime Minister now relying on the evidence of the very man he told us was doing so badly in the job that he sacked him?
Let us move on to the Prime Minister’s claim that no one in No. 10 was aware that Mandelson had failed his vetting. Enough people in Whitehall knew. Enough people knew for journalists from The Independent, the Mail and Sky News to find out. Journalists have released texts with the Prime Minister’s director of communications, where they made No. 10 aware of this fact. He did not deny that the story was true. Why not? Something simply does not add up. Despite this, the Prime Minister went on to assure the House and the public that Mandelson’s appointment was down to a failure of vetting. I cannot fathom how the Prime Minister can still claim not to have misled the House on this point.
It is telling that when given the opportunity yesterday to apologise for misleading the House, even inadvertently, by my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), the Prime Minister chose not to. I suspect that he chose not to do so because he knows that if he did, he would be bound by his own words and by the standards to which he held previous Prime Ministers from this very Dispatch Box. In 2022, he said that if the Prime Minister misleads the House, he must resign—either the Prime Minister is a man of his word, or he thinks there is one rule for him and another for everyone else.
Unbelievably, half the permanent secretaries who were in post when Labour took office less than two years ago have now gone. The sacking of senior civil servants to carry the can for the Prime Minister’s failures has already cost taxpayers more than £1.5 million in payouts—that is before the sacking of Sir Olly Robbins. It is quite something for the former Cabinet Secretary Lord O’Donnell to warn that the Prime Minister has created
“one of the worst crises in relations between ministers and mandarins of modern times”,
adding that the sacking of Sir Olly Robbins
“risks having a serious and sustained chilling effect on serving and prospective civil servants”.
Another former Cabinet Secretary, Lord Butler, has said that the Prime Minister put Sir Olly in an “impossible” position. These are serious people who are calling out the Prime Minister’s behaviour. The former head of propriety and ethics and deputy Cabinet Secretary, Helen MacNamara, has called the decision to sack Robbins “unacceptable”. She said that if the Government had published the papers that Parliament demanded back in February, this argument would be so much easier for everyone because we would all be operating on the basis of the same facts, and she is right.
The delay in publishing the information required by the Humble Address is shocking. Where are the key annotations, decisions and meeting records—the box returns, as they are called in Downing Street? Why are crucial forms left blank? These missing documents add to the mystery. Why are the Government still trying to cover this up?
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will remember that I asked the Prime Minister yesterday about the box note of 11 November 2024, in which Simon Case recommended that vetting be gone through before the appointment was made. The Prime Minister’s decision note did not include the Prime Minister’s decision, which has been redacted from the conditions of the Humble Address. Does my right hon. Friend think that the redacted information would show what the Prime Minister was trying to achieve by appointing Peter Mandelson without the appropriate vetting?
Mrs Badenoch
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Why were the Prime Minister’s words redacted? These key pieces of information would help to solve this mystery—they would be much easier for us to understand than the words he gave at the Dispatch Box. I note that no Labour MPs have intervened on me, which is very unusual; when I am speaking in a debate, they are normally bobbing left, right and centre.
I am raising these concerns because of the seriousness of the situation the country is now in. With war in Europe, war in the middle east, a cost of living crisis and a global energy shock, we need a Prime Minister who has a grip on national security. Yet last week, the former Labour Defence Secretary and NATO Secretary-General, Lord Robertson, warned that the Prime Minister has shown “corrosive complacency” when it comes to defence. The same man who wrote the Prime Minister’s strategic defence review is now ringing the alarm bell to warn us of the grave consequences of the Government refusing to take the tough choices needed to increase defence spending.
This matters, because if we cannot trust our Prime Minister to tell the whole, full truth about this ambassadorial appointment—a key appointment in Britain’s national security architecture—it calls into question the assurances he gives us on everything else. It calls into question his promises to control taxes, which he has broken, his promises not to raise borrowing, which he has broken, and his promises to back business, protect our veterans, defend our farmers and prioritise growth, all of which he has broken. He has broken them because at his core, he is a man with no idea what he believes. Worse still, he appears to have no interest in doing the job of Prime Minister—just in being the Prime Minister. Curiosity is what drives serious leadership; without curiosity, problems are neither fully understood nor solved.
This whole affair just goes to show why this country is heading in such a woeful direction under the Prime Minister’s incurious regime. His defence yesterday summed it up: he said that no one told him and that he never thought to ask. This is, in his own words, incredible. However, even if we take the Prime Minister at his word—even if we believe the unbelievable—it is no better. He appointed Mandelson despite knowing that he was a threat to our national security; he said that due process was followed, having failed to follow that process himself; and he pressured the Foreign Office into signing off on this appointment. In 2022, the Prime Minister said:
“I believe that if you’re the leader, the buck stops with you. I will always stand up for my team, but I will also take responsibility for everything they do. That is what leadership is.”
