Oral Answers to Questions
Keir Starmer Excerpts(1 week, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
May I also pay tribute to Lord Haselhurst? I know he will be deeply missed, particularly on the Benches opposite.
The findings of the recent Springhill inquest into the tragic deaths, in July 1972, of Father Noel Fitzpatrick, Patrick Butler, Margaret Gargan, David McCafferty and John Dougal are sobering. While the circumstances in which the events occurred were undoubtedly challenging, it is the duty of the state to hold itself to the highest standard. The Government accept and deeply regret these findings, and recognise their gravity. On behalf of the Government, I apologise unreservedly to the families for what happened and for the grief and trauma they have endured since the tragic deaths of their loved ones.
I also place on record our deepest condolences to the family of Lance Corporal James Freeman, who died in a tragic accident on Sunday. I am also aware of a Royal Navy helicopter crash this morning in Devon. This will be a deeply worrying time for the families, and more information will be set out as soon as possible.
Henry Nowak’s family have shown extraordinary dignity after their son’s life was stolen in appalling circumstances. He was clearly a kind, thoughtful and much-loved young man. There are serious questions to answer, including how accusations of racism informed police thinking, and we are supporting the Independent Office for Police Conduct to get to the bottom of what happened. But no matter the pain we feel, there is no justification for more violence and disorder. The attacks directed towards police officers in Southampton last night were disgraceful and completely unacceptable. This is a time for serious work, not rage. Let me be clear: we will ensure that anyone found engaging in disorder meets the full force of the law, as we have done before.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Dr Savage
I echo the sympathies expressed by the Prime Minister for the families recently bereaved, particularly the family of Henry Nowak.
Corruption appears to be endemic in donations to British political parties. We have had years of Conservative cronyism. We have had allegations of embezzlement in Scotland. We have had undisclosed donations from crypto billionaires and foreign oligarchs. We have even had freebies dished out to some of the hon. Members sitting on the Labour Benches. The Government have already cracked down on some specific sources of donations that favour their political opponents, such as crypto and foreign money. Will the Prime Minister now commit to restoring the faith of the British public in the integrity of our British democracy by putting a cap on all political donations?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Member for her question. We will do whatever is necessary to protect our democracy from foreign influence and from dirty money. That is why we commissioned the Rycroft review, capped overseas donations and introduced a moratorium on crypto donations, and we are taking further action, as set out in the King’s Speech. But the £5 million question still remains: why is the leader of Reform dodging questions about his donations, and why did he keep it secret in the first place?
Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I commend my hon. Friend’s campaign to address the Croydon bottleneck. The last Government cancelled work to address this; we will carefully consider the case for upgrades, including step-free access at Norwood. I am proud that her constituents are travelling on rail services that are now back in public ownership, and benefiting from the first freeze in rail fares for 30 years—a Labour Government transforming our railways and building a fairer Britain.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
I echo the Prime Minister’s words on Lance Corporal James Freeman and about the Royal Navy helicopter crash in Devon. I also send my deepest condolences to the family and friends of Henry Nowak. The circumstances around Henry’s wrongful arrest and tragic murder must be a wake-up call to the entire country and our institutions that every life matters, and it is the responsibility of everyone in this House to bring people together, not divide them.
Mr Speaker, with your permission, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Sir Alan Haselhurst—Lord Haselhurst—who died on Monday. Sir Alan served Parliament for over 50 years, eight of them in the Lords and 40 years as my predecessor as MP for Saffron Walden, while from 1970 to 1974 he was the Member of Parliament for Middleton and Prestwich. He was respected on all sides of this House, and was elected multiple times as your predecessor as Deputy Speaker, before he concluded in the other place.
Apart from serving his constituents, Sir Alan’s greatest passion in Parliament and perhaps in life was cricket, as you said, Mr Speaker. He was chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on cricket, a role which he encouraged me to take up and which I graciously declined, telling him I knew absolutely nothing about cricket. However, I think colleagues should know that Sir Alan’s intense lobbying is the reason that Sky Sports can be found on the parliamentary TV network. There is so much to say, but just to let everyone know, he was a good and kind man and he will be very much missed. My thoughts are with his wife Angela, his children Mark, David and Emma, and his grandchildren.
May I ask the Prime Minister by how much the welfare bill has risen since he came to office?
The Prime Minister
May I first thank the Leader of the Opposition for her approach and tone in relation to the tragic Henry Nowak case?
On welfare, as she knows, we inherited from the Conservative party a broken system, which we are now improving: delivering a youth guarantee; rolling out 300,000 work experience placements; and commissioning Alan Milburn’s review into youth unemployment. They are the steps we are taking. As she will know, the number on welfare went up hugely on the Conservatives’ watch, as did the cost under the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride).
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister does not seem to know the answer, so let me tell him: benefits alone have risen by £20 billion since he came to office. The Prime Minister has promised welfare reforms—we heard him say it just now—so why was there no welfare reform Bill in the King’s Speech?
The Prime Minister
Welfare reform is balancing universal credit so that it no longer pushes people away from work. That is what we are doing; the Opposition voted against it. Welfare reform is introducing a right to try, to incentivise people to take up opportunities. That is what we are doing; they voted against it. Welfare reform is providing record funding on apprenticeships. That is what we are doing; apprenticeship starts fell by 40% on their watch. The right hon. Lady talks about the welfare bill. It soared by £88 billion on their watch. Nearly 3 million people were written off. Face-to-face assessments collapsed because of the contracts they agreed. And who signed off those contracts? The shadow Chancellor.
Mrs Badenoch
We need to bring down the benefits bill. The Prime Minister complains about the shadow Chancellor. The bill went up because of the pandemic and even then Labour Members were asking us to spend more. It is not the shadow Chancellor who is the problem; it is the actual Chancellor. She is not even in her place. The reason there is no welfare Bill is the Prime Minister has given up, and he has given up because Labour Members have given up on him. On Sunday, the Welfare Secretary was asked 12 times on national radio if he would make cuts to the benefits bill and 12 times he could not answer. So I will ask the Prime Minister: is he going to cut the benefits bill?
The Prime Minister
All our welfare reform measures, and all our measures to get young people into work, are to reduce the cost and numbers of people who are unemployed. That is why we have introduced the youth guarantee so that young people can have help into work. If, after 18 months, they have not got a job, they can then be given a job for six months supported, which we know is the best way to ensure they succeed. That is the change we are making, but the Conservatives introduced the system that is broken. We are reforming it. Did they vote to reform it with us? No, they voted to keep the broken system.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister keeps saying he is bringing in welfare reforms. None of those things is going to cut the bill. Even his own Timms review explicitly says—this is their review; this is in the terms of reference—that this is not about generating proposals for further savings. The Prime Minister had a chance to cut benefits. Last year, I remember the Government were planning to cut benefits and on the Floor of the House they U-turned. What did he do when he had a chance? He caved. He caved to all the MPs behind him who do not want benefits brought down. That is why they are sitting silently behind him. Does the Prime Minister agree with his Welfare Secretary that that was the moment he lost his authority?
The Prime Minister
I am proud of what we are delivering on this side of the House. The fastest growing economy in the G7—they said it could not be done. Despite the war in the middle east, the OECD forecasts that UK growth is up and inflation is down. Net migration, which reached nearly a million under the Conservatives—the Leader of the Opposition was the cheerleader—is down by a staggering 82%. The asylum backlog is down by 46%. We are delivering the fastest reduction in waiting times in the history of the NHS. That is on top of free school meals, free breakfast clubs and free childcare—and, of course, we are lifting half a million children out of poverty. I am very proud of the work of this Labour Government.
Mrs Badenoch
He says he is proud of what they are delivering—I am glad to see that the Prime Minister still has his sense of humour, given we all know that he is losing his job soon. He has no authority, and we know why: his MPs will not let him do anything. The Welfare Secretary said in private what the Government will not dare say in public. He said:
“Every meeting I have is: ‘Who can we tax in order to pay benefits to others?’”
Last week, Tony Blair said:
“If the Conservative Party repeats its offer of working together on welfare, Labour should accept”.
Today I am repeating that offer to the Prime Minister. Is he ready yet?
The Prime Minister
They introduced a system that is broken, they put the bill through the roof, and now they want to give us advice on welfare—no thanks! The question should always be not what benefits people are entitled to, but what help we can give people to change their lives. That is what the Work and Pensions Secretary was arguing, and he is right about that. It is a Labour Government that are helping people into work. Leader of the Opposition asks what we have done: more rights for renters, stopping unfair rent hikes, and giving 11 million people greater security and a place to call home; and more rights for workers, including bereavement leave on day one—ask anyone who has lost someone, and they will say just how important it is to have bereavement leave. We have lifted half a million children out of poverty. We often say in this House that every child should go as far as their talent or ability will take them. That does not happen if they are growing up in poverty. The Conservatives have fought us at every turn. I am proud of what we are delivering. There is much more to do.
Mrs Badenoch
The truth is that unemployment has risen every single month since they came into office. Mr Speaker, you can listen to their cheers get weaker and thinner with every passing moment. The fact is, despite his huge majority, the Prime Minister does not have the votes to reform welfare. There is a solution—a Conservative solution—[Interruption.] Labour Members are all jeering now, but I do not know why they are supporting the Prime Minister; he is more than happy to release their text messages while all of his have disappeared. Disappearing messages from a disappearing PM. There is a Conservative solution: benefits bill down, taxes down, growth up. Everyone in this House knows that the Prime Minister is just a caretaker keeping the seat warm for the Mayor of Manchester. But it does not matter who is in charge; Labour MPs will keep asking who they can tax to pay more benefits—it is in their DNA. The truth is that the problem is not this passive Prime Minister; the problem is the Labour party.
The Prime Minister
Forgive me if I do not take too much notice of the Leader of the Opposition. For 14 years they broke our welfare system, lost control of our borders, presided over the biggest fall in living standards on record, and broke the economy, prisons and the NHS—I could go on and on. No wonder she and the Conservatives are totally irrelevant. This Labour Government are delivering change. The biggest upgrade in workers’ rights in a generation—delivered. The Renters’ Rights Act 2026—delivered. Record funding for our NHS—delivered. The fastest growing economy in the G7—delivered. Lifting half a million children out of poverty—delivered. We are going to fight even harder for working people and a stronger and fairer Britain.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I know how difficult it is for residents who are not in their homes. I can reassure my hon. Friend and his constituents that the MRA is carrying out daily investigations to get answers as swiftly as possible, and we are working with the council to provide support for residents. I can confirm that the Energy Minister is in touch with MSPs and will ensure that both my hon. Friend and his constituents are kept updated on the next steps.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I associate myself with your remarks about Lord Alan Haselhurst, Mr Speaker, and can confirm to the Leader of the Opposition that he will be missed across the House. I also associate myself with the Prime Minister’s remarks about Lance Corporal James Freeman, who was killed in Iraq. Our thoughts are with his family and unit. I also offer our thoughts and prayers to the family and friends of the 17 people who tragically drowned during the recent heatwave, many of whom were children.
The murder of Henry Nowak was an evil crime made much worse by the lies of the killer and the police response. The investigation must uncover everything that went wrong, and all police forces must act on its conclusions. Outside court, Henry’s father made a powerful plea that his son’s murder should not be used to create further division, but should instead be used to treat knife crime as a national emergency. Does the Prime Minister agree that the victims of knife crime and their families deserve a politics where we come together to solve these problems, instead of using them as a political football?
The Prime Minister
I join the right hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to the 17 people who lost their lives in the heatwave, many of whom, as he said, were young—each of them tragic. We send our condolences to their families.
On the case of Henry Nowak, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the approach he has taken. It is important in a case like this, which is so tragic—anybody who has seen the footage will have been deeply moved by it—that we reflect on our leadership roles here as political leaders. It is our duty to bring people together at a time like this, not to seek to divide them. It is particularly our duty to listen to what the devastated family are asking of us as political leaders. I thank all those who have acted in that way, because I think that is the right way to respond.
Ed Davey
I thank the Prime Minister for his reply and completely agree with him. We stand ready to work with the Government on serious policies to tackle knife crime.
