Prime Minister Keir Starmer admits he made a “wrong” decision by appointing Peter Mandelson as Britain’s ambassador to the United States. The controversy erupted after it was revealed Mandelson had failed security vetting and had close ties to convicted Sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
Starmer publicly apologized and took responsibility, acknowledging the appointment damaged trust and hurt victims. The scandal has sparked political backlash, with critics questioning his judgment and leadership as pressure mounts in Parliament.
#StarmerScandal #UKPoliticsCrisis #EpsteinLinks #MandelsonControversy #StarmerApology #UKGovernmentCrisis #BritishPolitics #EpsteinScandal #StarmerVsOpposition #UKNews #BreakingPolitics #MandelsonScandal #StarmerUnderFire #PoliticalCrisisUK #EpsteinFiles #UKParliamentNews
~PR.460~ED.103~HT.318~GR.508~
Starmer publicly apologized and took responsibility, acknowledging the appointment damaged trust and hurt victims. The scandal has sparked political backlash, with critics questioning his judgment and leadership as pressure mounts in Parliament.
#StarmerScandal #UKPoliticsCrisis #EpsteinLinks #MandelsonControversy #StarmerApology #UKGovernmentCrisis #BritishPolitics #EpsteinScandal #StarmerVsOpposition #UKNews #BreakingPolitics #MandelsonScandal #StarmerUnderFire #PoliticalCrisisUK #EpsteinFiles #UKParliamentNews
~PR.460~ED.103~HT.318~GR.508~
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00Thank you, Mr Speaker. With permission, I'd like to provide the House with information that I now have
00:05about the appointment of Peter Mandelson as our ambassador to the United States.
00:10But, Mr Speaker, before I go into the details, I want to be very clear with this House
00:16that while this statement will focus on the process surrounding Peter Mandelson's vetting an appointment,
00:24at the heart of this, there is also a judgment I made that was wrong.
00:28I should not have appointed Peter Mandelson. I take responsibility for that decision,
00:34and I apologise again to the victims of the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, who were clearly failed by my decision.
00:44Mr Speaker, last Tuesday evening, the 14th of April, I found out for the first time that on the 29th
00:53of January 2025,
00:54before Peter Mandelson took up his position as ambassador, the Foreign Office officials granted him developed vetting clearance
01:05against the specific recommendation of the United Kingdom security vetting that developed vetting clearance should be denied.
01:16Not only that, the Foreign Office officials who made that decision did not pass this information to me,
01:26to the Foreign Secretary, to her predecessor, the Deputy Prime Minister, to any other minister,
01:35or even to the former Cabinet Secretary, Sir Chris Wormald.
01:41I found this staggering.
01:44And therefore, last Tuesday, I immediately instructed officials in Downing Street and the Cabinet Office
01:50to urgently establish the facts on my authority.
01:55I wanted to know who made the decision, on what basis, who knew.
02:04And, Mr Speaker, I wanted that information for the precise and explicit purpose of updating this house.
02:11Because this is information I should have had a long time ago.
02:17And it is information that this house should have had a long time ago.
02:22It is information that I and the House have the right to know.
02:27I will now set out a full timeline of the events in the Peter Mandelson process,
02:32including from the fact-finding exercise I instructed last Tuesday.
02:37Before doing so, I want to remind and reassure the House
02:41that the Government will comply fully with the humble address motion of the 4th of February.
02:48Mr Speaker, in December 2024,
02:51I was in the process of appointing a new Ambassador for Washington.
02:56A due diligence exercise was conducted by the Cabinet Office
03:00into Peter Mandelson's suitability,
03:02including questions put to him by my staff in No. 10.
03:06Peter Mandelson answered those questions on the 10th of December.
03:12And I received final advice on the due diligence process on the 11th.
03:17I made the decision to appoint him on the 18th of December.
03:21The appoint was announced on the 20th.
03:24And the security vetting process began on the 23rd of December, 2024.
03:31Mr Speaker, I want to make clear to the House
03:34that for a direct ministerial appointment,
03:38it was usual for security vetting to happen after the appointment,
03:43but before starting in post.
03:45That was the process in place at the time.
03:49Mr Speaker, this was confirmed
03:51by the former Cabinet Secretary, Sir Chris Wormald,
03:54at the Foreign Affairs Select Committee
03:56on the 3rd of November, 2025,
04:00when he gave evidence.