How has he taken responsibility?
It is clear that the Prime Minister has no intention of facing up to his mistakes. It is clear now that he is not a leader and that he has no intention of doing the honourable thing.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
I congratulate the right hon. Lady on securing this debate, and indeed on eviscerating the Prime Minister in her speech. Does she not believe that the sorry souls on the Government Benches should have to put their money with their mouth is, and that there should be a vote of no confidence in this Prime Minister in due course?
Mrs Badenoch
The right hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. I think he is right, because I do not believe the Prime Minister has the intention of doing the honourable thing himself, even though that is the standard to which he held everyone else.
The decision as to whether the Prime Minister will ultimately take responsibility for his actions is now up to Labour MPs. We heard many powerful statements from the Government Members yesterday. Labour MPs know that the Prime Minister has let the country down, let Parliament down and let the Labour party down. It is clear to everyone except the Prime Minister himself that he has failed on his own terms. It is clear to the public that he is failing at the job, it is clear to civil servants that he is throwing them under the bus, and it is clear to Members across the House that he is not fit to lead. This cannot go on. This House deserves better. The country deserves better. The Prime Minister is not fit for office. The first duty of any Prime Minister is to keep this country safe. This Prime Minister has put the country’s national security at risk, and he must take responsibility. It is time for him to go.
The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister (Darren Jones)
Today’s motion asks this House to consider the Government’s accountability to this place for Peter Mandelson’s appointment. The Government have been, and remain, fully committed to keeping the House informed of all relevant information related to Peter Mandelson’s appointment and subsequent dismissal as ambassador to the United States. Ministers have addressed the House on a number of occasions on this matter.
The Prime Minister has set out to the House that, while much of the debate on this issue has focused on process, at the heart of it all is the decision to appoint Peter Mandelson in the first place. The Prime Minister has been up front about that and takes responsibility for it. He knows that he should not have made the appointment. He regrets the decision, and he apologises for it, in particular to the victims of Jeffrey Epstein. Those women and girls have been subjected to intolerable cruelty and disgusting abuse, and are to date without justice. Their experiences should be taken seriously and they should be listened to.
I do not come to the House today to defend that decision—it was the wrong one. I am here to account for the Government’s accountability to this House on the process that followed. I take the Government’s responsibility to this House seriously, so I will not take the opportunity this evening to try to score party political points, or to defend a decision that the Prime Minister has said is wrong and for which he apologises. I do, however, commit to returning to this House as often as required.
Darren Jones
The Prime Minister followed the process that was in place, and I will turn to some of the details of that in the remainder of my speech.
On 11 March, I addressed the House in response to the Humble Address, as we released the first tranche of documents relating to Peter Mandelson’s appointment and subsequent dismissal. I committed to keep the House updated as we worked to publish documents relevant to that Humble Address, and I recommit to doing so today. I reassure the House that we are proceeding at pace to process the outstanding documents, a number of which are currently being reviewed by the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament, with the aim of publishing the next tranche of documents as a matter of urgency.
In the debate, I was asked specifically about redactions in documents published in relation to the Humble Address. I will be clear: redactions are visible on the documents by the black marking out of information. If there is no marking out, it is not a redaction. All redactions are agreed via the Intelligence and Security Committee before they come to the House.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
We have heard a lot from Labour Members today about process, but will the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister please tell my constituents, the House and the country why on earth the Prime Minister appointed Peter Mandelson to be ambassador to the United States?
Darren Jones
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Prime Minister’s words, and I reiterate his apology for having made that wrong decision in the first place.
I will now move to the specific matter of security vetting. As the House heard from the Prime Minister yesterday, on the evening of 14 April he was told for the first time that last year, before Peter Mandelson took up his position as ambassador, the Foreign Office had granted Peter Mandelson developed vetting clearance against the recommendation of the United Kingdom Security Vetting authority, UKSV. In today’s debate there have been accusations that the Cabinet Office had suggested that developed vetted status or the process to seek that was not necessary. Those accusations are inaccurate. I can confirm to the House, based on advice that I have received, that a question was asked by the Foreign Office of the Cabinet Office team whether, on the basis that Peter Mandelson was already a Member of the House of Lords and a Privy Counsellor, further developed vetting status was required. That then subsequently took place, as Members of the House know.