With our armed forces overstretched, Labour now seems to be investing in a new weapon of war: the long-form essay. It gives another meaning to the phrase “drone warfare”—[Laughter.] Tony Blair says that the UK should suck up to Donald Trump, kowtow to US tech barons and go slow on Europe—the Prime Minister must be grateful for this rare endorsement of his agenda. Blair also claims that the sensible people are not radical and the radical people are not sensible. Is the Prime Minister concerned that unless he changes course, he will be remembered for being neither radical nor sensible?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman rather spoiled what was quite a good gag. I am surprised he has not done more to welcome the savings we are delivering for family fun days out this summer; I really thought he would have been delighted at the cheaper tickets for soft play.
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this really important case. My thoughts are with Henry’s family, as are the thoughts of the whole House and the whole country, I am sure. I have watched the bodycam footage, as others will have done, and I found it really hard. It was harrowing. As a dad of a 17-year-old boy, I felt sick. I can only imagine how devastated his family are. It is extremely moving.
Henry’s life has been stolen. His family have responded with incredible and immense dignity and bravery. There clearly are lessons that need to be learned and serious questions that need to be addressed, not least the question of how accusations of racism informed decision making in such cases.
Henry’s father said this:
“We do not want his death to be used to create further division, hatred or tension.”
They are the words of a grieving father who has lost his son. I think those words have resonated with people across the country. We must not allow this tragedy to be hijacked by anyone who seeks to divide us.
Nigel Farage (Clacton) (Reform)
Following the horrendous circumstances of Henry Nowak’s death, I urge the Prime Minister to consider this: it is now clear to growing millions in this country that we are living under two-tier policing. The instructions that are given to police officers from police bosses are clear and written down in ink: “You must treat different ethnic groups in different ways.”
Apart from the upset and the anger at the circumstances of Henry’s death, the anger that was seen spilling out in Southampton last night is in danger of getting considerably worse if the public lose trust that they will be treated fairly by the police. Will the Prime Minister take some action, end this divisive practice of two-tier policing, and make sure that all British citizens are treated the same?
The Prime Minister
I do not believe that there is two-tier policing in this country. I am really shocked that the hon. Gentleman pretends to have respect for Henry’s family and then acts in this way. [Interruption.] They are a grieving family—
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Brash, this is a very important question, and I want to hear the Prime Minister’s answer. If you want to carry on, go outside please.
The Prime Minister
The grieving family have asked us not to respond in the way that the leader of Reform has responded. They have lost their son in the most appalling circumstances, and they make a simple plea of us as human beings to please not exploit that. We all need to reflect on the words of Henry’s father.
My response—and the response of others, to be fair—has been focused on the lessons to be learned so that we can deliver justice. The hon. Gentleman’s response has been to appeal for rage. That is his response to a father who has lost his son and asked for that not to happen. Exploiting this tragedy to create grievance and division would be wrong in any circumstances, but to do it when the family are expressly saying, “Please don’t,” is unforgivable. It shows exactly who he is.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this case and express my sincere condolences to Holly’s family. I cannot begin to imagine the intense distress that they have experienced. My hon. Friend will know that the ambassador to France has raised Holly’s case with the French prosecutor general, and I know that the Minister for Europe, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), has set out further steps that can be taken and is ready to support the family. In the light of his question, I will reflect on whether anything more can be done.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Member for her question. As I hope she knows, I did have a call with the First Minister of Wales just two weeks ago, and made it clear that I and this Government will work constructively with the First Minister and the Government in Wales, because that is the right thing to do to deliver for Wales.
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. The Reform leader wants everyone to forget that he called for our NHS to be replaced with an insurance-based system—he might want to jot it down to jog his memory. Then he said that if people can pay, they should pay for NHS treatment. We can help him by jolting his memory here. You cannot trust Reform with our NHS—the only way to protect it is to vote Labour.
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Ind)
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Member for the question. I recognise the challenges that she identifies. That is why we are permanently lowering business rates for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses. Every pub will get 15% off its new business rates bill, and bills will be frozen in real terms for a further two years. In relation to VAT, she will see that we are offering support by cutting VAT on children’s meals in restaurants—particularly over the summer period—with those savings set out two weeks ago by the Chancellor.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
Any death from suicide is a tragedy, as everybody across this House will know. We are bringing together students, bereaved families, universities and the NHS to strengthen the mental health support provided to students. We have also appointed a student support champion to drive improvement across our universities. The relevant Minister will be happy to discuss that and other matters with my hon. Friend.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Reform)
The Prime Minister
We put record investment into the NHS to clear up the mess that the hon. Gentleman and others left behind. Since he brings up elections, I have studied the Reform candidate for Makerfield: a self-professed sexist who said women who get an abortion do it for “vanity purposes”, who encouraged people not to get the covid vaccine and who said Russia was “within its rights” to invade Crimea. Reform has nothing to offer but grievance and division yet again.
Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)
I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s comments on Henry Nowak and the calls for calm over division.
The rugby league family lost a giant last week. John Kear, the former England, Wales and challenge cup-winning coach died suddenly on Sunday afternoon on his journey north after commentating on the challenge cup final at Wembley the previous day. After playing for Castleford, his local team, he moved to teaching and coaching for a total of 700 matches with nine clubs, and his career included famous underdog challenge cup wins with Sheffield Eagles in 1998 and Hull FC in 2005. John loved, and in turn was loved by, his sport. Will the Prime Minister join me in paying tribute to John and sending condolences to his wife Dawn and his family and friends?
The Prime Minister
I pay tribute to John. We were all deeply sad to hear of his passing. He was a remarkable athlete and coach, and an energetic and enthusiastic champion of his sport. He will be missed by supporters across the country and my thoughts—all our thoughts—are with his wife Dawn, his family and his friends at this sad time.
Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)
The Prime Minister
We absolutely recognise the harm and huge impact that pelvic mesh has had on so many lives. The hon. Lady will be aware that the Minister for Public Health has been a dedicated campaigner on this very issue. I want to see a full response to the recommendations published as quickly as possible, and I will make sure that the Minister keeps her updated on its progress.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
The 10-year bus pipeline published by the Department for Transport shows that demand for zero emission buses will double by the end of the decade. In Scotland, however, jobs are being lost in our bus manufacturing sector because overseas manufacturers are winning a greater number of orders and now constitute the majority of new registration buses on our roads, despite an investigation into the cyber-security of Chinese buses. Will the Prime Minister designate bus manufacturing as a sector critical to our national security?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right to champion the brilliant, talented workforce building buses in Scotland. Our pipeline will give UK manufacturers the certainty and stability they need to plan ahead and be completely effective, and I can reassure him that we are working closely with the industry to provide the necessary response and support.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, and we are united in our belief that we must fight the poison of antisemitism wherever it is found. We are investing more to keep Jewish communities safe, with more police patrols and greater security at schools and synagogues; investing £7 million to tackle antisemitism within our universities; and bringing in proscription-like powers to clamp down on malign state activity. We will set out further steps in coming days, and I will make sure the hon. Gentleman is fully informed of the steps we are taking.
Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)
Less than 48 hours ago the family of Henry Nowak stood on the steps of Southampton Crown court and gave a courageous and dignified statement in which they said:
“We want to use Henry’s heartbreaking story to make change for the better. We do not want his death to be used to create further division, hatred or tension. We want his story to make our streets safer for everyone.”
Does the Prime Minister agree with me and my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Test (Satvir Kaur), that the violence we saw whipped up on the streets of Southampton last night, the criminal damage to innocent people’s homes, and the injuries to 11 police officers are the total opposite of what Henry’s own family clearly and powerfully called for?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for the discussion that we had this morning about the impact in Southampton. I also thank him for the work he has done along with his fellow MP, and, if I may say so, my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft), who has been dealing with Henry’s family for some time. The attacks directed towards police officers last night were disgraceful and completely unacceptable. There is no justification for further disorder.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
The Prime Minister
I recall that the hon. Gentleman has raised this matter with me previously at Prime Minister’s questions. As he knows, the reorganisation of services is a matter for local integrated care boards who take decisions based on the evidence and engagement with patients. Across the country, patients are benefiting from the £450 million investment that we have provided to expand urgent and emergency care capacity. That improvement is because of the investment we have put in, but this is a matter for his local board.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
Despite the efforts of dedicated teachers in Scarborough and Whitby, only 36% of pupils achieve grade 5 and above in both English and maths GCSEs. Does the Prime Minister agree that Mission Coastal has the potential to deliver the same transformational impact for young people in deprived coastal communities as the London Challenge achieved, and that it is the kind of bold and targeted intervention that only a Labour Government can deliver?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for her work on championing such an important issue. Mission Coastal will help break the link between background and success, giving the most disadvantaged children mentoring, career support and enrichment opportunities, because we believe that no matter where they grow up, every child deserves the same opportunities to succeed.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
The Prime Minister
We inherited a housing crisis, with people unable to have the security of their own home or even get on to the housing ladder. We are determined to change that. We have invested £39 billion to deliver more social and affordable homes, prioritising brownfield land. We must build more communities with strong infrastructure, but the hon. Lady’s party consistently votes against the planning reforms that will allow those homes to be built.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
Yesterday, the Health Secretary confirmed that all eligible black men would be invited to the Transform trial. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on prostate cancer, I welcome this vital step towards screening for this terrible disease, for which black men have a doubled risk for both diagnosis and death. This is something that Reform has responded to with nothing but divisive weasel words and rage-baiting. Does the Prime Minister agree that our NHS was founded by Labour to be there for everyone equally, and that when there is a proven higher risk, targeting support is equality?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his work as chair of the prostate cancer APPG. This programme is England’s first targeted cancer screening programme. We are also funding a major expansion of research and treatment, backed by £20 million, to help men at the highest risk. We are determined to improve cancer care, and more cancer patients are now being diagnosed on time, thanks to Labour’s decisions, but of course there is more to do.
Cabinet Manual
Keir Starmer Excerpts(1 week, 2 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
I am pleased to announce that the Government will update the Cabinet manual.
The Cabinet manual sets out the main laws, rules and conventions affecting the operation of Government. It is intended primarily as an authoritative reference for Ministers and civil servants, but it also has a role in making the operation of Government more accessible to Parliament and the public.
The manual was first published in 2011 and has not been updated since. As a result, it has become significantly out of date, most notably in its descriptions of general elections, the UK’s relationship with the EU and the devolution settlements. Its value for Ministers and officials, helping them to navigate the UK’s constitutional arrangements, has been diminished by this lack of accuracy. An update will therefore restore the manual’s status as an authoritative guide.
This update will also restate and underline the rules and conventions that underpin our democracy. Alongside wider work to strengthen the operation of Government, including the fundamental review into the organisation, performance and transformation of the permanent civil service, it will provide an opportunity to demonstrate the Government’s commitment to high standards in public life.
The Government will seek feedback from the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee in the House of Commons and the Constitution Committee in the House of Lords on the draft text. As the manual sets out constitutional arrangements from the view of the Executive, the Government will not seek Parliament’s approval of the text, following the approach established in 2010-11. Nevertheless, we hope that this engagement will be a meaningful opportunity for MPs and peers to support the drafting process so that the manual continues to be a non-party political document that provides a record of fact.
An update is long overdue and will serve to benefit Ministers, officials, Parliament and the public.
[HCWS78]
Oral Answers to Questions
Keir Starmer Excerpts(3 weeks, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
May I extend my deepest condolences, and I am sure the condolences of the House, to the family and colleagues of Lance Bombardier Ciara Sullivan, who lost her life in a tragic incident on Friday? She was an exceptional soldier and will be deeply missed.
It would be remiss of me not to comment on one of Manchester’s great heroes moving on after almost a decade, so let me congratulate Pep Guardiola on all his success at Manchester City. If I could declare an interest, Mr Speaker, I would also like to say congratulations to Arsenal football club on becoming the premier league champions.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Kirsteen Sullivan
May I share the condolences expressed by the Prime Minister?
As a result of the Russian invasion of Ukraine to the Iran war, people have struggled with the cost of living. In my constituency in the heart of Scotland, road travel and logistics are key to everyday life and local industry, and the Road Haulage Association is headquartered in Bathgate. What reassurance can the Prime Minister offer my constituents that this Government will tackle household bills and business cost pressures?
The Prime Minister
Families across the United Kingdom are facing the impacts of a war that we did not choose, so it is welcome news today that inflation is falling. There is more that we can do, and I can announce today that we are giving our hauliers a 12-month road tax holiday, helping to keep prices down, and we are backing drivers by extending the freeze in fuel duty for the rest of the year. This is possible because of the decisions taken by the Chancellor, making us the fastest growing economy in the G7, and she will set out further action tomorrow. This is not our war, and although Opposition parties wanted to jump into it, Labour will always protect working people.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
I would like to associate myself with the words of the Prime Minister regarding the tragic death of Lance Bombardier Ciara Sullivan. We send our condolences to her family on this terrible loss.