04:01Sir Chris made clear, and I'm quoting him now,
04:05when we are making appointments
04:06from outside the civil service,
04:09the normal thing is for security clearance
04:12to happen after appointment,
04:14but before the person signs a contract
04:16and takes up post.
04:18At the same hearing of the same Select Committee,
04:21the former Permanent Secretary to the Foreign Office,
04:25Sir Ollie Robbins, said,
04:26and I quote again,
04:28Peter Mandelson did not hold national security vetting
04:31when he was appointed,
04:32but, he went on,
04:34as is normally the case with external appointments
04:36to my department and the wider civil service,
04:39the appointment was made subject
04:41to obtaining security clearance.
04:44Mr Speaker, after I sacked Peter Mandelson,
04:47I changed that process
04:48so that now an appointment cannot be announced
04:51until after security vetting is passed.
04:55Mr Speaker,
04:57the security vetting
04:59was carried out by UK Security Vetting,
05:02UK SV,
05:04between the 23rd of December, 2024,
05:07and the 28th of January, 2025.
05:10UK SV conducted vetting
05:13in the normal way,
05:15collecting relevant information,
05:16as well as interviewing the applicant,
05:19in this case,
05:21on two occasions.
05:23Then, on the 28th of January, 2025,
05:27UK SV recommended to the Foreign Office
05:29that developed vetting clearance
05:32should be denied to Peter Mandelson.
05:36The following day,
05:38on the 29th of January, 2025,
05:42notwithstanding the UK SV recommendation
05:45that developed vetting clearance
05:46should be denied,
05:49Foreign Office officials made the decision
05:51to grant developed vetting clearance
05:53for Peter Mandelson.
05:56To be clear,
05:57for many departments,
05:59a decision from UK SV is binding,
06:02but for the Foreign Office,
06:05the final decision on developed vetting clearance
06:07is made by Foreign Office officials,
06:10not UK SV.
06:14However, once the decision in this case
06:16came to light,
06:18the Foreign Office's power
06:19to make the final decision
06:20on developed vetting clearance
06:21was immediately suspended
06:23by my Chief Secretary last week.
06:26Mr Speaker,
06:27I accept
06:29that the sensitive personal information
06:32provided by an individual being vetted
06:34must be protected from disclosure.
06:38If that were not the case,
06:40the integrity of the whole process
06:43would be compromised.
06:45What I do not accept
06:47is that the appointing minister
06:49cannot be told
06:51of the recommendation by UK SV.
06:55Indeed,
06:56given the seriousness of these issues
06:58and the significance of the appointment,
07:01I simply do not accept
07:03that Foreign Office officials
07:05could not have informed me
07:06of UK SV's recommendations
07:08whilst also maintaining
07:10the necessary confidentiality
07:12that vetting requires.
07:14There is no law
07:16that stops civil servants
07:17sensibly flagging
07:18UK SV recommendations
07:20while protecting
07:22detailed, sensitive
07:23vetting information
07:24to allow ministers
07:25to make judgments
07:26on appointments
07:27or on explaining matters
07:29to Parliament.
07:30So let me be very clear.
07:32The recommendation
07:33in the Peter Mandelson case
07:35could and should
07:37have been shared with me
07:39before he took up his post.
07:43Mr Speaker,
07:44let me make a second point.
07:47If I had known
07:48before he took up his post
07:50that UK SV recommendation
07:52was that developed vetting clearance
07:55should be denied,
07:56I would not have gone ahead
07:57with the appointment.
08:02Mr Speaker,
08:03Mr Speaker,
08:05let me now move
08:05to September 2025
08:08because events then
08:09and subsequently
08:11show with even starker clarity
08:14the opportunities missed
08:16by Foreign Office officials
08:18to make the position clear.
08:21Mr Speaker,
08:23on September the 10th,
08:25Bloomberg reported fresh details
08:27of Mandelson's history
08:28with Epstein
08:29and it was then clear to me
08:31that Peter Mandelson's
08:33answers to my staff
08:34in the due diligence exercise
08:36were not truthful
08:37and I sacked him.
08:39I also changed
08:41the direct ministerial
08:42appointments process
08:43so full due diligence
08:45is now required as standard
08:46where risks are identified
08:48and interview must be taken
08:50pre-appointment
08:51to discuss any risks
08:52and conflicts of interest
08:54and a summary of this
08:55should be provided
08:56to the appointing minister.
