Keir Starmer RINSED by MPs over Peter Mandelson vetting fiasco

Added: 2026-05-05

[00:00:00]I should not have appointed Peter Mandlesson. I take responsibility for that decision and I apologize again to the victims of the pedophile Jeffrey Epstein who were clearly failed by my decision.

[00:00:14]Mr. Speaker, last Tuesday evening, the 14th of April, I found out for the first time that on the 29th of January, 2025, before Peter Mandlesson took up his position as ambassador, the foreign office granted him developed vetting clearance against the specific recommendation of the United Kingdom Security Vetting that developed vetting clearance should denied.

[00:00:47]Not only that, the foreign office who made that decision did not pass this information to me, to the foreign secretary, to her predecessor, the deputy prime minister, to any other minister, or even to the former cabinet secretary, Sir Chris Warmalt.

[00:01:12]I found this staggering and therefore last Tuesday I immediately instructed officials in Downing Street and the Cabinet Office to urgently establish the facts on my authority.

[00:01:26]I wanted to know who made the decision on what basis who knew and Mr. Speaker, 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 it is information that this house should have had a long time ago.

[00:01:53]>> It is information that I and the House had the right to know. Mr. Speaker, I know many members across the House will find these facts to be incredible.

[00:02:10]To that to that to that I can only say they are right. It beggars belief that throughout the whole timeline of events officials in the foreign office saw fit to withhold this information from the most senior ministers in our system in government. That is not how the vast majority of people in this country expect politics, government or accountability to work.

[00:02:38]>> Said David Leberal Democrats.

[00:02:41]>> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's 2022 all over again.

[00:02:47]>> Back then when he stood on this side of the house, it was Boris Johnson who was accused of misleading Parliament and scapegoating senior officials. The then leader of the opposition couldn't have been clearer. The public need to know, he said, that not all politicians are the same. That not all politicians put themselves above their country and that honesty, integrity, and accountability matter. So, he promised change, Mr. Speaker. He promised to break the cycle and stop the chaos. and he promised a government with, and I quote, more focus on long-term strategy, not the short-term distractions that can animate Westminster.

[00:03:29]>> I'm afraid the fact that he even had to make the 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.

[00:03:44]>> He blames his officials. He says he had no idea. He gives every impression of a prime minister in office but not in power.

[00:03:54]>> The facts remain even on his own account. The prime minister appointed Peter Manson as ambassador to the United States even after he had been warned about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.

[00:04:08]The prime minister announced the appointment before Manson had been vetted despite the clear risk to national security of putting someone unsuitable in that role.

[00:04:18]>> Y >> and one of his top officials just three weeks into the job clearly believed the prime minister wanted Manson to be appointed regardless of what the vetting process turned up. And 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 itself?

[00:04:40]>> We all know the truth. Mr. Speaker, the prime minister knew that appointing Manelsson was an enormous risk.

[00:04:49]>> He decided it was a risk worth taking, >> a catastrophic error of judgment.

[00:04:56]>> And now that it's blown up in his face, the only decent thing to do is to take responsibility.

[00:05:03]Back in 2022, the prime minister rightly accused Boris Johnson of expecting others to take the blame while he clung on.

[00:05:13]>> That was not acceptable then and it's not acceptable now.

[00:05:17]>> So I hope the prime minister can at least tell the house this and we'll be listening very carefully to his answer.

[00:05:25]Was he given advice by Simon Casease, the then cabinet secretary, that the necessary security clearances should be acquired before he confirmed his choice for US ambassador? And did he follow that advice? Yes or no?

[00:05:43]Mr. Speaker, after the 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, our national security. We needed a government of honesty, integrity, and accountability.

[00:05:59]So, will the fi prime minister finally accept that the only way he can help to deliver that is to resign?

[00:06:07]>> Prime Minister, >> Mr. speaker. Um I set out in my statement uh the full facts. Um and in September when the Bloomberg emails came to light, I asked the cabinet to review the proc the cabinet then cabinet secretary to review the process. He told me the process was um as it should have been and as soon as the information about security vetting came last Tuesday, I asked for the facts to be established so I could update um parliament. He asks me about the announcement before um develop vetting.

[00:06:39]Uh he's heard the evidence that I've given to the house from the former cabinet secretary and from the former permanent secretary. In relation to the advice from Simon Casease, Mr. Speaker, when I asked the former cabinet secretary to review the process uh after September 25, 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. So that so in answer to his question um that was specifically looked at by Sir Chris Wmold in the review that was conducted in September of last year.

[00:07:17]Dame Dian, sorry Dian, >> the prime minister has gone on at considerable lengths about process and procedure.