I welcome some of what the Prime Minister has said about fuel duty. Yes, there is still a freeze, but we asked him about this on 11 March and 25 March and he said he was not going to do it, so I thank him for the U-turn—[Interruption.] Labour Members are shaking their heads—it would make more sense if they just did what we are doing, because they get there in the end anyway.
Yesterday, Labour MPs voted to ban new British oil and gas licences. Why?
The Prime Minister
In relation to fuel duty, under the plans that we inherited, fuel duty was due to go up by 5% in April. We stopped that and the Conservatives voted against it. We are now extending the freeze because of events in the middle east. I know that the Leader of the Opposition likes to claim responsibility for things that have got literally nothing to do with her—in her mind, she won Eurovision on Saturday and scored the winning goal in the FA cup final—but she never takes any responsibility for what the Conservatives did for 14 long years.
Oil and gas is coming out of the North sea 24/7. It will play an important role for many years to come. We are supporting existing oil and gas fields throughout their lifespans and we made changes in November to allow neighbouring fields to be exploited, but families across the UK are fed up with their bills going up and down because of global conflicts. The only way to take control is through renewables. We have now consented to renewables to power 23 million households. The Leader of the Opposition wants to stick with the old Tory energy policy, which is leaving households exposed to higher bills year after year.
Mrs Badenoch
What is causing problems for British consumers is the high energy prices, which were caused by the Prime Minister’s policies. I asked him why Labour Members voted for this, and he had no answer, so let me make clear what is going on: we are losing 1,000 jobs a month in oil and gas. I asked him about new licences, not existing drilling. Then, late last night, the Government snuck out an announcement that they were removing sanctions on Russian oil. Can the Prime Minister explain why oil from Russia is acceptable, but oil from Aberdeen is not?
The Prime Minister
Let me address the sanctions head-on, because we have been united across this House on these issues since the beginning of the conflict. What we announced yesterday was a strong new package of new sanctions, going well beyond existing sanctions. It is a new package. That includes new bans on maritime services on liquefied natural gas and new bans on refined oil products from Russia.
We also issued two targeted short-term licences to phase the new sanctions in and to protect UK consumers. That is standard practice. This Government have phased in sanctions in that way before, and the last Government used exactly the same technique when they introduced sanctions. When they did so, we supported them, because we could see that the sanctions were the right thing to do to bear down on Russia. These are new sanctions being phased in. This is not a question of lifting existing sanctions in any way whatsoever, and we will continue to work with our allies on further sanction packages.
Mrs Badenoch
That was a very weak set of cheers from the MPs who are trying to get rid of the Prime Minister. He does not know what he is talking about. This level of processology is not going to get him out of these difficult answers. Let me tell him what is going on: Labour is giving money to Russia, and Reform is taking money from Russia. There is only one party that is standing up to Russia, and that is the Conservative party. I cannot believe he is actually saying that he is doing something good on the war in Ukraine. What is he talking about? This morning, Ukraine’s sanctions chief disagreed with the Prime Minister’s approach. That is what Ukraine is saying.
In March, when the United States eased sanctions on Russia, the Prime Minister said:
“All partners should maintain pressure on Russia and its war chest”.
The Prime Minister also said:
“Our sanctions remain, and there is no question about that.”
What has changed?
The Prime Minister
I really think that on an issue of this importance, which is about further sanctions on Russia in relation to Ukraine, it is really important that the position is not misrepresented. This is a new package of sanctions. None of the existing sanctions are being lifted in any way, so this is not less pressure on Russia; it is more pressure on Russia. It is more pressure than there was the day before yesterday and more pressure than there was under the last Government.
What is happening is that those sanctions are being phased in, in a way that was used by the last Government when they introduced new sanctions. We bothered to do the processology and work out what we were doing, and we supported them, because we could see that they put more pressure on Russia. Similar methods are used by other countries. They are done because of the impact on the market and to protect UK consumers. These are new sanctions putting more pressure on Russia. If the right hon. Lady had done her homework, she would actually support us on this.
Mrs Badenoch
Being patronising is not a substitute for understanding policy—[Interruption.] I have heard this tone before; this is the same tone that the Prime Minister used during the Mandelson scandal. Labour Members were all cheering, but then it turned out that he was wrong, wrong, wrong. He says that other countries are doing this; the EU is not doing this. Let me make it clear—I know it hurts him to hear it: he is now choosing to buy dirty Russian oil. That money will be used to fund the killing of Ukrainian soldiers. Isn’t he ashamed?
The Prime Minister
I really think that to misunderstand and misrepresent what is happening—this is a very serious issue. We are working—[Interruption.] These are new bans—they are new sanctions. They are new maritime services bans on LNG, as of yesterday. They are new bans on refined oil products from Russia, as of yesterday. They are being phased in, in the same way that previous sanctions regimes have been phased in, exactly as the last Government did and we have done. Other countries do exactly the same. The EU has its own way of doing it. Australia and Canada have their own way of doing it. To play party politics on Ukraine, where we have stood firm! The only person who benefits when we play party politics on Russia and Ukraine is Putin.
Mrs Badenoch
That pompous tone does not cover for the fact that the Prime Minister has got his policy all wrong. I have asked him about oil and gas again and again and again. The last time, he told me that it was the Energy Secretary’s job and it had nothing to do with him. That is what is destroying this country. It is not playing politics; it is speaking up for the people who are out there. The fact is that more people are buying Russian oil because British oil is not being drilled. He is sanctioning British oil but not Russian oil, and he should be ashamed. I cannot believe that this Prime Minister, even when he has nothing to lose, continues to defend banning new British oil and gas licences.
In April, Britain saw the single biggest drop in employment ever since the pandemic—and that is under Labour. Some 210,000 people have lost their jobs in the last year. What the Prime Minister is doing is going to cost thousands more people their jobs, especially in cities such as Aberdeen that rely on oil and gas, so can he tell us why he is doing everything to save his job and doing nothing to save other people’s jobs?
The Prime Minister
There is drilling in the North sea. [Interruption.] She said that there is no drilling in the North sea—she is going to have to refer herself to the Privileges Committee. There is drilling, it is 24/7, and oil and gas are coming out. That will be important for many, many years to come. We are supporting those existing oil and gas fields throughout their lifespan, and we made changes in November to allow neighbouring fields to be exploited, but it is because we are on the international market that our prices for businesses and households go up every time there is an international conflict. We saw it with Ukraine and we saw it with Iran, and people were fed up with the last Government not taking control of their bills. We are taking control of their bills; the way to do that is through renewables, and that is what we are doing.
Mrs Badenoch
It gets worse and worse—the Prime Minister does not understand the policy. I am asking him about new oil and gas licences, which Labour Members voted against yesterday. If they had approved those licences for Jackdaw and Rosebank like we did, we would have that oil in this country now.
Just listening to the Prime Minister, I wonder if he is okay. He is so deep in the bunker. He is importing sanctioned Russian oil, nationalising steel and imposing price controls in the supermarket—it is like the Soviets won. This country needs a Government who have got their act together. Instead, what we have is a Prime Minister hanging by a thread with fake support from his Back Benchers, too scared to take difficult decisions, and losing his moral compass by backsliding on Ukraine. [Interruption.] Yes, he is. The shaking of Labour Members’ heads is so feeble—it is absolutely laughable. Yesterday, we saw them huddled in the corridors, talking about Andy Burnham and Wes Streeting. The fact is that the Prime Minister has a Cabinet fighting to replace him, and the worst part is that they are not getting rid of him over his terrible agenda—no, they actually like it. They just want a better salesman. Is it not the case that it does not matter who replaces him; the real problem is the Labour party? [Hon. Members: “More!”]
The Prime Minister
A lot has been happening in recent days, so the Leader of the Opposition may have overlooked the fact that last week, the Office for National Statistics announced that we have the fastest growing economy in the G7. Last week, we had the biggest fall in NHS waiting lists for 17 years. Today, inflation has come down more than expected. Mr Speaker, if you had offered me that and Arsenal becoming premier league champions, I would take it every day of the week.
Maureen Burke (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the bravery and sacrifice of the Royal Regiment of Scotland. I have had the privilege of meeting Scots serving in our armed forces across the world. They deserve our deepest gratitude. I cannot understand how the SNP and Greens have arrived at this decision, particularly when Glaswegians have contributed so much to the Royal Regiment. It is not too late to do the right thing, and I urge them to reconsider.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I join the Prime Minister in sending our condolences to the family of Lance Bombardier Ciara Sullivan, who died in a tragic accident, and to all her colleagues. I hope the Prime Minister will also join me in sending condolences to the family of Scott Hastings, the former Scottish and Lions rugby player who sadly passed away at the weekend.
In 2025, Donald Trump and Elon Musk abolished America’s international aid programme. At the same time, the Government made huge cuts to the UK’s aid programme. We now see a dangerous outbreak of Ebola in central Africa, which many people fear is going to spread and get much worse, yet there are rumours across Whitehall that the Prime Minister is planning further cuts to Britain’s international aid programme this year. Will he rule that out entirely today?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman raises the important issue of Ebola and Africa, and obviously we are working on it at pace and with others. We took a decision on aid in order to fund defence spending, because we needed to increase defence spending, but we are committed to our overseas aid, and we mitigated that decision with some of the measures put in place.
Ed Davey
I am not sure if the Prime Minister completely ruled out further cuts to the international aid programme. With defence chiefs this week writing to The Times to say that cutting aid for defence is a mistake, I hope that the Prime Minister and his Ministers will rule that out today. If he does not, I hope that Labour party members will ask all the Labour leadership candidates their position on the future of Britain’s aid programme.
In the past few days, two of those Labour leadership candidates—the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) and the Mayor of Greater Manchester—have ruled out any support for Britain joining the EU customs union, despite the fact that it would boost growth and help cut the cost of living. Is the Prime Minister relieved that he finally has something that he can agree with his colleagues on?
The Prime Minister
In the last two years, I have been negotiating serious trade deals that are vital for the most important sectors of our economy. These are trade deals with the EU, but also with India, North Korea and the United States. I remind the right hon. Gentleman of the value of those deals. Before the deal with the United States, I went to Jaguar Land Rover in Solihull and talked to the workforce. They were worried sick about their jobs and communities. When we agreed terms, I went back to JLR—because of the deal we got with the EU, thousands of their jobs were safeguarded. The right hon. Gentleman’s approach would throw all that away. He would have to go and see those workforces and tell them that their jobs are gone. I am not going to do that.
Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes a powerful case. We have already committed to a moratorium on crypto donations to political parties, and the King’s Speech introduces tougher rules to protect our democracy. However, the £5 million question is: why did the Reform leader keep this donation secret? I see that he is not here to answer. What did the billionaire lining his pockets ask for in return? Those questions need to be answered—and that is why he is not here.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for calling me for my first Prime Minister’s question since becoming SNP Westminster leader, following the SNP’s stunning victory in Scotland. I am enjoying the sense of challenge and opportunity a new job can provide—a sense of renewal I am certain the Prime Minister will be enjoying in the weeks ahead.
This week, we saw the latest chapter of Labour infighting, in which Andy “Brexit” Burnham wants the UK to stay out of the EU, but Peter Mandelson’s pal, the former Health Secretary, wants us to go back in. Can the Prime Minister advise us which of his potential successors he agrees with?
The Prime Minister
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his new post and thank him for the calm, reasonable approach I have come to expect. My position is very clear: we have already negotiated a closer relationship with the EU, which we did last year. We will have another negotiation and agreement this year at a summit, where we will get even closer and take a big step forward in our relationship with the EU, which is in our national interest.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister
I have very fond memories of visiting Harlow Town with my hon. Friend. The point he makes is an important one: football clubs bring our communities together. They are part of our social fabric and, in some places, they are one of the last places left where members of the community can come together. That is why my Government fought so hard to create the Independent Football Regulator to protect our national game. We should remind everyone—every football fan across the country, from Harlow Town to Wigan Athletic—that it was Labour that was on the side of football fans, while the Tories and Reform opposed us every step of the way.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
Before I answer that question, I have just been handed a note saying that I inadvertently said that we did a trade deal with North Korea, rather than South Korea. That would be breaking news and not very good. Before I am referred to the Privileges Committee, can I correct the record in that regard? It was a slip of the tongue, but a pretty unfortunate one.