08:57I also made clear
08:59that public announcements
09:00should not now be made
09:01until security vetting
09:03has been completed.
09:05Mr Speaker,
09:07in light of the revelations
09:09in September of last year,
09:11I also agreed
09:13with the then Cabinet Secretary,
09:15Sir Chris Wormald,
09:17that he would carry out
09:19a review of the appointment process
09:21in the Peter Mandelson case,
09:23including the vetting.
09:25He set out his findings
09:27and conclusions
09:28in a letter to me
09:30on the 16th of September.
09:33He advised me
09:35in that letter,
09:36and again I quote,
09:38the evidence I have reviewed
09:40leads me to conclude
09:42that appropriate processes
09:44were followed
09:45in both the appointment
09:47and the withdrawal
09:48of the former HMA Washington.
09:51when he was asked
09:53about this Mr Speaker
09:54last week,
09:56the then Cabinet Secretary
09:58was clear
09:59that when he carried out
10:01his review,
10:03the Foreign Office
10:04did not tell him
10:06about the UK SV recommendation
10:09that developed vetting clearance
10:11should be denied
10:11to Peter Mandelson.
10:12I find that astonishing.
10:16As I said out on this,
10:17I do not accept
10:19that I could not have been told
10:21about the recommendation
10:22before Peter Mandelson
10:24took up his post.
10:25I absolutely do not accept
10:27that the then Cabinet Secretary,
10:30an official,
10:31not a politician,
10:32when carrying out his review,
10:34could not have been told
10:36that UK SV recommended
10:38that Peter Mandelson
10:39should be denied
10:40developed vetting clearance.
10:41It was a vital part
10:44of the process
10:44that I had asked him
10:46to review.
10:47Clearly,
10:48he could have been told
10:49and he should have been told.
10:53Mr Speaker,
10:55on the same day
10:56as the then Cabinet Secretary
10:58wrote to me,
10:59so that's the 16th of September,
11:012025,
11:03the Foreign Secretary
11:04and the then Permanent Secretary
11:06of the Foreign Office,
11:08Sir Ollie Robbins,
11:09provided a signed statement
11:11to the Foreign Affairs
11:12Select Committee.
11:14The statement says,
11:16and again I quote,
11:18the vetting process
11:19was undertaken
11:20by UK security vetting
11:22on behalf of FCDO
11:23and concluded
11:25with DV clearance
11:26being granted
11:26by the FCDO
11:28in advance of Lord Mandelson
11:30taking up post in February.
11:32It went on to say,
11:34and again I quote,
11:35Peter Mandelson's security vetting
11:38was conducted
11:39to the usual standard set
11:40for developed vetting
11:42in line with established
11:43Cabinet Office policy.
11:47Mr Speaker,
11:48let me be very clear
11:49to the House.
11:50This was in response
11:52to questions
11:53which included
11:55whether concerns were raised,
11:57what the Foreign Office's response was,
12:00and whether they were dismissed.
12:03Mr Speaker,
12:04that the Foreign Secretary
12:05was advised on
12:07and allowed
12:08to sign this statement
12:10by Foreign Office officials
12:12without being told
12:13that UK SV
12:15had recommended
12:16Peter Mandelson
12:17be denied
12:18the developed vetting clearance
12:19is absolutely
12:20unforgivable.
12:22This is a senior
12:23Cabinet member
12:24giving evidence
12:26to Parliament
12:26on the very issue
12:28in question.
12:30Mr Speaker,
12:32in light of further
12:34revelations
12:34about Peter Mandelson
12:36in February
12:37of this year,
12:38I was very concerned
12:40about the fact
12:40that developed vetting
12:42clearance
12:42had been granted
12:43to him.
12:44Not knowing
12:46that,
12:46in fact,
12:48UK SV
12:49had recommended
12:50denial
12:50of developed
12:52vetting clearance,
12:53I instructed
12:54my officials
12:55to carry out
12:56a review
12:56of the national
12:57security
12:58vetting process.
13:00As I set out,
13:01I do not accept
13:02that I could not
13:03have been told
13:04about UK SV's
13:06denial of security
13:07vetting
13:08before Peter Mandelson
13:09took up his post
13:10in January 25.
