[0:15]order. Before we come to the prime minister, I wish to make a brief statement. The subject we're about to discuss is the utmost seriousness. expect the discussion to be focused on
[0:26]the facts and the issues at hand and not on personal attacks against individual members. While certain criticisms may be made about the government collectively,
[0:37]as Kim may paragraph 21.24 makes clear that any accusations against individual members about lying or misleading the house may only be made on
[0:48]a substantive motion. They may not be made as part of an exchange on a statement. The House rule on this is in place to ensure that members focus on
[0:58]the substantive matters under discussion and if the debate is needed on matters of individual conduct that must be drawn in the proper terms with notice. I
[1:09]encourage all members to engage in respectful debate and our constituents would expect. I therefore now comes the
[1:17]statement. Prime Minister Kama Uh, thank you, Mr. Speaker. With permission, I'd like to provide the House with information that I now have
[1:27]about the appointment of Peter Mandelen as our ambassador to the United States. But, Mr. Speaker, before I go into the details, I want to be very clear with
[1:37]this house that while this statement will focus on the process surrounding Peter Mandlesson's vetting and appointment, at the heart of this, there
[1:48]is also a judgment I made that was wrong. I should not have appointed Peter Mandlesen. I take responsibility for that decision and I apologize again to
[1:59]the victims of the pedophile Jeffrey Epstein who were clearly failed by my decision. Mr. Speaker, last Tuesday evening, the
[2:09]14th of April, I found out for the first time that on the 29th of January, 2025, before Peter Mandlesson took up his
[2:20]position as ambassador, the Foreign Office officials granted him developed vetting clearance against the specific recommendation of
[2:31]the United Kingdom Security Vetting that developed vetting clearance should be denied. Not only that, the foreign office
[2:41]officials who made that decision did not pass this information to me, to the foreign secretary, to her
[2:52]predecessor, the deputy prime minister, to any other minister, or even to the former cabinet secretary,
[3:01]Sir Chris Wald. I found this staggering and therefore last Tuesday I immediately instructed officials in Downing Street
[3:11]and the Cabinet Office to urgently establish the facts on my authority. I wanted to know who made the decision
[3:22]on what basis who knew and Mr. Mr. Speaker, I wanted that information for the precise and explicit
[3:30]purpose of updating this house because this is information I should have had a long time ago >> and it is information that this house
[3:41]should have had a long time ago. >> It is information that I and the house had the right to know. I will now set out a full timeline of
[3:52]the events in the Peter Mandlesson process, including from the factf finding exercise I instructed last Tuesday. Before doing so, I want to remind and
[4:02]reassure the House that the government will comply fully with the humble address motion of the 4th of February. Mr. Speaker, in December 2024,
[4:14]I was in the process of appointing a new ambassador for Washington. A due diligence exercise was conducted by the Cabinet Office into Peter Mandlesson's
[4:23]suitability, including questions put to him by my staff in number 10. Peter Mandlesson answered those questions on the 10th of December, and I received
[4:35]final advice on the due diligence process. On the 11th, I made the decision to appoint him on the 18th of December. The appointment was announced on the 20th and the
[4:47]security vetting process began on the 23rd of December, 2024. Mr. Speaker, I want to make clear to the
[4:56]House that for a direct ministerial appointment, it was usual for security vetting to happen after the appointment,
[5:05]but before starting in post. That was the process in place at the time. Mr. Speaker, this was confirmed by the former cabinet secretary, Sir Chris
[5:16]Warmold, at the Foreign Affairs Select Committee on the 3rd of November, 2025 when he gave evidence So Chris made clear and I'm quoting him
[5:26]now. When we are making appointments from outside the civil service, the normal thing is for security clearance to happen after appointment but before
[5:37]the person signs a contract and takes up post. At the same hearing of the same select committee, the former permanent secretary to the foreign office, Sir Ole
[5:47]Robbins said, and I quote again, Peter Mandlesson did not hold national security vetting when he was appointed, but he went on as is normally the case with external appointments to my
[5:59]department and the wider civil service. The appointment was made subject to obtaining security clearance. Mr. Mr. Speaker, after I sat Peter
[6:08]Mandlesson, I changed that process so that now an appointment cannot be announced until after security vetting is passed.
[6:18]>> Mr. Speaker, the security vetting was carried out by UK security vetting, UKSV, between the 23rd of December 2024 and
[6:29]the 28th of January 2025. UKSV conducted vetting in the normal way, collecting relevant information as
[6:39]well as interviewing the applicant in this case on two occasions. Then on the 28th of January 2025,
[6:49]UK SV recommended to the foreign office that developed vetting clearance should be denied to Peter Manderson.
