A heated showdown erupted in the UK Parliament as Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch clashed over explosive allegations linked to Lord Peter Mandelson and the Jeffrey Epstein files. Badenoch pressed Starmer over claims that he knew about Mandelson’s past associations, triggering a sharp back-and-forth that sent shockwaves through Westminster.
The confrontation has reignited debate over political accountability, transparency, and unanswered questions surrounding Epstein’s network — with opposition lawmakers demanding clarity and the government pushing back hard against the allegations. As tempers flared in the Commons, the exchange quickly went viral, deepening the controversy around what Starmer knew and when.
#UKParliament #StarmerVsBadenoch #EpsteinFiles #MandelsonScandal #WestminsterClash #KeirStarmer #KemiBadenoch #BritishPolitics #ParliamentDrama #EpsteinControversy #PoliticalScandal #UKPoliticsLive #PMQs #HouseOfCommons #Accountability #BreakingPolitics #ViralPolitics #PoliticalFirestorm #EpsteinCase #LabourVsTories #UKGovernment #OppositionAttack #StarmerKnew #ScandalDebate #LondonPolitics
~HT.318~ED.102~PR.152~
The confrontation has reignited debate over political accountability, transparency, and unanswered questions surrounding Epstein’s network — with opposition lawmakers demanding clarity and the government pushing back hard against the allegations. As tempers flared in the Commons, the exchange quickly went viral, deepening the controversy around what Starmer knew and when.
#UKParliament #StarmerVsBadenoch #EpsteinFiles #MandelsonScandal #WestminsterClash #KeirStarmer #KemiBadenoch #BritishPolitics #ParliamentDrama #EpsteinControversy #PoliticalScandal #UKPoliticsLive #PMQs #HouseOfCommons #Accountability #BreakingPolitics #ViralPolitics #PoliticalFirestorm #EpsteinCase #LabourVsTories #UKGovernment #OppositionAttack #StarmerKnew #ScandalDebate #LondonPolitics
~HT.318~ED.102~PR.152~
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00Can the Prime Minister tell us, did the official security vetting he received
00:05mention Mandelson's ongoing relationship with the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein?
00:11Prime Minister.
00:13Yes, it did.
00:16As a result, various questions.
00:20The whole House will be disgusted by the latest revelations about Jeffrey Epstein.
00:26All of us want to see his victims get justice.
00:31But the political decision to appoint Epstein's close associate, Peter Mandelson,
00:37as Britain's ambassador to Washington, goes to the very heart of this Prime Minister's judgment.
00:44When he made that appointment, was he aware that Mandelson had continued his friendship
00:50even after Epstein's conviction for child prostitution?
00:56Mr Speaker, let me start where I must, with the victims of Epstein, and all of our thoughts
01:03are with them.
01:04Can I also say our thoughts are with all those who lost jobs, savings and livelihoods in the
01:11aftermath of the 2008 financial crash.
01:13To learn that there was a Cabinet Minister leaking sensitive information at the height of the
01:20response to the 2008 crash is beyond infuriating.
01:25And I am as angry as the public and any member of this House.
01:30Mandelson betrayed our country, our Parliament, and my party.
01:35Mr Speaker, he lied repeatedly to my team when asked about his relationship with Epstein before
01:44and during his tenure as ambassador.
01:47I regret appointing him.
01:49If I knew then what I know now, he would never have been anywhere near government.
01:54And that is why, Mr Speaker, yesterday, the Cabinet Secretary, with my support, took the
02:01decision to refer material to the police.
02:05And there is now a criminal investigation.
02:07I have instructed my team to draft legislation to strip Mandelson of his title and wider legislation
02:15to remove disgraced peers.
02:16And this morning, I have agreed with His Majesty the King that Mandelson should be removed from
02:25the list of Privy Councillors on grounds that he has brought the reputation of the Privy
02:29Council into disrepute.
02:32Mr Speaker, I asked the Prime Minister a very specific question.
02:39Did he know that Mandelson had continued his friendship with Epstein after the conviction?
02:45He says if he knew then what he knows now.
