Keir Starmer MP: speeches

Speeches

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  There were two different processes. One was the due diligence process carried out by the Cabinet Office, in which Peter Mandelson was asked questions. Separately, there was the developed vetting process in which the recommendation of UKSV was not shared with me until Tuesday evening.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  Let me answer that in relation to Sir Olly, and let me start by saying he has had a distinguished career. I must say that, and I do say that. Still, notwithstanding that, he should have provided this information to me, and he could have provided it to me. He is giving evidence tomorrow, but I can say to the House that, when I spoke to him on Thursday, his view to me was that he could not provide this information to me because he was not allowed to provide the information to me. [ Interruption. ] Well, I do not want to put words in his mouth, because it is very important he gives his own evidence. In relation to the question that is being asked of me, when I said, “Why wasn’t this shared with me?” he did— [ Interruption. ] I have been asked what questions I put to him. I have been asked for the answer, and I am trying to give that answer. I am trying to give it without putting words into Olly Robbins’s mouth, because I do not think that it is fair of me to do so. What he said to me was essentially that he took the view that this process did not allow him to disclose to me the recommendation of UKSV. No doubt he will be asked further questions about that; that is the reason that he gave to me.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  All the appropriate and necessary developed vetting has taken place in No. 10. Everybody has passed that. [ Interruption. ] They have all passed it.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  I have accepted that that was my decision and I have apologised for it.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  Peter Mandelson got DV clearance before he took up his post as ambassador. That clearance was given by the Foreign Office. I found out that that was against the recommendation on Tuesday evening of last week.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  He was given clearance—those are the facts as I have set them out.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  I will ensure that the review covers all relevant issues and material, and I will take into account what the right hon. Gentleman has just said.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  I understood it to be subject to developed vetting, but it was because of the process that, in September 2025, I asked Chris Wormald to do a review for me of the process, and he did that by reference back to the Simon Case letter.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  I have made it clear that my position was that the appointment was subject to developed vetting. I cannot in all conscience remember what exactly has been redacted. [ Interruption. ] The hon. Member is asking me about what was in a redacted note. I understood that the process had been subject to developed vetting. That is why I asked Chris Wormald to look at the process and reference back to Simon Case.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  Because I wanted to know who took the decision, the basis upon which they took it, and who knew about the decision, so that I could set out a full account to the House, which is what I have done this afternoon.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  I have set out to the House the facts of what happened in this particular case. I am staggered and I find it unbelievable that I was not given the information I should have been given.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  I am addressing the question about the process in relation to Peter Mandelson. I have set that out in some detail to the House and answered a number of questions.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  I have read that evidence, and it remains my strong view that the recommendation of UKSV could and should have been shared with me, and could and should have been shared with the Foreign Secretary and thus with the Select Committee—and it should have been.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  Peter Mandelson was given developed vetting clearance. That was the clear position.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

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

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  The information that was fed into the review, and the reasons for the review, are protected. This is not a Peter Mandelson issue; it is about the integrity of the process. What I do not accept is that that means I cannot be told the recommendation that comes out of it.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  I did ask him, and I did not accept his explanation. That is why I sacked him.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is right to focus on the victims in this. I started this statement by making it clear that this was a judgment error on my part, and the apology that I have made is to the victims, because I know the impact that this will have had on them, who have already suffered so very much.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  No, that is not the case. The judgment call to appoint him was my judgment call. That was an error and I have apologised for it, particularly to the victims of Epstein. The developed vetting process was carried out in the way I have indicated to the House. I should have been told at the time of the recommendation. Had I been told, I would not have made the appointment.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  No.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  I do not accept that that is a reason for withholding from me the information about security clearance.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  I do not believe that they did. This was UK security vetting carried out in the way I have described to the House. The issue is that the recommendation was not shared with me. That was a matter here in the United Kingdom.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  I have accepted that I made an error in the appointment, and apologised to the victims, as I must.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  Let me be clear. We have thousands of civil servants who act with integrity and professionalism every day and do the job to the very best of their ability. As I understand it, what Sir Olly is saying is that he believed that he could not give me this information—that he was prohibited from doing so. I disagree with him; I think he could and should have given me the information. But I do not think that is any reason to suggest that across the civil service, people act for any improper motive.