13:12I do not accept
13:13that the then
13:13Cabinet Secretary
13:14could not have been told
13:15in September 2025
13:17when he carried out
13:18his review
13:18into the process.
13:19I do not accept
13:20that the Foreign
13:21Secretary could not
13:22have been told
13:23we're making statements
13:24to the Select Committee
13:24again in 2025.
13:26But, Mr Speaker,
13:28on top of that,
13:29the fact that I was
13:30not told
13:31even when I
13:32ordered a review
13:33of the UK SV
13:35process
13:35is frankly staggering.
13:39And I can tell
13:40the House
13:40that I've now
13:41updated the terms
13:42of reference
13:43for the review
13:43into security
13:44vetting
13:45to make sure
13:46it covers
13:47the means
13:48by which
13:49all decisions
13:50are made
13:50in relation
13:51to national security
13:52vetting.
13:53I've appointed
13:54Sir Adrian Fulford
13:55to lead the review.
13:58Separately,
13:58I've asked
13:59the Government
13:59security group
14:00in the Cabinet Office
14:01to look at
14:02any security concerns
14:03raised during
14:04Peter Mandelson's tenure.
14:06Mr Speaker,
14:07I know
14:08many members
14:09across the House
14:10will find
14:10these facts
14:11to be incredible.
14:19To that,
14:21to that,
14:22to that,
14:24I can only say
14:25they are right.
14:26It beggars belief
14:28that throughout
14:28the whole timeline
14:30of events,
14:31officials in the
14:32Foreign Office
14:33saw fit
14:34to withhold
14:35this information
14:35from the most
14:36senior ministers
14:37in our system
14:38in government.
14:39That is not
14:40how the vast
14:41majority of people
14:42in this country
14:43expect politics,
14:44government,
14:45or accountability
14:46to work.
14:47And I do not
14:48think it's how
14:48most public servants
14:49think it should
14:50work either.
14:52I work with
14:53hundreds of
14:53civil servants,
14:54thousands even,
14:56all of whom
14:57act with the
14:57utmost integrity,
14:59dedication,
15:00and pride
15:01to serve this
15:01country,
15:02including officials
15:04from the Foreign
15:04Office,
15:05who, as we speak,
15:07are doing a
15:07phenomenal job
15:08representing our
15:09national interest
15:10in a dangerous
15:11world in Ukraine,
15:13in the Middle East,
15:14and all around
15:15the world.
15:16This is not
15:17about them,
15:18but yet it is
15:20surely beyond
15:21doubt that the
15:22recommendation
15:23from UKSV
15:24that Peter Manchin
15:26should be denied
15:27development and
15:27clearance was
15:28information that
15:30could and should
15:31have been shared
15:31with me on
15:32repeated occasions
15:33and therefore
15:35should have been
15:35available to this
15:37House and
15:38ultimately to the
15:38British people.
15:39And I commend
15:40this statement
15:41to the House.
15:43Can we be a
15:44not Leader of
15:45the Opposition?
15:49Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
15:51And I thank the
15:52Prime Minister for
15:53advance sight of
15:54his statement.
15:55His reputation
15:57is at stake.
15:59Everyone is
15:59watching.
16:00It is finally
16:01time for the
16:02truth.
16:04Earlier today,
16:05Mr. Speaker,
16:05Downing Street
16:06admitted that the
16:07Prime Minister
16:08inadvertently
16:09misled the
16:09House.
16:10The Prime Minister
16:11has chosen not
16:12to repeat that
16:13from the
16:13dispatch box.
16:14I will remind
16:16him that under
16:17the Ministerial
16:17Code, he has
16:19a duty to
16:19correct the
16:20record at the
16:21earliest opportunity.
16:23The Prime
16:24Minister says he
16:24only found out
16:25on Tuesday that
16:27Peter Mandelson
16:27failed the
16:28security vetting.
16:29The earliest
16:30opportunity to
16:31correct the
16:31record was
16:32Prime Minister's
16:33questions on
16:34Wednesday, almost
16:35a week ago.
16:36This is a
16:37breach of the
16:38Ministerial Code.
16:39Under that
16:40code, he is
16:41bound to be as
16:42open as
16:43possible with
16:43Parliament and
16:44the public in
16:45answering questions
16:46today.
16:47So let me start
16:48with what we
16:49do know.
16:50We know the
16:52Prime Minister
16:52personally appointed
16:54Peter Mandelson
16:54to be our
16:55Ambassador to
16:55the United
16:56States.