The Foreign Office officials who made the decision to overrule the recommendation of UKSV then failed to notify the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary or her predecessor, the Deputy Prime Minister, or any other Minister, including myself, or the former Cabinet Secretary, Sir Chris Wormald. That has been confirmed today in evidence given by Sir Olly Robbins to the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Several hon. Members rose—
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)
I have been listening to the description of this entire saga and it is confusing even to someone who is a Westminster insider, in the Westminster bubble. May I ask a question about process? My right hon. Friend mentioned 14 April, when the Prime Minister was notified that there had been a breach in the security vetting and that it had failed on one aspect. Will he explain to me the process at that point and what the Prime Minister would have had to do to gather all the information before coming to the House? Who would he have to speak to, what legal advice would he have to take, who would he have to consult and what permissions would he have to have? [Interruption.] This is important. What information did he need to have before he came back to the House? I want to know and my constituents want to know.
Darren Jones
As the Prime Minister has made clear to the House and via the publication of a minute of the meeting in which he was informed of this information, the Prime Minister made it immediately clear to his officials that he intended to come to this House to inform Members of Parliament of the situation about which he had just been told, but that he urgently needed a set of information about who had made what decision and when, in order to be able to provide the full facts to Parliament.
On Tuesday 14 April, the Prime Minister instructed officials to establish the facts urgently. I agree with the Prime Minister that he should have been informed of this a long time ago, as should this House. There were multiple opportunities for this issue to have been raised, not just when the decision to grant Peter Mandelson developed vetting status was initially made, but subsequently when the Prime Minister asked the former Cabinet Secretary to assure him that all due process had been followed—and he had been assured of that—and then subsequently again when the Foreign Secretary and the then permanent secretary to the Foreign Office provided a signed statement to the Foreign Affairs Committee confirming:
“Peter Mandelson’s security vetting was conducted to the usual standard set for developed vetting in line with established Cabinet Office policy.”
Several hon. Members rose—
Esther McVey
The Prime Minister has clearly said that he was right to sack the senior civil servant Oliver Robbins, so can the Minister guarantee that the Government will contest any employment claim from Sir Oliver Robbins for unfair or constructive dismissal all the way to the employment tribunal, and will not use taxpayer money to pay off this gentleman to avoid that outcome?
Darren Jones
The right hon. Lady will know that I am not at liberty to comment in respect of any potential claim to the employment tribunal.
Peter Mandelson’s security vetting was carried out by UKSV between 23 December 2024 and 28 January 2025. That included collecting relevant information and interviewing the applicant, in this case on two occasions. One issue has been raised in the debate about that time period; there is a suggestion that No. 10 applied pressure on officials at the Foreign Office in relation to the security vetting process. It was confirmed in testimony today before the Foreign Affairs Committee that no such pressure was applied beyond asking for the process to be completed as quickly as possible, and confirmed by Sir Olly Robbins that there was no personal contact by telephone or message. That is testimony from the official himself in front of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
On 28 January 2025, UKSV recommended to the Foreign Office that developed vetting clearance should not be granted to Peter Mandelson. The following day, on 29 January 2025, Foreign Office officials made the decision to grant developed vetting clearance for Peter Mandelson none the less. This was an established process for the Foreign Office, which had the authority to be able to make those decisions. It is worth reiterating for the sake of clarity, as the Prime Minister did yesterday, that UKSV makes decisions for many Government Departments, but not for the Foreign Office. The final decision on developed vetting clearance is made by Foreign Office officials, not by UKSV.
When I became aware of the details of Peter Mandelson’s case following the publication of reporting in The Guardian last Thursday, I was briefed on the matter that evening at the Cabinet Office by officials in respect of both the case of Peter Mandelson and the existing policy on UKSV recommendations and the Foreign Office’s decisions. I immediately suspended the right for the Foreign Office to overrule UKSV recommendations pending further investigation. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger), I can confirm that the review that Adrian Fulford will conduct for the Government should be completed in around four weeks, so that we can take a quick decision on the proper functioning of the process.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
In Olly Robbins’ letter to the Foreign Affairs Committee today, he countermands what the right hon. Gentleman has said from the Dispatch Box. He says:
“I believe the Cabinet Office (CO) raised whether Developed Vetting (DV) was actually necessary. I understand the FCDO insisted that DV was a requirement before Mandelson took up his post in Washington.”
After due diligence, the Cabinet Office was insisting that it was not necessary. Surely the right hon. Gentleman needs to retract his remarks.
Darren Jones
I repeat my words and refer back to them.
Much has been said about the ability of officials to disclose sensitive vetting information. As the Prime Minister has set out, 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. However, neither the Prime Minister nor I accept that the appointing Minister cannot be told of the recommendation made by UKSV. Nor do the Government accept that Foreign Office officials could not have informed the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary or the Cabinet Secretary of UKSV’s recommendation while maintaining the necessary confidentiality that vetting requires.