In relation to my hon. Friend’s question, families and farmers are rightly frustrated about being impacted by a war that the UK did not start. Protecting working people is our priority. Today, we are cutting red diesel costs for farmers by a third, delivering the lowest rate for 20 years. That is alongside a record £11.8 billion for the farming budget and a new national programme to redistribute surplus food. We will make sure that no one in this country goes hungry. I can confirm that the Chancellor will make further announcements tomorrow.
Hannah Spencer (Gorton and Denton) (Green)
The Prime Minister
First, can I welcome the hon. Lady to her place, because I think this is her first question in PMQs? There will be different views on whether people should be able to enjoy a drink here or not, but I think we can agree that the majority of people in this country want an economy that works for them, public services that are there when they need them, and every child going as far as their talent or ability will take them. The only way to deliver that is through a Labour Government, as we are doing. The Greens think that their leader walks on water. It turns out that he just lives on water and does not pay his council tax!
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
The story of my hon. Friend’s constituent is deeply concerning, and I thank her for raising it. It underlines why we must and will act. We have already acted by shutting legal loopholes so that AI chatbots must abide by the Online Safety Act 2023, but we obviously have to look at what further measures we can take, including age-related bans, restricting children’s use of chatbots and stronger parental controls. I am meeting parents, teenagers and civil society representatives later this afternoon to discuss further, stronger protections for children. We will make sure that my hon. Friend is updated on those steps.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
The Prime Minister
Yes, I will do both those things, and I thank the hon. Lady for raising her own experience here to highlight the issue. The thoughts of the whole House will be with the family and friends of the young person who died. I thank all the public health specialists working in Reading to ensure that those affected are receiving appropriate treatment. The hon. Lady’s question reminds us that vaccines do save lives, and we must do everything we can in relation to that.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue, because the Government are cracking down on disgraceful waste criminals through, for instance, tougher penalties for fly-tippers—including service in clean-up squads, and the potential loss of their driving licences—more powers and funding for the Environment Agency, and stronger checks across the industry to tackle fly-tipping at its source.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
The Prime Minister
Yes, I will, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the issue. I will ensure that the detail is looked at, and that appropriate steps are taken. May I also take this opportunity, through the hon. Gentleman, to mark the tragic anniversary of the devastating fire in his constituency? I know that the thoughts of the whole House remain with the families and colleagues of Martyn, Jennie and Dave, and I know that he has done a lot to support them.
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
A stroke happens every five minutes: that is six lives changed in the time that we have been sitting in this Chamber. Two years ago, while I was sitting in the Chamber, my husband suffered a stroke. We know that when it comes to the right care and treatment every single second counts, and we know at first hand why the work of the Stroke Association is so important, ensuring that everyone knows the signs and symptoms, because when a stroke strikes, acting fast matters. Will the Prime Minister join me in marking Stroke Awareness Month, and will he update the House on what he is doing to ensure that every stroke survivor receives the care that he or she needs to recover and to thrive?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend has raised an important issue. The Government are investing in our NHS to make sure that every second counts. I know my hon. Friend’s husband, and I know the impact that this had on him and on her, and on their wider family. I thank her for raising such a personal issue in the Chamber to highlight this point.
Because of the choices that we have made, ambulance response times are at their fastest for five years. We are investing £10 billion to innovate technology and transformation, and the NHS is already using artificial intelligence to cut treatment time for stroke patients by an hour and tripling full recovery rates.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I agree with what we said in our manifesto, which we are implementing. We are closer to the EU as a result of the agreement we reached last year, and we will be closer again as a result of the agreement we reach this year. We are building on the botched Brexit deal that the Conservatives did, which did such damage to our country.
Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
My community has been left in deep shock and concern following allegations of serious sexual offences, forced marriage and modern slavery against members of the Ahmadi religion of peace and light. Will the Prime Minister join me in thanking Cheshire constabulary, Cheshire East Council and wider agencies for their response to these concerning events? Will he also commit himself to ensuring that we receive the necessary resources to deliver justice when crimes have been committed and to reassure the wider community that this Government are on their side?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend, and I am grateful to all the agencies involved in the enforcement action, including Cheshire police. It is vital that local public services get the funding that they need, and that is why we have increased Cheshire’s police budget by over £15 million. We have also recruited 3,000 more neighbourhood police officers while bringing forward wide-ranging reforms to ensure that everyone has access to swift and equal justice.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
The Prime Minister
I am really sorry: the answer is no, and I cannot bring myself to congratulate the councillors. I apologise.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Ind)
From 1997, the Prime Minister campaigned to scrap single-judge trials in Northern Ireland, yet when I opposed his Government’s plan to bring in single-judge trials in England and Wales, I received hostile briefings and smears about my mental health from the lads in No. 10 Downing Street. The Chief Whip is shaking his head, but he knows about it. The Prime Minister knows that my nephew Matty took his own life as a result of work-related stress as a young criminal lawyer. During Mental Health Awareness Week, when Ministers spoke with compassion about health and wellbeing, did the Prime Minister reflect on those hostile, discriminatory briefings, which he knew about and allowed to happen?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman has previously told me about Matty and the impact that that had on him. I totally understand that, and I want to be absolutely clear that nobody should be smeared in relation to mental health—nobody—on any issue, whatever they may argue on any other issue. I will do everything I can to make sure that that is the position.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
In five weeks’ time, the Government will be introducing penal tariffs on steel imports into the UK and, at the same time, massively reducing tariff-free quotas. This will cause enormous damage to the UK’s manufacturing base in the absence of adequate steelmaking capacity in the UK. Furthermore, the way the tariffs are drawn means that Stannah Lifts, a world-beating company based in Andover in my constituency, will face tariffs when importing steel into the UK to manufacture its products, but a competitor’s imported finished product, made from the same steel, will not attract tariffs. This situation cannot be allowed to persist. Will the Prime Minister please arrange for his Secretary of State to focus on this issue and get it sorted out?
The Prime Minister
May I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising this really important issue? I give him an assurance that it is not just the Secretary of State; I am also absolutely focused on this, because we are all very well aware of the consequences that would otherwise follow. I am personally invested in this, as is the entire Cabinet, because it is a very important issue, as the right hon. Gentleman rightly points out.
Debate on the Address
Keir Starmer Excerpts(4 weeks, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
Mr Speaker, may I say what a pleasure it is to welcome the Gracious Speech of His Majesty, and the radical agenda of this Labour Government that will tear down the status quo that has failed working people and build a stronger, fairer Britain?
In the light of the abhorrent attacks in Golders Green two weeks ago, let me start by briefly addressing that directly. It was the latest in a series of appalling antisemitic attacks; a normalisation of hatred that leads terrorists with warped Islamist ideologies to attack people they have never even met, simply because they are Jewish; a hatred that leads some to march calling for the murder of British Jews, and not to think that there might be something wrong about that.
I have fought that hatred in my own political party, and I have sat with others as they describe what it means for them—the fear, the sense that maybe they should not wear something or do something that might reveal their Jewish identity, just in case. It is time for the silent majority in this country to speak up, to stand with British Jews and to defeat this hatred once and for all, just as we will take on any form of hatred, from left or right, that seeks to divide us. In the words of the Gracious Speech, we will
“defend the British values of decency, tolerance and respect for difference under our common flag”.
That is also why, when far-right agitators try to come here this Saturday to spread their poison of hatred, this Labour Government will block them, this time and every time.
The Humble Address was brilliantly proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah). Members across the House will have read her remarkable new book, and her list of endorsements is truly impressive, reaching well over 100 Members—at last, a list that we can all get behind. [Laughter.] It is not the first time that she has shown her ability to bring people together. She united her city and many in this House when she sent George Galloway packing.
The House will know that my hon. Friend is passionate about the measures that this Government are taking to lift half a million children out of poverty, as we all are on this side of the House—it is the pride of these Benches—but the House might not know about her remarkable effort to get Marcus Rashford to champion free school meals and speak to pupils in her constituency. Most of us would have attempted this via the complex world of agents and managers, but my hon. Friend had a different idea. She spoke, as you do, to the sister of Cristiano Ronaldo. I can imagine that the Ronaldo household is used to fielding some pretty big offers—multimillion-pound transfers, billions in brand sponsorships, Piers Morgan calling for the eighth time that day—but I cannot imagine the confusion in the Ronaldo family when they heard my hon. Friend say not, “Is Cristiano Ronaldo available?”, but, “Can you give me the number of Marcus Rashford? I want to invite him to a primary school in Allerton to have some porridge in our free breakfast club.”
On a much more serious note, I know that the whole House will join me in paying tribute to my hon. Friend’s extraordinary courage, together with her mother, brother and sister. Their story is utterly harrowing, and their strength to survive and deep-rooted determination to fight for change are an inspiration for all of us, and the very best of who we are. My hon. Friend brings a lived experience to our politics—an empathy, a compassion, a humanity, and an understanding of how easy it is to slip from a stable and secure life into one gripped by terrible deprivation.
As my hon. Friend writes in her book:
“Behind every word we utter must lie the foundation of real human experience”.
In that spirit, I am sure she will welcome the measures in this King’s Speech, which will deliver change grounded in that lived experience and the work of the tireless campaigners who have fought for justice, whether that is remediation for those living in homes with unsafe cladding, banning abusive conversion practices, our mission to halve violence against women and girls, or the Hillsborough law, which will bring justice for all. As she says so powerfully,
“equality, fairness and justice must belong to all of us.”
That is the driving purpose of our party, and her speech was in the finest traditions of this House.
The Humble Address was also brilliantly seconded by my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince). We are all proud to represent our constituencies, but few of us so relentlessly name our constituency as those who represent Harlow. Members from previous Parliaments will remember my hon. Friend’s predecessor, Robert Halfon, who seemed to get Harlow into pretty well all of his contributions. Well, my hon. Friend will not be outdone. He has inherited the great Harlow shoehorn, and he is already recognised across this House as a one-man tourist board. I have to thank the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), who is caught in Hansard referring to my hon. Friend as the “Trade envoy to Harlow”—a rare example of a good idea from the Opposition.
No matter the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow will find the local connection, whether it is championing the role of Harlow college in dealing with climate change, praising the invention of fibre-optic cables in Harlow, or telling us how Harlow doubled for Paris during an episode of “The Crown”. I remember clearly my hon. Friend saying to me that wherever he goes in the world, he is always thinking about Harlow, and he is quite right.
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his amazing fundraising at this year’s London marathon, as has been mentioned.
I understand his disappointment at being overtaken by the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden). All I can say is that there is no shame in losing to someone whose training was so extensive that it involved running all the way from North West Durham to Billericay.
It is perhaps no surprise that, as a secondary school maths teacher for 15 years, my hon. Friend has an eye for detail, boundless energy and an ability to handle those on these Benches who are occasionally unruly, but he also has a real passion for young people, a deep and personal understanding of the invaluable role that young carers play, and total conviction in the power of education to change our country, so I know he will welcome the education Bill in the Gracious Speech. When the next series of “Educating Essex” is made, he will rightly be the star, and I thank him for yet another fantastic speech today.
Let me also thank the Leader of the Opposition for the usual warm and generous nature of her contribution. In difficult days, her input is always a ray of sunshine. I particularly like getting tips from her on how to win friends. This is from the party that had previously called us “orcs and goons”; I am a Gooner, so, as usual, she is less than half right. However, we do have one thing in common: both our parties had tough results in the local elections last week. The difference is that she has not noticed. There is another difference: we are in government, and they are no longer even the Opposition.
This King’s Speech is a strike against the status quo, which has failed working people. It is a King’s Speech for the young people whose gifts lie in their hands, and who work hard, want their talents to be recognised, and just want an opportunity in their community. It is a King’s Speech for the children who, under the Conservative party, had to go to school without breakfast, hungry, cold and tired, when they should be focused on their learning. It is a King’s Speech for the backbone of this country; for working people who worry about the cost of living and want their town centre to thrive, their public services to work, and their Government to be on their side—and we are, because at the heart of this programme is a plan to make Britain stronger and fairer.
