Keir Starmer MP: speeches

Speeches

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, we will comply with the Humble Address in full. That is the process that is going on.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  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.