The civil service code on this issue is clear, not just in normal practice but especially in relation to when Ministers are giving evidence to Parliament, as was the case via correspondence from the current Foreign Secretary to the Foreign Affairs Committee. There is no law that stops civil servants sensibly flagging UKSV recommendations while protecting detailed, sensitive vetting information in order to allow Ministers to make judgments on appointments or to explain matters to Parliament.
The Government have also changed the direct ministerial appointments process so that due diligence is now required as standard. The Prime Minister has also changed the process so that public announcements about direct ministerial appointments can now not be made until security vetting has been completed.
What clearly came to light about Peter Mandelson following the release of files by the United States Department of Justice was clearly deeply disturbing. In February this year, the Prime Minister instructed officials to carry out a review of the national security vetting process to ensure that it is fit for purpose. I can confirm that the terms of reference for that review have been updated to include the means by which all decisions are made in relation to national security vetting. The Government have appointed Sir Adrian Fulford to lead that review and, for completeness, have separately asked the Government Security Group in the Cabinet Office to look at any security concerns raised during Peter Mandelson’s tenure as ambassador to the United States, in answer to the question raised by the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas). We will publish terms of reference, and the Government commit to return to the House on their findings and recommendations.
On two other questions that were raised during the debate, accusations have been made of the Prime Minister both in this House of misleading and outside this House of lying. Those have been shown today by evidence in the Foreign Affairs Committee not to be true in any way. I am sure the House will be as concerned as I am that while officials felt unable to provide this information to Ministers, it was made available to The Guardian. As a consequence, I can confirm that a leak inquiry is now under way.
I thank right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions to today’s debate. This is my sixth address to this House on the appointment of Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United States of America. I recognise that the House will want to know about the next steps in respect of the publication of the remainder of the information relevant to the Humble Address that was not included in the first tranche. I commit to the House that we will release that further material shortly, subject to the processes ongoing with the Metropolitan police and the Intelligence and Security Committee, and we will continue to keep Members updated as we make progress. I commend this statement to the House.
Mrs Badenoch
I start by thanking Members from across the House for speaking in today’s debate. We heard many powerful speeches, and I am particularly grateful to the many speakers from the Conservative Benches, including my right hon. Friends the Members for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) and for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) and my hon. Friends the Members for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) and for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam). I found myself nodding along to the speech made by the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon)—I think that is the first time that has ever happened. We heard very good speeches from the hon. Members for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns), for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood), for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) and for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom) and the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister). Members from all parts of the House have made powerful statements—Members of all parties who know that this story does not add up. We have also heard some statements supporting the Prime Minister, which can only be described as brave.
As I said when I opened the debate, I do feel for the Minister sent here today on the Prime Minister’s behalf. He is the latest person to have to carry the can for the Prime Minister’s mistakes. He could never have given this House the answers it deserved to hear about what is, at its core, a failure of the Prime Minister’s judgment, a failure of the Prime Minister to follow process, and a shocking failure of the Prime Minister to take responsibility for his own mistakes—not just apologise, but take responsibility.
The Minister could not answer the question of why the Prime Minister decided to appoint Peter Mandelson to our most important diplomatic role in full knowledge, based on the due diligence, that Mandelson was a security risk, despite many Members asking it. He could not answer the question of why the Prime Minister chose to ignore the Cabinet Secretary and appoint Peter Mandelson before he received vetting. That was clearly not the process at the time, despite what the Minister has said from the Dispatch Box. He has said that the Government are changing the process, but the advice in November 2024 was to carry out the security vetting, so what process are they changing? Is it one that the Minister is just making up?
The Minister could not answer the question of why the Prime Minister put the Foreign Office under “constant pressure” to approve the appointment. He could not answer the question of why No. 10 was “dismissive” of the entire vetting process. He could not answer the question of why No. 10 also asked for the disgraced Matthew Doyle to be made an ambassador and hid this from the Foreign Secretary, and he could not answer the question of why the Prime Minister sacked Olly Robbins if he was following a process that, as he claims, was in place already—it does not make any sense. He could not answer, because only one man can, and that man is not here today. I do not know whether the Prime Minister thinks he is above answering these questions—we will try again tomorrow. I do not know whether he still somehow thinks that he did nothing wrong, but I will tell the House what I do know. The Prime Minister has put the country’s national security at risk. He is not fit for office, and he must take responsibility. It is time for him to go.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the Government’s accountability to the House in connection to the appointment of Peter Mandelson as Ambassador to the United States of America.
Richard Burgon
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. First, I apologise for not having been able to give you advance notice of this point of order. I asked whether the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister could answer a question that I have been trying repeatedly to get an answer to, and I would like your advice on how I can get that answer. The question is whether Morgan McSweeney had security clearance at the time that he was involved in the Mandelson appointment. Could we have an answer to that question, either now or in writing? I would be grateful if you could advise me.