Keir Starmer MP: speeches

Speeches

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, I will look at that. I want to assert again that thousands of civil servants act with professionalism and integrity every day. On this occasion, this information should have been brought to my attention. Had it been, the appointment would not have been proceeded with.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  No. What I did was ask for the process to be reviewed, and Sir Chris Wormald carried out that review. What transpired last week was that information was withheld from him in the review, so I asked for the review. I did ask the questions, and he gave me his conclusions, but neither he nor I knew that he too was not told the relevant material in the course of that review.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  That is why I have asked for a review of the entire process: so that it can be looked at from start to finish, including the question of whether there should be any circumstances in which the recommendation of UKSV could not be followed.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  I was asked about the vetting process, and the due diligence is part of the vetting process. Rather than rest on a technicality, I gave the House the information that I had about what I knew from the due diligence. It was clear what the Leader of the Opposition was asking; it was about Epstein. I knew that was in the due diligence, and that is why I told the House about it.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  Peter Mandelson was granted developed vetting clearance by the Foreign Office before he took up the post. It was only last Tuesday that I found out that that was against the recommendation of UKSV.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  The information was withheld from me by the FCDO in the circumstances I have set out to the House.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, I will.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  They acted entirely appropriately. They came across the information as part of the Humble Address exercise. They took legal advice on who it could be disclosed to, and disclosed it to me as soon as they got that legal advice. That was the right thing to do.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  What happened in January was that developed vetting clearance was given by the Foreign Office. That was the simple fact of the matter. It was only last week that I found out the further circumstances that I have now set out to the House.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  In relation to the right hon. Lady’s question, let me be clear: I should not have appointed Peter Mandelson. As soon as the further revelations came to light, I did ask the Cabinet Secretary to review the process, so that I could be assured about the process. He wrote to me on 16 September, setting out the conclusions of that review, and assuring me that the process had been followed properly.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  In a case such as this—in relation to such a sensitive post—I do not think it is right that somebody should be appointed at all if the UKSV recommends that clearance is not given. That would be my position.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  The fact of the matter is that Peter Mandelson was given developed vetting clearance before he took up his post as the ambassador, and that was a decision that was taken by the FCDO.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  Because he did not bring to my attention information that he should have brought to my attention. Had he done so, I would not have made the appointment.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  I do agree with that.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, I can give that assurance. We will.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  I have dealt with that issue on a number of occasions.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  I was aware of what was in the due diligence—I have dealt with that—but I was not aware of the issues that were dealt with in the security vetting, nor the recommendation of UKSV.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  As I have made clear, I did know what was in the due diligence report, and I have made that clear to the House a number of times today. I have actually made it clear to the House on previous occasions.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  I was dealing with a very serious issue. I asked my team to establish urgently the facts on Tuesday night. I spoke to the former permanent secretary on Thursday night. As a result of the information I had and the exchanges I had, I made it clear that I no longer had confidence in him.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, I made a commitment in relation to that legislation, and work is progressing on it.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. [Laughter.] I have laid out the relevant facts. It is absolutely clear that nobody is suggesting that this information was made available to me. It clearly was not made available. It should have been made available, and I would not have made the appointment had it been made available. That is why I have set out the facts in some considerable detail to the House, with relevant quotes from all the relevant players in this.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, I agree. The absolute focus needs to be on the fact that we are facing a war on two fronts and a cost of living crisis that this Government are gripping.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  The situation was that, as part of the work being done on the Humble Address, this information came to light. Senior officials immediately took legal advice on whether it could be disclosed. Having got that legal advice, they immediately disclosed it to me. I think that was the proper process, and I think it has now been disclosed to the Committee—albeit, I think, on the Thursday rather than the Tuesday. That was the process. Just to defend that process, I do think it was right for the senior officials, having got that information, to get legal advice on whether they could disclose it, and who to. As soon as they got that advice, they brought it to my attention.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  I did know the difference.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  I reject the idea that any pressure is a good reason not to disclose to the Prime Minister that UKSV recommended against clearance for a very senior, sensitive appointment. I simply do not accept that that is an adequate reason, whatever the pressure.