[00:07:38]But ordinary people don't 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. On the question of Peter Mandlesson, it was in the '9s that Peter Mandlesson had to resign from the cabinet for the first time because of his dealings with the millionaire Jeffrey Robinson. It was a few years later he had to resign for the cabinet for the second time because of his relationships with the billionaire Hinduja family that Peter Mandlesson has a history.

[00:08:33]Peter Mandlesson has a history. And what this house wants to know is why knowing Peter Mountain's history going back now 30 years and given what has been known.

[00:08:52]It's one thing to say as he insists on saying nobody told me. Nobody told me anything. Nobody told me. The question is why didn't the prime minister ask?

[00:09:09]Um m >> Mr. Speaker, in relation to her question, let me be clear. Um uh I should not have appointed Peter Mandlesson. Um as su as soon as the further revelations came to light, I did ask I asked the cabinet secretary to review the process so I could be assured about the process. He wrote to me on the 16th of September setting out the conclusions of that review and assuring me the process have been followed properly.

[00:09:40]>> Can I say that on this side of the house at least to my honorable friend many will appreciate his apology today.

[00:09:52]But many of us will remain bewildered still why that appointment took place despite the warnings that many of us gave him.

[00:10:01]>> And isn't the reality this that when he sought to realize his ambition to become leader of the Labour Party with a very little base within the party, he became dependent on Maxweeni and Mandlesome and Labour together to organize fund his election. and that when he became prime minister, the reward for Max Sweeney was control of number 10 and for Mandolson the highest diplomatic office. And the message, the unspoken message to civil servants was what Mandlesson wants, Mandlesson gets. This has damaged the party that I've been a member of for 50 years. I urge him I urge him I urge him >> to take steps to clear this toxic culture out of our party and take the first step by having an independent inquiry into labor together.

[00:10:57]>> Prime Minister, >> Mr. Speaker, can I um just deal with what's at the heart of that question in relation to an unspoken message to civil servants? I I I don't accept that. Um Mr. speaker. Um it is simply not good enough on a question of national security where clearance the recommendation is clearance to be denied uh for um anyone particularly senior civil servants um to do anything other than provide me with the relevant information and that is what should have happened in this case.

[00:11:29]>> David de Mr. Speaker, the prime minister has twice rebuffed first the leader of the opposition then the leader of leader of the Liberal Democrats when they said that the then cabinet secretary's advice the prime minister was to get the clearance before the announcement. So I'm going to read in one sentence from a document entitled options for HMA Washington from the cabinet secretary of the day to him him personally. It says, "If this is the route 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."

[00:12:14]>> The House doesn't want to hear about what Mr. Wormhold said a year later.

[00:12:19]That was the advice then.

[00:12:21]>> Why didn't he follow it?

[00:12:25]Mr. Speaker, he reads out the passage from um Mr. Casey's advice. Uh the process that was followed was what I understood to be the usual process. In other words, in in other words, the appointment was subject to the security vetting. It is why when Sir Chris Walmold looked at it in September, he addressed the question by reference back to Simon Casey's letter because I I wanted to know the process that had been followed was the right process. And that is what Sir Chris Welmode 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.

[00:13:04]>> You Mr. Speaker, anybody who knows the prime minister will know full well that he would never ever deliberately mislead this house.

[00:13:21]>> But the reality is this, Mr. Speaker, ex post factor uh vetting is utterly pointless when the appointment >> is political.

[00:13:36]And the trouble, Mr. Speaker, that we all face is that trust in the prime minister and in politics is diminishing as this sorry saga continues.

[00:13:53]So in the 17 days we have leading to those very important elections, never mind question, those very important elections, what does the prime minister propose to do to win back the trust of the country?

[00:14:11]>> Prime Minister, >> Mr. Speaker, in relation to his point about um vetting in relation to political appointments, I I don't agree, but I do agree that the due diligence for direct ministerial appointments should be the same as for any other appointments. Um it clearly wasn't and that's why in September I ordered that it be changed in order to make sure it is the same process whether it's a direct ministerial appointment um or any other uh appointment in relation to uh the country. Mr. Speaker, it is important that we remain focused on the cost of living and on dealing with the war on two fronts that we face in this country and I intend to do that. Steven Flynn. Mr. Speaker, um 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 Mandel 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.

[00:15:22]We have since seen Peter Mandlesson be investigated for potential misconduct in public office. And we of course now learn through the media that Peter Mandlesson had failed his security vetting. The prime minister blames all of this, all of it on the judgment of others, but I'm interested in his judgment. Does he believe himself to be gullible, incompetent, or both?