[6:58]The following day on the 29th of January 2025, notwithstanding the UK SB recommendation that developed vetting clearance should
[7:09]be denied, foreign office made the decision to grant develop vetting clearance for Peter Mandles.
[7:18]To be clear, for many departments, a decision from UK SV is binding. But for the Foreign Office, the final decision on developed vetting clearance
[7:30]is made by Foreign Office officials, not UK SV. However, once the decision in this case came to light, the Foreign Office's
[7:40]power to make the final decision on developed vetting clearance was immediately suspended by my chief secretary last week.
[7:48]Mr. Speaker, I accept that the sensitive personal information provided by an individual being vetted must be
[7:58]protected from disclosure. If that were not the case, the integrity of the whole process would be compromised.
[8:07]What I do not accept is that the appointing minister cannot be told of the recommendation by UKSV.
[8:18]Indeed, given the seriousness of these issues and the significance of the appointment, I simply do not accept that foreign office could not have informed
[8:28]me of UKSV's recommendations, whilst also maintaining the necessary confidentiality that vetting requires. There is no law that stops civil
[8:39]servants sensibly flagging UK SV recommendations while protecting detailed sensitive vetting information to allow ministers to make judgments on
[8:49]appointments or on explaining matters to Parliament. So let me be very clear. The recommendation in the Peter Mandlesson case could and should have been shared
[9:00]with me before he took up his post. >> Mr. Speaker, let me make a second point. If I had known before he took up his
[9:12]post that UK SV recommendation was that developed vetting clearance should be denied, I would not have gone ahead with the appointment. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, let me now
[9:27]move to September 2025 because events then and subsequently show with even starker clarity the
[9:37]opportunities missed by Foreign Office officials to make the position clear. Mr. Speaker, on September the 10th,
[9:48]Bloomberg reported fresh details of Mandlesson's history with Epstein. And it was then clear to me that Peter Mandlesson's answers to my staff in the
[9:57]due diligence exercise were not truthful and I sacked him. I also changed the direct ministerial appointments process. So full due diligence is now required as
[10:08]standard where risks are identified. An interview must be taken pre-appoint to discuss any risks and conflicts of interest and a summary of this should be provided to the appointing minister. I
[10:20]also made clear that public announcement should not now be made until security vetting has been completed. Mr. Speaker, in light of the revelations in September
[10:32]of last year, I also agreed with the then cabinet secretary, Sir Chris Warmold, that he would carry out a review of the appointment process in the
[10:43]Peter Mandles case, including the vetting. He set out his findings and conclusions in a letter to me on the 16th of
[10:54]September. He advised me in that letter and again I quote, "The evidence I have reviewed leads me to conclude that appropriate
[11:06]processes were followed in both the appointment and the withdrawal of the former HMA Washington." When he was asked about this, Mr.
[11:16]Speaker, last week the then cabinet secretary was clear that when he carried out his review, the
[11:25]foreign office did not tell him about the UK SV recommendation that developed vetting clearance should be denied to Peter Mandlesson. I find that
[11:36]astonishing. As I said, our odyssey, I do not accept that I could not have been told about the recommendation before Peter Mandlesson took up his post. I
[11:47]absolutely do not accept that the then cabinet secretary, an official, not a politician, when carrying out his review, could not have been told that
[11:58]UKB recommended that Peter Mandles should be denied develop vetting clearance. It was a vital part of the process that I had asked him to review.
[12:09]Clearly, he could have been told and he should have been told. >> Mr. Speaker, on the same day as the then
[12:19]cabinet secretary wrote to me, so that's the 16th of September 2025, the foreign secretary and the then permanent secretary of the foreign
[12:29]office, Sir Ollie Robbins, provided a signed statement to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. The statement says, and again I quote,
[12:40]"The vetting process was undertaken by UK security vetting on behalf of FCDO and concluded with DV clearance being granted by the FCDO in advance of Lord
[12:51]Manderson taking up post in February." It went on to say, and again I quote, "Peter Mandlesson security vetting was conducted to the usual standards set for
[13:03]developed vetting in line with established cabinet office policy. Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear to the House.
[13:13]This was in response to questions which included whether concerns were raised, what the foreign office's response was,
[13:22]and whether they were dismissed. >> Mr. speaker that the foreign secretary was advised on and allowed to sign this
[13:31]statement by foreign office without being told that UK SV had recommended Peter Manderson be denied develop vetting clearance is absolutely
[13:42]unforgivable. >> This is a senior cabinet member giving evidence to parliament on the very issue in question.