Right now, across the country, people turn on their television and see bombs falling; they go to the petrol station and see prices rising; and they are worried sick about the consequences. We cannot stand here in the House and pretend that this is new. Britain has been buffeted by crises for decades now—the 2008 financial crash, the austerity that followed it, Brexit, covid, and the war that still rages in Ukraine—and the response? Their response is always the same: a desperate attempt to get back to a status quo that failed working people, decimated their public services, and made them pay the price. Our response this time must and will be different—a complete break. We will not simply slump back to the old ways. This King’s Speech gives us the strength we need—the economic security, energy security and national security to control our future in a chaotic world. It is an agenda of radical reform across our major public services. This is an urgent, activist Labour Government who tilt power back to workers, renters and the less fortunate, and give a voice to the working class and to all those whom the status quo has repeatedly ignored and dismissed. We are in favour of a Britain where everyone, whatever their background, can go as far as their talent and effort take them, and where people have a pride in where they live and hope in what lies ahead. That is the change of a Labour Government, and this King’s Speech delivers it.
We will deliver on economic security, and let me be clear: as the conflict in Iran unfolds, we are in a better position because of the action that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor took last year—getting inflation down, borrowing down and mortgage costs down. That is why we have been able to cap energy bills, raise the living wage, strengthen workers’ rights and end the shameful two-child benefit limit, lifting half a million children out of poverty.
Faced with challenges, we do not retreat from our Labour values; we use them as our compass—strength through fairness. We will keep supporting those who need it most, including by creating a new national programme to redistribute surplus food, so that no one in this country needs to go hungry because of the conflict overseas. We also need to strengthen our sovereign capabilities, because the days when this country turned its back on our critical industries are over. We have seen that with British Steel, and we will see it with new legislation to clean up our waterways. A failure in the water industry has been going on for decades. It is a disgrace, and this Labour Government will tackle it.
We will take that moral urgency to every part of our nation, with Bills to increase the pace of change in our NHS, in law enforcement, in controlling our borders and more. While immigration is down, we need to do more. While violent crime is down, it needs to be lower. While NHS waiting lists are down, we must go further, rewiring the state so that the working people of this country feel that it serves their interests. We will also build in this country sovereign power in the industries of the future, which will give us greater control in a world being reshaped by artificial intelligence. We will tear down the barriers to growth on planning, on faster infrastructure development and on business regulation, helping our great businesses, large and small.
We will, as a defining act of this Government, rebuild our relationship with Europe, putting Britain back at the heart of a stronger Europe. That is good for growth, and it will reduce the cost of living and strengthen our security. There is no good reason to oppose it, so for our economic security, and for our Labour values, this Government will act.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
Prime Minister, in my part of the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland, we have been subjected for some years to the humiliation of being governed by laws that we do not make and cannot change. Yet you, Prime Minister, now seem to want to impose that same denial of democracy on the whole United Kingdom by making us a subservient rule-taker from a foreign Parliament. How is that in the interests of democracy?
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman has been here long enough to not blame me for the problem. He should not say “you”.
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for his intervention. I am very well aware of the tensions in Northern Ireland, and the issues that have to be dealt with in our relations with the EU, but we have to face the fact that promises were made about Brexit that were not true, and which have not borne fruit. It is in our economic interests, our national interests and our defence interests to be closer to Europe. Of course we will navigate carefully, taking on board the issues in Northern Ireland, as he would expect, but it is in our interest to be closer to the EU. That is what we are doing, and we will go further.
This moment demands even greater radicalism on energy security. The British people should not have to pay more in their bills, and their living standards should not be hit, because of a war that they did not vote for and that Britain is not involved in, which is happening thousands of miles away. That is a fundamental argument of this Government, and the Conservatives have no answer to it. For decades they ducked the long-term decisions to make our country, our energy and our economy stronger, so we are going to take control. We are going to declare Britain’s energy independence. That does not mean, and it will not mean, that we turn off the taps in the North sea—oil and gas will be part of the mix for decades—but we have to move so much faster on clean energy, with a whole-society effort and everyone playing their part as we take control of our energy security.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
I am very grateful to the Prime Minister for giving way. He talks about energy security; he should know that Scotland has an energy surplus—we generate more electricity than we use—and that, in conditions of surplus, prices go down. However, in Scotland, because we are stuck in the GB energy market, we pay for the scarcity of energy in England—not just to the point of equality, but to our detriment, so that there are higher prices for energy in Scotland. Can he explain why that dysfunction exists, and what is in this King’s Speech to fix it?
The Prime Minister
What is in this King’s Speech to fix that is moving faster to our energy independence. That is the way that we get off the international markets. That is the way that we take control and reduce bills for people across the country.
We will, of course, also strengthen our country’s defence security. That starts with the fundamentals, and a recognition that it is not in the interests of this country to rush into a war without any thought of the consequences. That is my position, and that has always been my position, regardless of the pressure—a test of judgment that some in this House have failed. It continues with our commitment to NATO, the most successful defensive alliance in history, and a proud achievement of this party that others would throw away.
Today, faced with even greater threats, we need to strengthen NATO, we need to invest in our defence capabilities, and we need to strengthen the European element of NATO, because this nation is stronger when it stands with others, not just in word, but in deed. We are prepared to lead from the front; to bring nations together in this moment of danger; to support Ukraine, including through the coalition of the willing; and to act with our allies to reassure shipping in the strait of Hormuz. We are not content merely to manage the fallout from the Iran crisis; instead, we are building an international effort to solve it and end the economic harm.
Of course, standing up for the defence and security of the United Kingdom depends on one thing above all else: ending 14 years of Tory defence austerity with the biggest sustained investment since the cold war. We will go further with the measures outlined in the King’s Speech and our upcoming defence investment plan. We will develop the capabilities that our nation needs. We will also deepen our partnerships to fire up our industries and make sure that British skill, British pride and British resolve are converted into British jobs in a stronger, fairer Britain.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
The Prime Minister has used a lot of words about the defence investment plan. I think it was due in the autumn of last year, so when is he going to sign it?
The Prime Minister
I will take no lectures from the Conservatives. They hollowed out defence spend. Defence spend was 2.5% when they came into power, and 2.3% when they left power. The investment plan is being finalised and will be published soon. However, strength is the foundation, and that is the way we maintain our control, even in the storms of this world.
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
The Prime Minister quite rightly prioritises the defence of the country. We have depended for decades on the courage, honour and loyalty of our soldiers. However, some of our best units are now losing soldiers, because this Government are undermining them and allowing them, under the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, to be prosecuted and persecuted for alleged crimes—that were not carried out—from decades ago.
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Member knows very well that the provisions for Northern Ireland are intended to strike the right balance between what needs to be done and protecting our veterans. We are, of course, proud of all those who have served and do serve our country, but the legislation put forward by the last Government was struck down, leaving no protection whatsoever.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
On that point, will the Prime Minister give way?
The Prime Minister
I will make some progress. The way we change our country—[Interruption.]
Mr Francois
The Prime Minister will know that in the recent Supreme Court Dillon judgment the Court ruled that the Conservatives’ Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 overwhelmingly was not incompatible with the Human Rights Act—he knows that. He referenced the awful events in Golders Green, rightfully, and he defended the police officers against attacks and the leader of the Green party, rightfully, and said that they had to take split-second decisions. If Northern Ireland veterans had to take split-second decisions to uphold the rule of law in Northern Ireland, what is the difference?
The Prime Minister
I have been in control rooms in Northern Ireland, watching decisions being taken on the use of fatal force. I am well aware of the nature of the decisions that have to be taken, the circumstances in which they are taken and how difficult those decisions are. That is not the same as the issues in the Bill, and the right hon. Gentleman knows it.
Strength is the foundation: it is the way we maintain our control even in the storms of this world, and the way we change our country rather than just manage the crisis. More than anything, change means a Britain where every child can go as far as their talent or effort allows. It is a beautiful idea, one that I know is shared across the House, but as representatives we need to see the country as a whole to make sure we see every child, including the children growing up in poverty, the children who have special educational needs, the young people who cannot get a job, and the people who are ignored and excluded from our highest aspirations because they do not want to go to university. This is a King’s Speech to change that once and for all.
My late brother had difficulties learning, and he had to fight every day just to be seen. There are millions of people like him: people who are ignored by a system and a status quo that has no expectations for them. This King’s Speech will make sure that no child is left behind, because everyone has something to contribute to the success of this nation. Every child must succeed if we are to build a stronger, fairer Britain. That is how we tear down the status quo preserved by the Conservative party—a status quo that failed working people, a status quo that left Britain’s economy exposed, a status quo that made our country weak.
There are some in this country—some even in this House—who would feed the frustration with that status quo into a politics of grievance and division. This King’s Speech sets a different course, a more hopeful course, and a course that sees the conflict in Iran, a war on two fronts, not as something to wring our hands about, but as an opportunity we must take to shape our country’s future, to end the status quo that has failed working people, and to build a stronger, fairer Britain. That is what this King’s Speech delivers and I commend it to the House.
Oral Answers to Questions
Keir Starmer Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gurinder Singh Josan (Smethwick) (Lab)
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
The state visit by His Majesty the King is a powerful reminder of the deep and special relationship we have with the United States.
In this Session of Parliament, this Labour Government have delivered the biggest upgrade in workers’ rights in a generation, the biggest improvement in renters’ rights in a generation, and more action than any other Government to tackle child poverty. In the King’s Speech, I look forward to setting out what more we will do to change our country for the better.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. I shall have further such meetings later today.
Gurinder Singh Josan
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for meeting me recently to view 1,000 paper cranes folded by residents in Bearwood in recognition of the diversity of Smethwick, where neighbours and communities just get on with each other.
Residents in my constituency and across Sandwell benefit from the lowest council tax in the west midlands and investment in new leisure centres and parks, and all our libraries are kept open. Sandwell is the third-best council in the country for fixing potholes and has expanded breakfast clubs and free school meals and ensured cheaper school uniforms for our children. Does the Prime Minister agree that this is all down to well-run Labour-led Sandwell council and the changes brought about by this Labour Government, which were opposed at every opportunity by the Tories and Reform?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his work to give every child in his constituency the best start in life. I am very glad that this Government have done more than any other to lift children out of poverty. Thanks to our work this Session, the Government have passed laws to deliver more rights at work, build new homes, save British steel, clean up our waterways, secure our borders, deliver record funding to our NHS and so much more—change delivered by Labour, and opposed by the Tories and Reform.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
It is the end of this Session, and what a contrast with the beginning. Back in July 2024, the Government Benches were full adoring new MPs asking sycophantic questions; yesterday, the Prime Minister was reduced to begging those same MPs to save his own skin. He has broken his promise to grow the economy; the only thing that has grown is the welfare bill. Can the Prime Minister tell us how many more people are out of work and claiming universal credit since he took office?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Lady talks about what we have done, in relation to people out of work. We have put in place the youth guarantee for young people; we have raised the national minimum wage, thanks to our Chancellor; we have helped young people into work by cutting NHS waiting lists, thanks to the work of the Health Secretary; we have put more police on the streets, thanks to the work of the Home Secretary; and we have cut energy bills for young people, thanks to the work of the Energy Secretary. I am very proud of what this Labour Government have delivered in the first Session of this Parliament.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister does not want to say how many more people are out of work and claiming universal credit since he took office; perhaps he does not know. Let me tell him: it is 1.5 million people. That is the entire population of Leeds, Cardiff and Edinburgh put together. Hard-working people are being taxed more and more to pay for a ballooning benefits bill. Can the Prime Minister tell us why, on his watch, for the first time ever, we are now spending more on welfare than we earn in income tax?
The Prime Minister
The welfare system the Leader of the Opposition complains of is the one the Conservatives put in place. We are reforming it to improve it—and what did they do when we put that forward? They voted to keep the same broken welfare system.
Mrs Badenoch
That answer was as honest as the Prime Minister’s reason for sacking Olly Robbins; perhaps he would like to apologise for it right now. Let me tell him why we are spending more on welfare than we are earning in tax. It is because of him and his terrible policies—this is all under him. We are spending so much on welfare that we cannot afford to defend the country. If he will not listen to me, perhaps he will listen to the former Labour Defence Secretary, Lord Robertson, who said:
“We cannot defend Britain with an ever-expanding welfare budget.”
I agree with Lord Robertson. Why doesn’t the Prime Minister?
The Prime Minister
This is the Labour Government who increased defence spending, with the highest sustained spend since the cold war. What did the Conservatives do? When they came into power, defence spending was 2.5%; when they left power, it was 2.3%. Even their own Defence Secretary admitted that they “hollowed out” our armed forces. We will take no lectures from them on defence.