[00:15:49]>> Prime Minister, >> Mr. speaker. Um, I thank him for his question. I've laid out I' I've laid out the relevant facts. It is absolutely clear that nobody is suggesting that this information was made available to me. It clearly wasn't made available. It should have been made available and I would not have made the appointment had it been made available.

[00:16:09]That is why I set out the facts in some considerable detail to the house with relevant quotes from all the relevant players in this.

[00:16:17]>> Stella Cruz.

[00:16:18]>> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The prime minister is being candid about some of the challenges.

[00:16:23]>> Rachel Musk.

[00:16:25]>> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. At the beginning of February, in February 2026, we learned that Peter Mandlesson had shared highly sensitive government information with Jeffrey Epstein from the former Prime Minister Gordon Brown. At that juncture, if I was in his shoes, I would have been forensic in recognizing a security risk and wanting detailed answers. What's not adding up for me is why we are now in midappril before we get this information and why the prime minister didn't drill down to ensure that we had the security information which clearly we learned that Peter Mandlesson had breached.

[00:17:11]>> Mr. Mr. Speaker, it was at that point that I did ask uh order the review of the security vetting because I was concerned that it had failed. In fact, because of information I wasn't given, it hadn't failed. It had actually uh uh given the recommendation that clearance should be denied. the fact that when I ordered a review of um UKSB uh senior officials in the foreign office didn't at that stage if at no other stage bring to my attention the information they hadn't told me is astonishing because I was ordering a review uh of the uh the the process which I was uh uh which looked as though it had failed when in fact it had flagged uh the relevant concerns.

[00:17:57]>> A champion There are 61 conflicts raging around the world. I've never known international diplomatic relationships be more fractured. FCDO is pushing through 40% cuts of aid and 25% cuts of staff all under the watch of the permanent under secretary. So can I ask the prime minister what risk assessment was carried out before he was removed?

[00:18:26]Prime Minister.

[00:18:28]>> Mr. Speaker, I um was dealing with a very serious issue. Um I asked um my team to establish urgently the facts on Tuesday night. I spoke to the former permanent secretary on Thursday night.

[00:18:42]As a result uh of that of the information I had and the exchanges I had, um I made it clear that I no longer had confidence in him.

[00:18:51]>> Anderson.

[00:18:52]>> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The problem the prime minister's got is is no one believes him. The public don't believe him. The MPs on this side of the house don't believe him. His own gullible backbenches don't believe him. So, does a prime minister agree with me? He's been lying.

[00:19:10]>> Prime Minister, >> sorry, we don't use those words and I'm sure the member's withdrawn it.

[00:19:19]>> Mr. Speaker, I have the greatest respect for you and your office, but I will not withdraw. That man couldn't lie straight in bed.

[00:19:25]>> No order.

[00:19:26]>> Mr. Anderson, you'll have to leave.

[00:19:31]>> Phil Bretle.

[00:19:33]>> Speaker, >> when Sir Ollie Robbins came before the >> foreign Jordan, >> thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today's statement may well be about process and procedure, but surely Prime Minister, the real issue is why, when Peter Mandlesson's reputation was already known, was he ever considered for such an important role?

[00:20:00]>> Prime Minister, >> Mr. Speaker, I' I've accepted that that was my decision and I've apologized for it.

[00:20:07]>> Ellie Jones, Dr. Brother John.

[00:20:09]>> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The prime minister says it's staggering and unforgivable that he wasn't told about the vetting. But what's really staggering and unforgivable is that he appointed Peter Mandlesson before the vetting. That he appointed Peter Mandolson knowing about his friendship with the pedophile Jeffrey Epstein.

[00:20:27]What's unforgivable is that the prime minister was more concerned with pandering to Donald Trump than with standing with the victims and survivors.

[00:20:35]Now the prime minister has not accepted a simple sorry from his civil servant.

[00:20:40]He thinks that's inadequate. The country thinks a simple sorry is inadequate from him. Will he take personal responsibility for his staggering and unforgivable errors of judgment and resign?

[00:20:53]>> Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker, I've set out to the house the facts of what happened in this particular case and I am staggered and I find it unbelievable.

[00:21:00]I wasn't given the information I should have been given.

[00:21:03]>> Richard Bergen. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

[00:21:06]Uh, the prime minister made the political decision to appoint Peter Mandlesson, but central to that decision along with other policy and political political position decisions would have been the prime minister's former chief of staff, Morgan Mweeny. So, can the prime minister confirm to the house whether Morgan Mweeny passed all his security vetting and confirm whether or not uh Morgan Mweeny ever handled documents for which he had anything other than the appropriate level of clearance.

[00:21:43]>> Prime Minister >> all the appropriate necessary develop vetting has taken place in number 10 and everybody has passed that pass.

[00:21:54]Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If, as we've been assured, there was no law.