02:48But he did know in January 2024, a journalist from the Financial Times informed the Prime Minister
02:56that Mandelson had stayed in Epstein's house even after that conviction for child prostitution.
03:03So did the Prime Minister conveniently forget this fact or did he decide it was a risk worth taking?
03:11Mr Speaker, Mr Speaker, as the House will expect, we went through a process.
03:19There was a due diligence exercise and then there was security vetting by the security services.
03:31What was not known was the depth, the sheer depth and extent of the relationship.
03:37He lied about that to everyone for years.
03:44A new information was published in September showing the relationship was materially different
03:49to what we had been led to believe.
03:52When the new information came to light, I sacked him.
03:56But we did go through a due diligence exercise.
03:59The points that are being put to me were dealt with within that exercise.
04:05In response to the humble address this afternoon, I intend to make sure that all of the material is published.
04:14Mr Speaker, the only exemptions are national security, if it prejudice national security.
04:23My first duty is obviously to keep this country safe.
04:27When we drafted humble addresses, we always put an exemption for national security.
04:32But also, anything will prejudice international relations.
04:36Mr Speaker, you in the House will appreciate that in the course of discussions country to country,
04:42there are very sensitive issues of security, intelligence and trade,
04:46which cannot be disclosed without compromising the relationship between the two countries or a third country.
04:54Mr Speaker, so that I can be totally open with the House,
04:59I should also disclose that the Metropolitan Police have been in touch with my office this morning
05:06to raise issues about anything that would prejudice their investigations.
05:12We are in discussion with them about that, and I hope to be able to update the House,
05:16but I do think I should make that clear to the House at this point,
05:19because those discussions are ongoing.
05:21Mr Speaker, I am going to come to the humble address in a moment,
05:27but the Prime Minister cannot blame the process.
05:30He did know it was on Google.
05:33If the Conservative Research Department could find this information out,
05:37why couldn't number 10?
05:38On the 10th of September, when we knew this,
05:43I asked him at that dispatch box,
05:45he gave Mandelson his full confidence at that dispatch box,
05:48not once, but twice.
05:50He only sacked him after pressure from us.
05:53I am asking the Prime Minister something very specific,
05:57not about the generalities of the full extent.
06:00Can the Prime Minister tell us,
06:02did the official security vetting he received mention Mandelson's ongoing relationship
06:09with the paedophile Geoffrey Epstein?
06:12Prime Minister.
06:13Yes, it did.
06:16As a result, various questions were put to him.
06:22I intend to disclose to this House,
06:24all of the national security prejudice to international relations on one side.
06:30I want to make sure this House sees the full documentation
06:35so it will see for itself the extent to which time and time again
06:42Mandelson completely misrepresented the extent of his relationship with Epstein
06:47and lied throughout the process,
06:50including in response to the due diligence.
06:55Mr Speaker, I think it is shocking what the Prime Minister has just said.
07:01How can he stand up there saying that he knew,
07:04but he just asked Peter Mandelson if the security vetting was true or false?
07:08This is a man who had been sacked from Cabinet twice already for unethical behaviour.
07:14That is absolutely shocking.
07:15And that is why, later today,
07:18my party will call on the government
07:20to release all documents relating to Mandelson's appointment,
07:24not just the ones the Prime Minister wants us to see.
07:27Because this government is trying to sabotage that release
07:30with an amendment to let him choose what we see,
07:34the man who appointed Mandelson in the first place.
07:37Labour MPs now have to decide
07:40if they want to be accessories to his cover-up.
07:44Can the Prime Minister guarantee
07:47that he will not remove the whip
07:49if they refuse to vote for his whitewash amendment?
07:54Prime Minister.
07:55Mr Speaker,
07:56the first exemption is in relation to anything
08:00that could compromise national security.
08:02That is not a small matter,
08:08and many members on the benches opposite will know precisely why that needs to be in the exemption.
08:13When we were drafting humble addresses,
08:15when we were sitting over there,
08:17we always made sure that exemption was in,
08:20because we knew how important it was to the then government.
08:23I do not think I have seen a humble address without that in,
08:26and just to be clear,
08:31to vote to release something that would prejudice national security
08:36is wrong in principle.