Mrs Badenoch
Talking about more defence spending is not the same as giving more money for defence. The Prime Minister has been in office for nearly two years. He has a welfare plan until 2031, but he has not produced a defence investment plan. We have gone backwards on defence under him, because we are borrowing to pay for welfare. Yesterday we learned that the cost of Government borrowing is at its highest in two decades; that is under him. Instead of getting a grip on the economy, the Chancellor is briefing out that there could be rent controls, in order to curry favour with left-wing Back Benchers. This is not a serious way to run the economy. It is time the Prime Minister gave her an easier job, so will he listen to businesses and the country and reshuffle the Chancellor?
The Prime Minister
At the spring statement, the Chancellor was very proud to say that inflation was down to 3% and falling; interest rates have been cut six times; and we have seen the growth figures for the early part of this year. The Leader of the Opposition says, “Well, the cost of borrowing’s gone up.” Yes—because there is a conflict in Iran. And what did she want to do? When I said we would not be dragged into that war because I had thought through the consequences, including the economic consequences, what did she do? She said we should jump in with both feet, without regard to the consequences. She cannot complain now about the implications.
Mrs Badenoch
I did not hear the Prime Minister say that he is not reshuffling the Chancellor; it sounds like she’s toast. Meanwhile, the former Deputy Prime Minister is on manoeuvres. This Government are like a bad episode of “Game of Thrones”. The Prime Minister’s own people have turned against him, and all the while, he is holed up in his castle, wetting himself about a visit from the king in the north. Yesterday, one Labour MP actually said that his days are numbered. It was one of them—I wonder who, because they are all looking guilty as hell. Isn’t the real reason the Prime Minister cannot cut welfare that he has squandered all his political capital saving his own skin?
The Prime Minister
The Leader of the Opposition talks about playing political games. That is what she was doing yesterday. This House considered her motion, and rejected it decisively, because everyone saw it for what it was: a desperate, baseless political stunt ahead of the May elections. While she and the Opposition were playing games here, I was chairing a Cobra meeting, going through the contingencies and managing that war in the middle east. They think political games are more important than managing the implications of the war in the middle east, which will affect every single one of their constituents. None of them asks any questions about it; none of them wants to debate it; they just want to debate silly political stunts. Even though we did not join the war—no thanks to her—my duty is to protect the British public from its consequences, and nothing is going to distract me from what matters to the British public.
Mrs Badenoch
I think the whole country is sick of this man’s tone-deaf, pompous moralising. Last week, we all saw him punch the Speaker’s Chair. This is not a man who is in control. Since the last King’s Speech, it has been one disaster after another: cronyism, jobs for friends of convicted paedophiles, peerages for other friends of convicted paedophiles, broken promises on taxes, and U-turn after U-turn after U-turn. He has lost a Deputy Prime Minister, two chiefs of staff, two Cabinet Secretaries, the support of his Back Benchers and all his credibility. [Interruption.] Labour Members can jeer as much as they like; they are going to have to go to their constituency and explain to all those people why they did what they did last night. The fact is that the Prime Minister was reduced to whipping his MPs to save him, and to pleading with a tax dodger to rejoin his Cabinet. How much longer do we all have to put up with his shambles?
The Prime Minister
I changed my party and I won a general election. She has changed her party, because when I became leader of mine, the Conservative party was three times the size it is now. She has changed it, and it is now even smaller than when she started as leader, because half of them are up there on the Reform Benches. The stunt the Conservatives played yesterday was because they do not like what we are delivering: more rights at work, more security for renters, and half a million children lifted out of poverty. That is our mandate, that is our mission, and nothing is going to hold us back.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
It was 18 months ago, I remember, that my late friend Terry Etherton was sitting up in the Gallery beaming down at the Prime Minister because he had just announced the Government scheme to give compensation to those who had been wrongly sacked from the armed forces for simply being gay. I have a constituent who lost his job at MI6 in the 1980s for his sexuality, and he has no compensation. Those in the security services also put their life on the line for their country; it is just not fair. Will the Prime Minister find the time to sit down with my constituent and me, so that together we can work out how we can extend Terry’s scheme, so that those who were in the security services can also get justice?
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend for her dedicated work on this. I am very proud of the work that we have done to recognise LGBT veterans. On top of that, people in our security services are some of the bravest and most professional who serve our country. That some of them lost their job because of their sexuality is a historical wrong, and I confirm today that the Security Minister is assessing this closely. I will make sure that my right hon. Friend is updated and has the meeting that she has asked for.
The Prime Minister
Given what I have had thrown at me in the last two weeks by all the Opposition parties, that is the least of my problems. I know that the right hon. Gentleman likes stunts, but I was surprised that he joined in with the one yesterday. His business spokesman said last week that he was satisfied that I had not misled the House. The right hon. Gentleman’s opening position was that it was inconceivable that officials would give clearance to Mandelson and not tell Ministers that it was against the United Kingdom Security Vetting recommendation. That is what he said, and it did not happen. I expect frivolous accusations from the Leader of the Opposition. Clearly, I was wrong to expect anything better from the man in the wetsuit.
Ed Davey
I have got my drysuit on today, and let me tell the Prime Minister that when Boris Johnson was faced with that motion, he did not whip his MPs. There was a difference there.
Experts are warning that food prices will rise by 10% this year as farmers’ costs soar. Trump’s war has exposed how weak Britain’s food security is, yet under the system brought in by the Conservatives, England is the only country in Europe where farm payments do not actively support farmers to produce food. So will the King’s Speech include a good food Bill to fix that mistake and ensure that people can afford the food they need?
The Prime Minister
Of course food security is important, and that is why I was considering that, among other issues, in the ministerial meetings yesterday in Cobra. That is what I was spending my afternoon doing: ensuring that we were prepared and managing the risks of a conflict that will affect every single one of our constituents. What was the right hon. Gentleman doing? He was wasting his time in here on a baseless allegation and engaging in party political issues. He should have been working on the single most important issue of the day, but he wasted his time on a baseless political stunt.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the real risk of climate change, both internationally and at home. I am proud that we have restored the UK’s position as a global leader on climate action. That means cutting emissions with our carbon budget, investing £7 billion in nature recovery and driving ahead with renewables. They are the right steps to protect supply chains, to protect our economy and to protect working people.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
Depending upon the results in the elections next week, this may well be my final PMQs. I suppose that the same is perhaps true for the Prime Minister as well. But before then, does he understand that, yes, it is because of inaction on the cost of living crisis; yes, it is because of the debacle of the winter fuel payment; yes, it is because of the thousand jobs being lost a month in Scotland’s North sea and the closure of Grangemouth; and yes, it is because of his judgment on Matthew Doyle and Peter Mandelson; but above all else, the reason that his time in office will soon be coming to a close is that he promised change but has delivered chaos?
The Prime Minister
I am proud of what this Labour Government have achieved and I am proud of what we will achieve. If this is the right hon. Gentleman’s last session here, let us reflect on his great achievements in Westminster. He kicked out his predecessor and then lost 39 MPs at the next election. I hope he can keep up that record in Holyrood next week.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Stepney) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I am proud that Labour is investing in life sciences. I thank my hon. Friend for championing that project for over a decade. The national wealth fund is designed to co-invest, alongside private investors, and Ministers are happy to discuss those proposals with her.
Today I can announce a significant new investment by AstraZeneca, which is investing £300 million in UK life sciences, made possible by the pharmaceutical arrangement that we have struck with the United States to future-proof thousands of jobs in Macclesfield and Cambridge. That is a major vote of confidence in the UK and Labour’s plans to strengthen our economy.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman is right to raise food security. Obviously, that is one resilience that we need and must protect in this country. We also need to move to secure independence of energy, because one thing that is making life so much harder for all those in the food sector is that their energy prices go up every time an international conflict affects the prices here. By getting energy independence, which requires infrastructure, we can protect them from that and therefore make them more resilient.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. This is the first Government in a generation to take key services back into public ownership, to give rights and powers to workers, renters and the less fortunate, and to invest in public services and lift children out of poverty. As we face war on two fronts, we will do more. A stronger economy, stronger energy security, stronger on defence—that is the difference that this Government are making.
Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I can give the right hon. and learned Gentleman that assurance. Those platform providers need to take responsibility. He will have noticed the fight that we had with Grok just a few months ago—disgusting images were being created on social media, and we took that on in a fight, which we won, across the House—as well as with chatbots. We need to build on the legislation that we have, and we definitely need more protection in general, particularly for children, but his point is valid: that should not take any responsibility away from those that provide the platforms in the first place.
Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is a brilliant representative for Croydon, and she is right: for too long, renters have been at the mercy of rogue landlords, pushing thousands into homelessness. I am delighted to confirm that this Friday no-fault evictions will be scrapped once and for all. That sends an important message to anyone living in a damp, unsafe home, anyone who has suffered an unfair rent increase, and every family forced to move over the last year to year. Change is here, delivered by Labour, and opposed by the Tories and Reform every step of the way.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
The Prime Minister
No, it’s because they can see a baseless allegation and political stunt when they see it. The hon. Gentleman is a former GP, so here is the truth: we have recruited 82 more GPs and upgraded his medical centre. Opposition Members want all the benefits, but they never want to pay for them.
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister
I think we should all back Team Derby. Our investment is helping to renew our submarine fleet, building new nuclear reactors and creating jobs and growth. I am proud to see Labour MPs working with the Labour Mayor and a Labour Government to deliver a brighter future for Derby.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
The Prime Minister
We are going to build 1.5 million homes. We are upgrading the rights of renters, because we know how important it is for everyone to have a safe and secure roof over their head. The hon. Member’s challenge to me would have more force if the Liberal Democrats had not abstained on the measures that we are taking to move this forward.
David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
After years of failure being tolerated, and failing staff and patients, our new intensive recovery programme is targeting sites that need tailored support. There is more to do, but we are seeing real progress across our NHS—[Interruption.] Opposition Members have never heard this from a Government. Waiting lists are the lowest for three years—that did not happen in 14 years—and A&E waiting times are the best for five years. They do not recognise any of that because they did not do any of it. We have the fastest ambulance response times in half a decade. Do not forget that the Opposition parties opposed the record investment that was necessary to make all that happen.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
The Prime Minister
Let me reassure the House that the work of the international law unit has not ended. It will simply be done by a different team under a restructure. We will, of course, continue to monitor international humanitarian law in Gaza and elsewhere, and invest in conflict prevention and resolution.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is a champion for this crucial local project, and I thank him for his work. I know from visiting Doncaster just how vital reopening the airport is for local residents. It will be a huge boost for South Yorkshire and unlock thousands of jobs. I am deeply concerned by reports that decisions by Reform in Doncaster could put the reopening in jeopardy. Labour put the plan in place; Reform should honour its promises, stop playing games and get the airport open.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
The Prime Minister
I am very proud—this Government are very proud—of the biggest upgrade in workers’ rights in a generation and the biggest upgrade in renters’ rights in a generation and of doing the most any Government have ever done to reduce child poverty. Those measures will have a lasting impact on working people across the United Kingdom. That is the change we are bringing about and I look forward to continuing it.
Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)
As this parliamentary Session draws to a close, it seems like a good moment to reflect on the legislation passed since the general election—not all of it, of course. Many of us have walked through the Lobby to pass 60 Bills that have touched almost every aspect of British life, from the care of cats, dogs and ferrets to space industry indemnities, along with a whole host of measures seeking to improve life for renters, carers, investors, football fans, NHS patients, serving personnel and more. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that this is a pretty good first Session report card? Does he also agree that the best is yet to come?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the 50 pieces of legislation—the 50 Bills—that we have put through. We whipped to change the country —we all voted to change the country. The Opposition parties, of course, opposed almost all of it. That is why we have got stronger rights for renters and why we have got stronger rights for workers, investing in our roads and railways, reforming special educational needs and disabilities provision and driving down waiting lists—all opposed by the Opposition parties. And we are only just getting started. We are going to go further on a stronger economy, on energy security and a stronger defence.
Sarah Gibson (Chippenham) (LD)
Before we leave the House for several weeks, I feel it is absolutely necessary to raise an issue in my constituency, about which I have been trying to get an answer from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and from the Environment Agency. We have a landfill site in Calne that is producing a sulphurous smell that is causing residents to need to close their windows and leading to children with sore throats, but I am not getting answer except that the Environment Agency itself admits that
“controls may not be working effectively”.
Like my constituents, I find it really disappointing that we are not getting any serious response. This is not the kind of thing we expect in the UK—we do not expect the air that we breathe not to be safe. I urge the Prime Minister to help me to get a response from DEFRA and the EA on what measures can be put in place to reassure my constituents that they are not suffering ill health.
