Keir Starmer MP: speeches

Speeches

• 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.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  In answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office was repeatedly asked, in the light of inquiries. The same answer came back, because a clear decision had been taken that this information was not going to be disclosed—and it was not disclosed to me, let alone anybody else. So, yes, repeatedly the FCDO was asked, and the same answer came back as the answer given to me—that the decision was that I was not to know and nobody else was to know. That was wrong.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  I understand that to be the case. Obviously— [ Interruption. ] No, I am only saying that it was not my decision to withhold it. I understand, if I have understood Sir Olly’s position correctly, that his argument is that he cannot share it, or he could not share it, with anyone. That is as I understand it. It certainly was not shared with the National Security Adviser and I do not think it was shared with anybody else. As far as I know, until it was seen by my officials—legal advice was taken—and then shown to me, it was not shared with anybody else.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, it was my decision. It was an error of judgment, and that is why I have apologised to the victims of Epstein. I have done that again today, and it is right to do so. In relation to the second point of the hon. Member’s question and any other political appointments, I will have to check on that and get back to him, because I am not across— [Interruption.] There are very many appointments made to senior positions, and I will just check that for him.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  I do not know the precise date, but I will endeavour to find out.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  The due diligence report.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  That is why I wanted to give the House all the relevant information, which I have given at some length this afternoon.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  I am not defending him behind process. I am setting out the process to the House.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  I assure the hon. Lady that I have ordered a review of any national security issues arising in relation to what I found out last Tuesday. I will obviously update the House when that review is complete.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  I say again that Sir Olly Robbins has had a distinguished career, and I have worked with him over a number of years. None the less, he could and should have shared this crucially relevant information with me before Peter Mandelson took up his post, and he should have done at various points after that. It was because of that that I lost confidence in him. That does not mean he has not got a distinguished career; he does have a distinguished career.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  No, I did not mislead the House of Commons. I accept that information that I should have had, and that the House should have had, should have been before the House, but I did not mislead the House, and that is why I have set out the account in full.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  Let me respond to those points. First, when I found out what had happened on Tuesday evening last, I wanted to have answers to the questions of who had made the decision to give clearance on developed vetting contrary to the advice, why that was done, and who knew about it, so that I could provide the information to the House. That is the exercise that has been conducted since Tuesday evening, so that I could come here today to give the full account to the House, which I have just set out. The right hon. Lady asks me about developed vetting security clearance after the appointment. What I set out was not my words; I read out the evidence of the former permanent secretary and the former Cabinet Secretary in relation to that. I think the quotes that I have given the House are clear enough. The right hon. Lady asks why Peter Mandelson failed. It is important to make a distinction between the information provided to the review and the recommendation. The information in the review must be, and has been, protected—otherwise, the integrity of the entire system would fall away—but the recommendation does not have to be, and should not have been, protected. In relation to the answer about full due process, that was the information that I had and which I put before the House, and it was confirmed to me by Sir Chris Wormald. In September, I asked him to conduct a review of the process to assure me that the process was correctly carried out. He did that and wrote to me on 16 September to give me his conclusions. In relation to reports in the media, No. 10 was repeatedly asked about the facts surrounding Peter Mandelson’s clearance, and was assured that the proper process was followed in that case. In relation to those in No. 10, let me give the answer. Nobody in No. 10 was informed about UKSV’s recommendation. To be clear, and for the record, the Cabinet Office permanent secretary received information recently, and then sought the necessary and legal advice. Once those checks were completed by the Cabinet Office permanent secretary, I was told. That is in the last two weeks or so, and that was entirely the right procedure—to get the legal advice, and then to bring it to my attention at the first opportunity. The right procedure was followed by my officials in the last few weeks. In relation to why I was furious about the process, it was for the very reason that I strongly believe I should have been given this information at the very outset. I strongly believe there were repeated times when I should have been told. I should have been told on appointment, and I should have been told when Peter Mandelson was sacked. The Cabinet Secretary should have been told when he reviewed the process. The Foreign Secretary should have been told before she was asked to sign a statement to the Select Committee, and I should have been told when I ordered a review of vetting. In relation to the point that the right hon. Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch) makes about what I said in February, in answer to a question of hers, I make it very clear that I had not seen the security vetting file. I did not know that UKSV— [ Interruption. ] The question asked was about vetting. I knew about the due diligence, which is why I put before the House what I knew about the due diligence in relation to Epstein. I told the House what the due diligence had said. I did not tell it what security vetting had said, because I had not seen the file in relation to that. As for the particular details on Peter Mandelson, I acted on all the information I had available to me. The simple fact of the matter is that I should have had more information; I did not have that information. The House should have had that information, and I have now set it out in full to the House.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  I do not agree with the hon. Member’s point about vetting in relation to political appointments, but I do agree that the due diligence for direct ministerial appointments should be the same as for any other appointments. It clearly was not, and that is why in September I ordered that it be changed to make sure that it is the same process, whether it is a direct ministerial appointment or any other appointment. In relation to the country, it is important that we remain focused on the cost of living and on dealing with the war on two fronts that we face, and I intend to do that.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  I have set out the facts to the House this afternoon. I have ordered a review of security vetting by Sir Adrian Fulford, so that if any further changes are needed, we can put them in place.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  Peter Mandelson was given security clearance, and that was clear to everyone, including myself. [ Interruption. ] He was given clearance; he was cleared. He would not have started the role if he had not been given clearance. As soon as it came to my attention last week that that was against the recommendation of UKSV, I asked for the information that I have now put before the House.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  I have accepted the error of judgment on my behalf, but I was not provided with information. Had I been provided with it, I would not have made the appointment.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  It was at that point that I ordered the review of the security vetting, because I was concerned that it had failed. In fact, because of information I was not given, it had not failed; it had actually given the recommendation that clearance should be denied. The fact that when I ordered a review of UKSV, senior officials in the Foreign Office did not, at that stage if at no other stage, bring to my attention the information they had not told me is astonishing, because I was ordering a review of the process, which looked as though it had failed when in fact it had flagged the relevant concerns.