08:38The second exemption is in relation to things
08:42that would prejudice international relations.
08:45There will be discussions about security and intelligence and trade,
08:49which are highly sensitive to the two countries involved
08:54and to third countries.
08:55Well, they have to ask themselves
08:56whether they want to vote to prejudice our national security.
08:59I do not think, in fairness, that they do.
09:05But can I reassure the House, Mr Speaker?
09:07Let me reassure the House.
09:09The process for deciding what falls into those categories
09:13will not be a political process.
09:16It will be led by the Cabinet Secretary,
09:19supported by government legal teams.
09:21So they will be looking at the question of prejudice.
09:25They will be making that decision.
09:27The only additional thing I just want to put before the House,
09:29because there was a discussion this morning
09:31with the Metropolitan Police,
09:33is that we are in discussions with them
09:36about any material that they are concerned
09:38will prejudice their investigation.
09:40We are at an early stage of that discussion,
09:44but I did not want to have the House
09:46not know that that discussion is going on.
09:49Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister is talking
09:54about national security.
09:55The national security issue was appointing Mandelson
09:58in the first place.
10:01And what he has said about the humble address
10:04is a red herring.
10:06To those Labour MPs who were not there in the last Parliament,
10:08let me tell them, humble addresses
10:10already exempt genuine national security.
10:14This is not about national security.
10:16This is about his job security.
10:18His amendment lets him withhold anything to do
10:22with international relations.
10:24But this whole appointment is to do
10:27with international relations.
10:28So if they are voting for it,
10:30they are voting for the cover-up.
10:32If the Prime Minister is serious
10:34about national security concerns,
10:36then he should ask the Intelligence
10:38and Security Committee
10:39to decide which documents should be released.
10:43Will he commit to doing so here and now?
10:46The Prime Minister.
10:48Mr Speaker, I have set out the process.
10:51It will not be a political process.
10:53It will be led by the Cabinet Secretary,
10:56supported by the government legal teams.
10:58But I am pleased that she, I think, now accepts
11:02that at least the first exemption
11:04that we have written in to the amendment
11:06to the petition is the right amendment
11:09in relation to prejudice national security.
11:12But she and others behind her
11:14will understand that,
11:16because of the breadth of what is asked for,
11:18and we are doing everything we can
11:20to make sure this is fully transparent
11:21and disclosed,
11:23but she and those behind her
11:25will understand,
11:26from their own experience in government,
11:27the sensitivity of information
11:30about security and intelligence
11:33and trade relations
11:34that are inevitably caught
11:36in exchanges of the nature
11:39that are being asked for.
11:40And it is right that anything
11:42that prejudices, not touches on,
11:44prejudices international relations
11:46is protected within the disclosure.
11:50If that was really the case,
11:53then he wouldn't mind
11:54if the ISC had a look.
11:55And let's be clear,
11:58he says the Cabinet Secretary
11:59makes it non-political,
12:01but that doesn't make it independent.
12:03What we want is an independent look.
12:06The ISC is independent.
12:07The Cabinet Secretary works for him.
12:09We know that there will be a cover-up
12:11because this implicates the Prime Minister
12:15and his Chief of Staff,
12:16Morgan McSweeney,
12:18a protege of Peter Mandelson.
12:20The Prime Minister chose to inject
12:23Mandelson's poison
12:24into the heart of his government
12:26on the advice of Morgan McSweeney.
12:29His catastrophic lack of judgment,
12:32telling us now that he did know,
12:34has harmed the special relationship,
12:37it has endangered national security,
12:38it's not the humble address,
12:39it's him,
12:40it's compromised our diplomacy,
12:42and it has embarrassed our nation.
12:45After all of this,
12:46does he have the same full confidence
12:48in Morgan McSweeney
12:49that he had in Peter Mandelson?
12:52The Prime Minister.
12:53Morgan McSweeney is an essential part of my team.
12:55He helped me change the Labour Party
12:57and win an election.
12:59Of course I have confidence in him.
13:01But, Mr Speaker,
13:02whatever is slung across this dispatch box,
13:05I don't think it's right
13:06for the Cabinet Secretary
13:08to be denigrated in that way
13:10and to suggest
13:12that he would be involved
13:16in a cover-up.