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Lady for raising the issue. Now that she has raised it with me, I will make sure that I go away and chase it up so that she gets the reply that, importantly, her constituents are entitled to.
Points of Order
Keir Starmer Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Catherine West (Hornsey and Friern Barnet) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The whole House will be very concerned to hear about the dreadful stabbings this morning in the borough of Barnet. As the Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet, I am very worried about this repeated violence against the Jewish community. I want to reach out to the whole House to say that we condemn these alleged attacks and wish the police, the council and all the community services the very best in solving this and bringing to justice the perpetrators of these violent crimes.
The Prime Minister
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue, which I learned about before Prime Minister’s questions. It is deeply concerning to everyone in this House. There is now a police investigation, and we all need to do everything we can to support that investigation and be absolutely clear in our determination to deal with any of these offences, the like of which we have seen too much recently.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. As you know, I am the secretary to the National Union of Journalists parliamentary group, and I raised earlier this week a point of order concerning the role of the US agency APCO in undertaking the investigation of journalists for Labour Together, which resulted in the smearing of those journalists. I explained that as a result of concern about the reach of APCO’s investigation, a number of hon. Members have submitted subject interest requests to the company and to Labour Together. There has been a delay in the response from Labour Together to those requests, but APCO has confirmed, in a very redacted form, that information on MPs was being collected.
I referred this week to information from a whistleblower —a freelancer involved in the Labour Together inquiry—indicating that APCO had instructed this person to destroy files and material related to the inquiry. Only hours ago, we had it confirmed online by the Financial Times that tapes exist that include conversations by APCO’s head of media relations for Europe, Tom Harper, discussing the deletion of an email account and saying
“they will be able to see that through digital forensics or something like that”
with regard to references and this inquiry. He also refers to processes to “muddy the waters” and the audit trail.
I can also report—[Interruption.] I am sorry for the delay. I can also report that evidence was submitted to the inquiry being run by Sir Laurie Magnus, the Prime Minister’s ethics adviser, by Paul Holden, one of the journalists and victims of the smears, but evidence was not supplied by the Cabinet Office to the secretariat to the Sir Laurie Magnus inquiry.
On behalf of the NUJ parliamentary group, I express our concern—[Interruption.] This is important. The NUJ parliamentary group is concerned about the smearing of journalists. We need to know what surveillance, if any, was taking place of hon. Members and for what purposes. We call again for an independent inquiry into the role of APCO and Labour Together in this issue.
Oral Answers to Questions
Keir Starmer Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
Queen Elizabeth II devoted her life to public service. As we mark the 100th anniversary of her birth, I am delighted that her extraordinary reign will be marked by a permanent memorial.
In recent days we have seen a series of despicable antisemitic arson attacks. With additional funding to deploy specialist officers, a fundamental reset of how we counter extremism and action to tackle the poison of antisemitism in our schools, our colleges and the NHS, we will do everything in our power to keep British Jews safe, and I am sure the whole House will join me in standing with our Jewish community. There is no place in British life for antisemitism.
Today my thoughts are also with the family of Stephen Lawrence, murdered in a racist attack 33 years ago today. We honour his legacy in the fight against racism and in providing opportunity for every young person.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Mike Wood
Can the Prime Minister deny that Downing Street considered appointing Matthew Doyle to a diplomatic position?
The Prime Minister
Matthew Doyle worked for many years in public service for me as Prime Minister and other Ministers. When people leave roles in any organisation, there are often conversations about other roles that they want to apply for, but nothing came of this.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this. Of course, it was 33 years ago today that that awful murder took place. I am proud to have worked alongside Baroness Lawrence for many years. She is an incredibly courageous and inspiring campaigner, notwithstanding all the injustices that have been thrown at her in the last 33 years. We do celebrate St George’s day. We fly our flag, and we celebrate this country’s values of service, generosity and respect. They are English values, which is why I love this country so much. There are those who seek to divide us, who tell us that people are not welcome and try to rip our communities apart. We will never let them. We stand together united and against any challenges that we may face.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
Does the Prime Minister stand by his statement at the Dispatch Box on 10 September last year that
“full due process was followed”—[Official Report, 10 September 2025; Vol. 772, c. 859]
in the appointment of Peter Mandelson as our ambassador to Washington?
The Prime Minister
Yes, I do. Let me make it clear at the outset that the appointment itself was a mistake. It was my mistake. I have apologised to the victims for it, and I do so again. What I set out to the House on Monday is that Foreign Office officials granted security clearance to Mandelson against the recommendation of UK Security Vetting. Yesterday, Sir Olly Robbins was asked if he shared that decision with me, No. 10 or any other Ministers. He gave a clear answer: no. That puts to bed all the allegations levelled at me by those opposite in relation to dishonesty. I believe—[Interruption.] Last week, they were all saying that it must have been shared with me; Sir Olly was very clear yesterday it was not. I believe not sharing it was a serious error of judgment. That information should have been shared with me and other Ministers, and if it had been, Mandelson would not have been committed to post.
Mrs Badenoch
It has not put to bed anything. On 11 November 2024—long before any vetting had happened—the Prime Minister received advice from Simon Case, the then Cabinet Secretary. The advice said the appointment would require
“the necessary security clearances…before confirming”
the Prime Minister’s choice. This advice was ignored, so how can the Prime Minister still believe that confirming Mandelson before the security clearances was following “full due process”?
The Prime Minister
This was looked into by Sir Chris Wormald. I asked him to review the appointment process, including the vetting. He confirmed—his words—“appropriate processes were followed”. The Leader of the Opposition has put great weight on the order of events. I remind her what Sir Chris said last November in evidence to the House. He said that
“when we are making appointments from outside the civil service…the normal thing is for…security clearance to happen after appointment but before the person signs a contract and takes up post.”
That is what happened in this case. Sir Olly Robbins himself also gave evidence, and he said that
“as is normally the case with external appointments”
in his Department,
“the appointment was made subject to obtaining security clearance.”
On top of that, Sir Olly Robbins has made it clear that the fact that developed vetting was after the announcement made, in his words, no material difference to the conclusion that was reached. I add this: what Sir Olly Robbins wrote to the Committee yesterday was this:
“When the Prime Minister informed the House that the proper process had been followed in respect of”
national security vetting,
“he was correct.”
Mrs Badenoch
It is very interesting that the Prime Minister mentions Chris Wormald. He is relying on advice given to him after Mandelson was sacked by a Cabinet Secretary the Prime Minister then sacked. That is not relevant. I am talking about the advice he was given before the appointment. He keeps mentioning Sir Olly Robbins. Sir Olly Robbins told us that the Prime Minister even sought clearance from His Majesty the King before the vetting. He had already got agreement from the US Administration—the Chair of the Select Committee said that. Mandelson was a done deal. Yesterday, Sir Olly Robbins said that the
“focus was on getting Mandelson out to Washington quickly.”
He said the Prime Minister’s team showed a “dismissive attitude” to vetting, and they even argued Peter Mandelson did not need any vetting at all. This clearly was not proper process. Why was due process not followed?
The Prime Minister
Let me deal with this directly, particularly this question of pressure in relation to the decision to appoint Peter Mandelson and to put him in place. Sir Olly Robbins could not have been clearer in his evidence yesterday. He said that
“I didn’t feel under…pressure personally in terms of my judgment”—
his words. He went on to say:
“I…have complete confidence that…recommendations to me and the discussion we had and the decision we made were rigorously independent of”
any “pressure.” On top of that, he was asked if any “conversations…led” him
“to believe that…Mandelson needed to take up this role regardless of”
the vetting outcome. He said:
“I can say with certainty that it was never put to me that way.”
No pressure existed whatsoever in relation to this case. What is unacceptable is that the recommendation of UKSV was not given to me before Mandelson took up his post.
Mrs Badenoch
We all heard what Sir Olly Robbins said yesterday. The fact of the matter is that the Prime Minister spent a lot of time telling us just how furious he was to learn that Mandelson failed the vetting—the same Prime Minister who was trying to get him to Washington without any vetting at all. It’s just unbelievable. The reason the Cabinet Secretary advised the Prime Minister to carry out full vetting before the appointment—this is common sense, Mr Speaker—was to protect our national security. The due diligence document said that Mandelson remained on the board of the Kremlin-linked defence company Sistema long after Putin’s first invasion of Ukraine in 2014. The Prime Minister told us on Monday that he had read that due diligence report. Why did the Prime Minister want to make a man with links to the Kremlin our ambassador in Washington?
The Prime Minister
Let me deal with the first allegation the right hon. Lady put in that question. It was always the case that there would be developed vetting in this case. That was the understood process. That was carried out. It was reviewed by Sir Chris Wormald, and he said it was the appropriate process. Sir Olly was absolutely clear that nobody put pressure on him to make this appointment, whatever the sequence of developed vetting. In relation to what was in the due process, any issues of national security are dealt with in the developed vetting process. I knew that. Peter Mandelson received clearance through that process.
The problem, as I said to the House, was that I was unaware that UKSV recommended against clearance. That is information that should have been brought to my attention. It recommended, with red flags, that there should not be clearance and that it was high concern. That information should have been made available to me at the time and subsequently. The fact that it was not was a very serious error of judgment.
Mrs Badenoch
I do not know what planet the Prime Minister is on. Appointing someone with known links to the Kremlin is not full due process. If anybody had brought that sort of name to me when I was a Secretary of State, I would have said, “No way.” The Prime Minister thought someone with Kremlin links was still probably okay—“Let’s do some vetting.” Why does this matter? He keeps leaning on Sir Olly Robbins, a man he sacked—he keeps leaning on him. Sir Olly Robbins said yesterday that Peter Mandelson was given access to highly classified briefings even before he had received clearance. That was a clear national security risk. How can the Prime Minister still maintain that full due process was followed?
The Prime Minister
As a Member of the House of Lords and Privy Counsellor, and in accordance with guidance, documentation could have been provided to him and was provided to him. STRAP material comes after developed vetting, but because he was a Privy Counsellor he could have access to other material before developed vetting.
Mrs Badenoch
This is a joke. The Prime Minister says a Member of the House of Lords. Does he mean people like Matthew Doyle? [Interruption.] I am amazed at the level of chuntering from Labour MPs. The Prime Minister promised them probity. What he has given them is cronyism and an old boys’ club, where Matthew Doyle is being proposed as an ambassador. It is ridiculous.
We all heard Sir Olly Robbins’ testimony yesterday. The head of the Foreign Office was sacked for the Prime Minister’s own failings. His Back Benchers know that is not fair. Even his most loyal Cabinet members will not defend it. The Prime Minister did not follow the process the then Cabinet Secretary set out in November 2024. He knows he did not follow due process, yet he told the House he had.
Mr Speaker, I cannot accuse the Prime Minister of deliberately misleading the House, but everyone can see what has happened here. This was not due process. Everyone knows the price of misleading the House. Will the Prime Minister finally take responsibility and go?
The Prime Minister
Let us be absolutely clear. Before Mandelson took up his post, UKSV recommended with red flags that clearance should be denied, and there was high concern. That that was not brought to my attention, or to the attention of the Foreign Secretary at the time or subsequently, is a very serious error of judgment, and anyone in my position would have lost confidence in the former permanent secretary. The Leader of the Opposition claimed on Friday that Mandelson could not have been cleared against security advice, but she was wrong about that. She said that Ministers must have been told, but she was wrong about that. She claimed there was deliberate dishonesty, but she was wrong about that—wrong, wrong, wrong. She rushed to judgment, as she always does, just like with the Iran war. I was elected by the British people because the Opposition let the country down for 14 long years. [Interruption.] Whatever she says—whatever noise they make—nothing is going to distract me from delivering for our country.
Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
The Opposition should hang their heads in shame at the state they left our NHS in. I am proud that this Labour Government are fixing our NHS across the country, with waiting lists at their lowest in three years, the best A&E waiting times in five years, the fastest ambulance response times in half a decade, and cancer patients getting diagnosed in the shortest time on record. Lots done, more to do. That is why we are delivering neighbourhood health centres in every community to speed up care. We did that because we invested. What did the Opposition do? They broke the NHS, and then opposed the investment that we put in.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I associate myself and my party with the comments of the Prime Minister on our wonderful late Queen. I agree with him on the need to confront antisemitism wherever it is in our society, and on remembering Stephen Lawrence and his family.
