Security Vetting

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 20th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

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

[The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It went on to say:

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Leader of the Opposition.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her question. Her Committee did ask relevant questions, and that is why I have indicated that it was unforgivable that the Foreign Secretary was asked to sign a statement in response to those very questions without being told about the recommendation. The questions were asked; the Foreign Secretary was advised and asked to sign a statement without being told the relevant information. That is unforgivable. As for the appointment before developed vetting, I have changed that process now, so that it can never happen again; my right hon. Friend the Committee Chair heard me quote the evidence of the former Cabinet Secretary and the former permanent secretary in relation to that.

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

[Mr Speaker]

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

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

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

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

He promised “change”. He promised to

“break this cycle and stop the chaos.”

He promised a Government with

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)]

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

[Mr Speaker]

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

[Lee Anderson]

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

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Mr Anderson, you will have to leave.

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

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

[Mr Speaker]

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

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

[The Prime Minister]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)]

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

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Please, let us get other people in.

[The Prime Minister]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

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

[Mr Speaker]

No, you’re not!

[Sammy Wilson]

I will not say it.

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

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

[Mr Speaker]

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

[Zarah Sultana]

Mr Speaker, I have a duty—

[Mr Speaker]

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

[Zarah Sultana]

I have a duty—

[Mr Speaker]

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

[Zarah Sultana]

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

[Mr Speaker]

Right—I call the Whip to move the motion.

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

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

Question agreed to.

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

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

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

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