Security Vetting Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate
Department: Cabinet Office

Security Vetting

Esther McVey Excerpts
Monday 20th April 2026

(1 day, 8 hours ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Keir Starmer Portrait The Prime Minister
- View Speech - Hansard - - - Excerpts

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

Esther McVey Portrait Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
- View Speech - Hansard - -

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?

Keir Starmer Portrait The Prime Minister
- View Speech - Hansard - - - Excerpts

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.