[13:53]Mr. Speaker, in light of further revelations about Peter Mandlesson in February of this year, I was very concerned about the fact that developed
[14:03]vetting clearance had been granted to him. Not knowing that in fact UK SP had recommended denial of develop vetting
[14:14]clearance, I instructed my officials to carry out a review of the national security vetting process. As I set out, I do not accept that I
[14:25]could not have been told about UKs v's denial of security vetting before Peter Mandlesson took up his post in January 25. I do not accept that the then
[14:35]cabinet secretary could not have been told in September 2025 when he carried out his review into the process. I do not accept that the foreign secretary could not have been told when making statements to the select committee again
[14:47]in 2025. But, Mr. Speaker, on top of that, the fact that I was not told, even when I ordered a review of the UK SV
[14:57]process is frankly staggering. And I can tell the House that I've now updated the terms of reference for the review into security vetting to make
[15:08]sure it covers the means by which all decisions are made in relation to national security vetting. I've appointed Sir Adrien Fulford to lead the review.
[15:20]Separately, I've asked the government security group in the cabinet office to look at any security concerns raised during Peter Mandlesson's tenure. >> Mr. Speaker, I know many members across
[15:31]the House will find these facts to be incredible. >> To that
[15:43]to that to that I can only say they are right. It beggars belief that throughout the whole timeline of events, officials
[15:54]in the foreign office saw fit to withhold this information from the most senior ministers in our system in government. That is not how the vast majority of people in this country
[16:05]expect politics, government, or accountability to work. And I do not think it's how most public servants think it should work either. I work with hundreds of civil servants,
[16:17]thousands even, all of whom act with the utmost integrity, dedication, and pride to serve this country, including officials from the Foreign Office, who
[16:27]as we speak are doing a phenomenal job representing our national interest in a dangerous world in Ukraine, in the Middle East, and all around the world.
[16:38]This is not about them. But yet it is surely beyond doubt that the re recommendation from UKSV that Peter Mansion should be denied development and
[16:49]clearance was information that could and should have been shared with me on repeated occasions and therefore should have been available to this house and
[17:00]ultimately to the British people and I commend this statement to the house. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the
[17:14]Prime Minister for advanced sight of his statement. His reputation is at stake. Everyone is watching. It is finally time for the
[17:24]truth. >> Earlier today, Mr. Speaker, Downing Street admitted that the Prime Minister inadvertently misled the House. The Prime Minister has chosen not to repeat
[17:35]that from the dispatch box. I will remind him that under the ministerial code, he has a duty to correct the record at the earliest opportunity.
[17:45]>> The prime minister says he only found out on Tuesday that Peter Manderson failed the security vetting. The earliest opportunity to correct the record was prime minister's questions on
[17:56]Wednesday, almost a week ago. This is a breach of the ministerial code. Under that code, he is bound to be as open as possible with parliament and the
[18:06]public in answering questions today. So, let me start with what we do know. We know the prime minister personally appointed Peter Mandlesson to be our
[18:17]ambassador to the United States. We know that Mandlesen had a close relationship with a convicted pedophile. We know that he had concerning links with Russia and
[18:27]China, links that had already raised red flags. We know that the prime minister announced the appointment before vetting was complete, an extraordinary and
[18:38]unprecedented step for the role of US ambassador. >> The prime minister says that it was usual for this because it was a political appointment. So I will remind
[18:50]him and the rest of the Labour front bench who are heckling that Peter Mandlesson was a politician who had been sacked twice from government for lying. That meant he should have gone through
[19:01]the full security process. >> And we also know finally, Mr. Speaker, that when Peter Mandles failed the security vetting, he was allowed to
[19:11]continue in the role with access to top secret intelligence and security information. This goes beyond propriety and ethics. This is a matter of national
[19:21]security. >> So, let me turn to what we do not know. We still do not know exactly why Peter Mandlesen failed that vetting. We do not
[19:31]know what risks our country was exposed to. and we do not know how it is possible that the prime minister said repeatedly that this was a failure of
[19:41]vetting went on television and said things that were blatantly incorrect and not a single advisor or a single official told him that what he was
[19:51]saying wasn't true. >> At every turn, with every explanation, the government's story has become murkier and more contradictory.
[20:01]>> It is time for the truth. There are too many questions to ask in the allotted time, Mr. Speaker. So, I'm now going to ask the prime minister just six
[20:11]questions. And I have taken the unprecedented step of providing these questions to the prime minister in advance.