16:56We know that
16:58Mandelson had a
16:59close relationship
17:00with a convicted
17:01paedophile.
17:02We know that
17:03he had concerning
17:04links with
17:05Russia and
17:05China, links
17:06that had already
17:07raised red
17:08flags.
17:09We know that
17:10the Prime
17:11Minister announced
17:12the appointment
17:13before vetting
17:14was complete,
17:14an extraordinary
17:16and unprecedented
17:17step for the
17:18role of
17:19U.S.
17:20ambassador.
17:21The Prime
17:22Minister says
17:22that it was
17:23usual for this
17:24because it was
17:25a political
17:26appointment.
17:26So I will
17:27remind him and
17:28the rest of the
17:29Labour front
17:29bench who were
17:30heckling that
17:31Peter Mandelson
17:31was a politician
17:33who had been
17:34sacked twice
17:35from government
17:36for lying.
17:37That meant he
17:38should have gone
17:39through the full
17:39security process.
17:41And we also
17:42know finally
17:43that when
17:45Peter Mandelson
17:45failed the
17:46security vetting
17:47he was allowed
17:48to continue
17:49in the role
17:50with access
17:51to top secret
17:52intelligence
17:52and security
17:53information.
17:54This goes
17:55beyond propriety
17:56and ethics.
17:57This is a
17:58matter of
17:59national security.
18:01So let me
18:02turn to what
18:02we do not
18:03know.
18:04We still do
18:05not know
18:06exactly why
18:07Peter Mandelson
18:07failed that
18:08vetting.
18:08We do not
18:09know what
18:10risks our
18:11country was
18:11exposed to
18:12and we do
18:13not know
18:14how it is
18:15possible that
18:16the Prime
18:16Minister said
18:17repeatedly that
18:18this was a
18:19failure of
18:19vetting, went
18:20on television
18:21and said
18:22things that
18:22were blatantly
18:23incorrect and
18:24not a single
18:25advisor or a
18:26single official
18:27told him that
18:29what he was
18:29saying wasn't
18:30true.
18:31At every turn
18:33with every
18:34explanation the
18:35government's
18:36story has
18:36become murkier
18:37and more
18:38contradictory.
18:39It is time
18:40for the
18:41truth.
18:42There are
18:42too many
18:43questions to
18:44ask in the
18:44allotted time
18:45Mr Speaker
18:45so I'm now
18:47going to ask
18:47the Prime
18:48Minister just
18:49six questions
18:50and I have
18:51taken the
18:52unprecedented
18:52step of
18:54providing these
18:54questions to
18:55the Prime
18:56Minister in
18:57advance.
18:58So he has
18:59them in front
19:00of him
19:01and I have
19:02asked for
19:04these questions
19:07to be put
19:08online for
19:09the public.
19:10They and
19:11I expect
19:12him to
19:13answer.
19:14The Prime
19:15Minister
19:15appointed a
19:16national security
19:17risk to our
19:17most sensitive
19:18diplomatic post.
19:19Let's look at
19:20how this
19:20happened.
19:21The Right
19:21Honourable
19:22Gentleman told
19:23me at
19:23PMQs in
19:24September
19:252025 that
19:27full due
19:28process was
19:28followed in
19:29this appointment.
19:30We now
19:30know that
19:31in November
19:322024 Lord
19:34Case the
19:35then Cabinet
19:36Secretary told
19:37him this
19:38process required
19:38security vetting
19:39to be done
19:40before the
19:41appointment.
19:42He did not
19:43mention any
19:44of what Lord
19:45Case said in
19:45his statement
19:46earlier.
19:47So first
19:48question does
19:49the Prime
19:49Minister accept
19:50that when he
19:51said on the
19:51floor of the
19:52House that
19:52full due
19:53process was
19:54followed this
19:54was not
19:55true.
19:56Secondly on
19:58the 11th of
19:58September last
20:00year journalists
20:01asked his
20:02Director of
20:02Communications
20:03if it was
20:04true that
20:05Mandelson had
20:05failed security
20:06vetting.
20:07These allegations
20:08were on the
20:09front page of
20:10a national
20:11newspaper.
20:14Subscribe to
20:15One India and
20:16never miss an
20:16update.
20:19Download the
20:20One India app
20:20now.
Comments