13:18There's the politics that comes
13:21over the dispatch boxes,
13:22but I honestly don't think it's right
13:24to impugn the Cabinet Secretary
13:25in that way.
13:27I suspect, in their heart of hearts,
13:29many on those benches would agree.
13:31Mr Speaker,
13:32I'm as angry as anyone
13:34about what Mandelson has been up to.
13:36The disclosures that have been made this week
13:39of him passing sensitive information
13:42at the height of the response
13:43to the 2008 financial crisis
13:46is utterly shocking and appalling.
13:49He's betrayed our country.
13:50He's lied repeatedly.
13:52He's responsible for a litany of deceit.
13:55But this moment demands
13:56not just anger but action.
13:58And that's why we've moved quickly,
14:00referring material to the police,
14:02publishing legislation
14:03so we can remove titles
14:04from disgraced politicians
14:06and stripping Mandelson
14:07of his privy councillorship.
14:09That is what the public expect
14:11and that is what we will do.
14:12Libbins.
14:14Thank you, Mr Speaker.
14:15Every month,
14:16people across our constituencies
14:18are injured by illegal e-bikes
14:21being ridden at 30, 40 and 50 miles per hour
14:25through our town centres and parks.
14:27But for every illegal e-bike
14:29that the police seize and crush,
14:31another 10 hit our streets
14:33because they are too freely available to buy.
14:36That's why Cumbria's Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner
14:39and 28 other police commissioners across the UK
14:43are now backing my bill
14:45which would ban the sale of illegal e-bikes.
14:48Will the Prime Minister set out
14:50what action the government will take
14:52to protect the public
14:53and ban the sale of these monster bikes?
14:56The Prime Minister
14:57Can I pay tribute to my hon. Friend?
14:59She is a tireless campaigner
15:00to stop these antisocial, dangerous bikes
15:03terrorising communities.
15:05Our Crime and Policing Bill
15:07means police can seize bikes
15:09without issuing a warning
15:10and destroy them.
15:12Product Safety Law
15:13means authorities have the powers
15:15to intervene
15:15to stop the sale of unsafe e-bikes
15:17but I share her determination
15:19to get these bikes off our streets.
15:22Sir Ed David,
15:23leader of the Liberal Democrats.
15:25Mr Speaker,
15:27can I thank you and the Prime Minister
15:29for your responses
15:29to my tribute to Jim Wallace on Monday
15:32and urge the whole House
15:33to read the wonderful tributes
15:35made to Jim in the other place yesterday.
15:38Mr Speaker,
15:39I've been thinking how it must feel
15:40for the victims of Jeffrey Epstein
15:42and their families.
15:44Hearing more and more stories
15:46of how rich, powerful men
15:48were currying favour
15:49with a paedophile sex trafficker
15:52such as Peter Mandelson
15:54sending government secrets
15:55to help Epstein enrich himself further.
16:00Seeing Anderson made ambassador
16:02to the United States
16:03even after his links to Epstein
16:06had been extensively reported
16:08by both the Financial Times
16:10and Channel 4 News.
16:11so can the Prime Minister tell us
16:14given he now admits he knew
16:15about those links
16:16before he gave such an important job
16:19to one of Epstein's closest friends
16:21did he think at all
16:23about Epstein's victims?
16:26Mr Speaker
16:28we looked at the material
16:31there was a process
16:32there was then
16:33he will understand
16:35there was then
16:36a security vetting
16:38exercise as well
16:39and that's why I started by saying
16:41all of our thoughts
16:42are with the victims of Epstein
16:44he is right
16:45at the beginning of his question
16:46to express anger
16:47at the material
16:48that has recently come out
16:50in relation to
16:51sensitive information
16:52in the aftermath
16:53of the 08 crash
16:54and that is why yesterday
16:56working with the Cabinet Secretary
16:58we referred material
16:59to the police
17:00which has now led
17:02to the criminal investigation
17:03that is going to follow
17:04subscribe to One India
17:07and never miss an update
17:09download the One India app now
Comments