I am sure many of us in this House were shocked by the revelations from Olly Robbins yesterday. He said that No. 10 told him to find a plum job for Matthew Doyle, another Labour crony who is friends with a convicted sex offender. The Prime Minister was asked on Monday whether No. 10 had proposed any political appointments other than Mandelson. Perhaps the past few hours have jogged his memory. Will he confirm today whether he knew that his office was lobbying for a diplomatic job for Matthew Doyle, and whether they were doing it on his authority?
The Prime Minister
As I said earlier, Matthew Doyle worked for many years in public service, both for me as Prime Minister and for other Ministers. When people leave roles in any organisation, there are very often conversations about other roles they may want to apply for. In this case, nothing came of it.
Ed Davey
The House and the public watching will note that the Prime Minister failed to answer my questions.
The chaos in this Government must not stop us focusing on the cost of living crisis hitting our country. President Trump’s idiotic war with Iran has already pushed up inflation in our country to 3.3%, and the Prime Minister knows there is far worse to come for the British people from here on in. They need help now. Will the Prime Minister follow other countries and use the Treasury’s extra revenue from higher fuel prices to cut rail and bus fares, and slash prices at the pump by 12p a litre?
The Prime Minister
Everybody can see that the conflict is causing serious economic damage in this country and countries around the world. The right hon. Member’s claim of a windfall for the Government is politically misleading and economically illiterate.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister
We inherited a housing crisis in London, including record numbers of children living in temporary accommodation, because the Conservatives failed to build the homes that we need. We are building those homes, and I am looking forward to next week, when Labour will deliver more security for tenants, through our Renters’ Rights Act 2025. I commend Hackney council, my hon. Friend’s council, on getting on with building affordable homes. What a stark contrast to the Green party, which has opposed 42,000 new homes across the capital and counting.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
The Prime Minister appointed Mandelson in a desperate and doomed attempt to pander to Donald Trump, despite knowing about Mandelson’s friendship with the paedophile Epstein, and his links to foreign states. The Prime Minister resisted vetting, and then took a “dismissive” and extraordinarily incurious attitude to it, compromising national security, and now he has thrown a civil servant under the bus to save his own skin. All this from a Prime Minister who pledged to restore trust and integrity in Government, but who has repeatedly betrayed the trust of voters and let the country down. Does the Prime Minister not recognise that the best thing that he can do to restore trust and integrity is to take true responsibility and resign?
The Prime Minister
Let me correct what the hon. Lady said. There was no dismissive attitude to developed vetting. I knew that the post was subject to developed vetting, and it was subject to developed vetting. What did not happen was me being told of the UKSV recommendation. That was a serious error of judgment. Had I been told, the appointment would not have gone ahead.
Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
Scotland deserves safer streets and more visible policing. In England and Wales, Labour has put 3,000 more neighbourhood police officers on our streets, delivering a named police officer for every neighbourhood. The SNP Government have already had two decades and record funding to invest in public services. If they knew how to do it, they would have done it by now, but they have not.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
The Prime Minister
Let me say that Jonathan Powell is doing an excellent job for this Government. He is respected across the world, and is playing a significant part in dealing with the huge challenges that we face.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
Clearly, the middle east conflict is placing real pressure on farmers; that is why it is important that we de-escalate. Today, the UK is hosting military planners, as work continues with France and other countries to help get the strait of Hormuz open, once the ceasefire holds. We have instructed the Competition and Markets Authority to look more closely at fertiliser and red diesel to ensure that farmers are getting a fair deal, and we are overhauling fertiliser regulations to diversify supply. On my hon. Friend’s particular case, we have also taken the decision to open the carbon dioxide plant on Teesside to protect supplies, because we will always act to secure our economy.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
The Prime Minister
I have set out in terms what I was not told in relation to the process. It is clearly information that I should have been given. A UKSV recommendation with a double red flag should have been brought to my attention; it was a serious error of judgment that it was not. Anyone in my position would have taken exactly the decision that I took in relation to the permanent secretary.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham North) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
We are tackling the injustice of leasehold and fixing building safety, as my hon. Friend rightly highlighted. I thank her for campaigning on this over many years. We are capping ground rents at £250 to cut costs for almost 4 million leasehold properties. We are investing over £5 billion to remove dangerous cladding, including over £1 billion for social housing. In Lewisham and across the country, I am determined that everyone should have a safe and secure home.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Member for his question. As he will appreciate, there is a live police investigation, and I know that the Minister for Border Security and Asylum is looking closely at the case; obviously, I can provide the hon. Member with any further information as that emerges. I reassure him that all accommodation must meet contractual standards, and the Home Office works with the police to manage all sites safely. Local authorities are consulted prior to any accommodation being procured and can object to any proposal. When there is strong evidence that a site is not suitable, it will not be proceeded with.
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I am delighted to hear about the new businesses in my hon. Friend’s area. Our high streets strategy, backed by £301 million, will set out further plans to rejuvenate high streets across the country. We are putting power into the hands of local communities through our Pride in Place scheme, including £20 million for Stanley South in my hon. Friend’s constituency. That is only possible because his community has a hard-working Labour MP and a Labour Government.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Some six months ago in this House, I mentioned a little boy called Teddy Johnson. Sadly, Teddy will be forever seven, because he died last week from metachromatic leukodystrophy. MLD is a horrendous condition that stole Teddy’s ability to walk, talk and even smile. What makes this tragedy more profound is that here in the UK, we have a treatment—we have a cure—but it is only effective if the condition is identified by a simple heel prick at birth and treated immediately, because when symptoms appear, it is too late. Just a few weeks ago, the UK National Screening Committee recommended the condition remain excluded from the heel prick. We have a treatment and we have a commissioned service in the Royal Manchester children’s hospital, yet children like Teddy are still dying prematurely. Despite all that is going on in the world, I know that the Prime Minister is in politics to make a change. Prime Minister, in Teddy’s memory and in the memory of all those who have died prematurely: make the change and add MLD to the simple heel prick test.
The Prime Minister
I remember the hon. Lady raising Teddy’s case very well. I am very saddened to hear of his passing, and my thoughts—and, I am sure, those of the whole House—are with his family and his loved ones. I will do precisely as she asks: I will make sure that we look at this again in the light of the information that she has given to me in the course of this session.
Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister
May I start by wishing my hon. Friend a happy birthday? [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”]
I will make sure that Ministers meet my hon. Friend to hear more detail about his particular proposal. We are committed to delivering 1.5 million homes this Parliament. We are prioritising the development of brownfield sites, ensuring that the default answer to brownfield proposals is a yes. We will go further and faster now that our Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 is law, despite being opposed by every Opposition party—a coalition of blockers.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
The Prime Minister may be aware that in December, for the first time in over three decades, Defence Ministers met the families of those killed in the 1994 RAF Chinook crash on the Mull of Kintyre. The Ministry of Defence promised “ongoing dialogue” with them. Is he also aware that, despite receiving pages of new evidence presented at that meeting that show the Chinook was not airworthy, the MOD chose not to keep its word and contacted instead the Press Association, saying that no new evidence had been presented about the cause of the crash? The Prime Minister knows, because the families have written to him, as the MOD knows too, that the families are seeking not a public inquiry into the cause of the crash, but to know the reason why their loved ones were placed on board an aircraft which, according to the MOD’s own test pilots and engineers, was described as “positively dangerous”, “unairworthy” and “not to be relied on in any way whatsoever”? Will he agree to meet the families, to rebuild trust and to offer the promised dialogue that the MOD clearly finds so difficult to achieve?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Lady for raising this case; I will make sure that is looked at again in the light of what she has said, and that the families get the relevant meeting.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Stepney) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
May I start by thanking my hon. Friend for her long record of campaigning against child poverty? Child poverty stifles opportunity, it makes it harder for kids to get on in life and we in this Government will not stand by. This is a moral mission for this Government. We will make sure that no child or family is left behind, through lifting the two-child cap, expanding free school meals and free breakfast clubs, and extending free childcare. More than 6,000 children in my hon. Friend’s constituency alone will benefit from the action that we are taking. And what would the Tories and Reform do? They would plunge those children straight back into poverty. That is a disgrace.
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
Today, vigils are being held across Westminster for the 22 women who are diagnosed with lobular breast cancer every day, and I think we are privileged to say that some of those extraordinarily brave women are in the Gallery this afternoon. When I raised this issue with the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, she promised to take action and not just commit words, so will the Prime Minister today commit to the Lobular Moon Shot Project’s plan to fund lobular breast cancer?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman for drawing the attention of the House to the vigils and the campaign, and I acknowledge those who are here in the Gallery today. I will make sure that this is looked at to see what further we can do, and that any relevant meetings are set up.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister
I know that the site is of huge significance to the people of York, and I understand that the site is under offer. Ministers are happy to work with the council and my hon. Friend to find the right deal for the site, taking into account the points she has made.
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
Every day that the Prime Minister fails to act on or even acknowledge Pakistani grooming gangs that rape and torture vulnerable white girls, more victims continue to suffer. Instead of spending his energy forcing friends of paedophiles into top jobs, why not use that energy to stop this national disgrace?
The Prime Minister
I spent many years prosecuting paedophiles who are now in prison, so I really do not need lectures from Reform about this.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
In 2022, my constituent Masi Sibanda dropped her 14-month-old son Noah off at nursery, like any other day. Tragically, it would be the last time Masi would see her son alive. A staff member at the Fairytales nursery tried to get him to sleep. When Noah resisted, she covered his face with a thick blanket and used her leg to pin him down. The pressure applied to his tiny body was so extreme that it ruptured his colon. No parent should have to endure such unimaginable loss. The sentencing has taken place. Will the PM meet Masi to discuss how we can ensure that tragedies like this never happen again?
The Prime Minister
The case my hon. Friend raises is utterly tragic, and as she went through those details, I think we all will have felt as I do: it is impossible to fathom how the family must feel in relation to this awful and tragic case. I will make sure that all the necessary meetings are set up in the way that she has asked for.
Security Vetting
Keir Starmer Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
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.
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?
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—
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.
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?
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?
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?
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.
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”?
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.
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
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.
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—
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—
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?
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.
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.
Covid-19 Inquiry: Module 4 Report
Keir Starmer Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
The chair of the UK covid-19 inquiry has today published the inquiry’s module 4 report, which examines the development and implementation of vaccines and therapeutics during the pandemic.
The chair recognises that the UK authorised and deployed effective vaccines and treatments at unprecedented speed. These achievements reflect the strength of the UK’s world-leading life sciences sector, the universal public health system in each of the four nations, which allowed whole population delivery of vaccines, and the extraordinary dedication of health and care staff. They also speak to the collective resolve of the public in coming forward to be vaccinated.
I would like to thank all those involved in this national effort—scientists, researchers, regulators, NHS and social care staff, volunteers, and all those who supported the roll-out of vaccines and treatments at pace.
The inquiry identifies the following areas for further work: strengthening manufacturing capability, sustaining investment in research and development, and developing the vaccine damage payment scheme. It also notes disparities in vaccine uptake among certain communities and the risk of vaccine hesitancy, underlining the importance of building public confidence.
The Government remain committed to learning the lessons from the inquiry and to strengthen our preparedness for the future.
I would like to thank Baroness Hallett and her team for their work on this report. The Government will consider their findings and recommendations, working closely with colleagues across the devolved Governments, and respond in due course.
I have laid a copy of the report before both Houses of Parliament.
[HCWS1522]
Machinery of Government
Keir Starmer Excerpts(1 month, 4 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
I am making this statement to bring to the House’s attention the following machinery of Government changes.
First, the management of the Integrated Security Fund, and associated funding, has permanently moved from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to the Cabinet Office. The Integrated Security Fund is the UK’s cross-Government national security fund, which works to address major threats to the UK and its interests. This change consolidates the management of the fund within the Cabinet Office, simplifying the fund’s leadership and delivery structures. By centralising these functions, the Government will improve its ability to respond to an evolving domestic and international threat landscape.
This change took effect from 1 April 2026.
Second, responsibility for the Groceries Code Adjudicator will move from the Department for Business and Trade to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. This will enable greater alignment across the policy framework for fair treatment of businesses in the agricultural and groceries supply chain, while maintaining the Groceries Code Adjudicator’s statutory purpose and independence. The groceries supply code of practice will continue to be owned by the Competition and Markets Authority.
This change will take effect from 1 July 2026.
[HCWS1506]