[20:20]So, he has them in front of him. And I have asked for these questions I have asked for these questions to be
[20:30]put online for the public. They and I expect him to answer. >> The prime minister appointed a national security risk to our most sensitive
[20:40]diplomatic post. Let's look at how this happened. The right honorable gentleman told me at PMQ's in September 2025 that full due process was followed in this
[20:51]appointment. We now know that in November 2024, Lord Casease, the then cabinet secretary told him this process required security vetting to be done
[21:02]before the appointment. >> He did not mention any of what Lord Kase said in his statement earlier. >> So first question, does the prime minister accept that when he said on the
[21:13]floor of the house that full due process was followed, this was not true? Secondly, on the 11th of September last year, journalists asked his director of
[21:24]communications if it was true that Mandlesson had failed security vetting. These allegations were on the front page of a national newspaper. And yet, number
[21:36]10 did not deny the story. Why? Three. Will the prime minister repeat from the dispatch box his words last week that no
[21:48]one in number 10 was aware before Tuesday that Mandlesson had failed his vetting. >> The prime minister says he's furious that he wasn't told the recommendations of the vetting. Yet on the 16th of
[21:59]September, a foreign office minister told parliament and I quote, "The national security vetting process is rightly independent of ministers who are not informed of any findings other than
[22:10]the final outcome." This was the government's stated process. So why is the prime minister so furious that it was followed on the 4th of February 2026?
[22:22]The prime minister Fifth question, Mr. Speaker, on the 4th of February 2026, the prime minister told me from the dispatch box that the security vetting he had received had reve revealed
[22:34]Mandlesson's relationship with Epstein. How could he say that if he had not seen the security vetting? And finally, Mr. Speaker, Systemma is a
[22:45]Russian defense company closely linked to the Kremlin and Vladimir Putin's war machine. Was the prime minister aware before the appointment that Peter
[22:57]Mandlesen had remained a director of that company long after Russia's invasion of Crimea? Mr. Speaker, everyone makes mistakes. It
[23:08]is how you face up to those mistakes that shows the character of a leader. Instead of taking responsibility for the decisions he made, the prime minister has thrown his staff and his officials
[23:20]under the bus. This is a man who once said, "I will carry the can for the mistakes of any organization I lead." Instead, he has sacked his cabinet
[23:30]secretary. He has sacked his director of communications. He has sacked his chief of staff. And he has now sacked the permanent secretary of the foreign office. All of these people fired for a
[23:41]decision he made. The right honorable gentleman's defense is that he, a former director of public prosecutions, is so lacking in curiosity
[23:52]that he chose to ask no questions about the vetting process. He asked no questions about Mandlesson's relationship with Epstein. He asked no questions about the security risk
[24:02]Mandlesson posed. Apparently, he didn't even speak to Peter Mandlesson before his appointment. It doesn't appear that he asked any questions at all. Why?
[24:13]Because he didn't want to know. >> He had taken the risk. He had chosen his man. Whiteall had to follow. >> It is the duty of the prime minister to
[24:24]ensure he is telling the truth. Or does the ministerial code not apply to him? I'm only holding the prime minister to the same standard to which he held others. Yeah.
[24:35]>> On the 26th of January, 2022, the right honorable gentleman said to a previous prime minister at this dispatch box, "If he misled the house, he must resign."
[24:46]>> Does he stand by those words or is there one rule for him and another for everyone else? >> Mr. Speaker, let me respond to those
[24:58]points. Firstly, um when I found out uh what had happened on Tuesday evening last, I wanted to have answers to the
[25:07]question who made the decision to uh recommend uh to give clearance on develop vetting um contrary to the advice, why that was done um and who
[25:18]knew about it so I could provide the information to the house. Mr. Speaker, that is the exercise that's been conducted since Tuesday evening and today so that I could come here today to give the full account of the house which
[25:30]I just um set out. Mr. Speaker, she asked me about uh develop vetting uh security clearance after the appointment. I've set out that that wasn't me saying that. I read out the
[25:41]evidence uh of the former permanent secretary about that and the former cabinet secretary in relation to that. And I think the quotes that I've given to the house are clear enough in
[25:51]relation to that. She also asks um why Peter Mandlesson failed. Mr. Speaker, it's important to make a distinction between the information provided to the
[26:02]review and the recommendation. The information uh in the review must be protected and has been protected because otherwise the integrity of the entire system would fall away. But the
[26:13]recommendation doesn't need to be protected and should not have been protected. Uh, Mr. Speaker, in relation to uh her questions uh in relation to
[26:23]the answer about full due process, that was uh the information that I had that I put before the house and it was confirmed to be by Sir Chris Warmold
[26:32]because in September I asked him to conduct a review of the process to assure me uh that the process was correctly carried out. He did that and wrote to me on the 16th of September
[26:43]giving me that uh his conclusions in relation Mr. speaker to uh reports I in the media um number 10 was repeatedly asked about the facts surround uh
[26:54]surrounding Peter Manson's clearance and was assured that the proper process was um followed uh I in that case Mr. Speaker uh in relation to those in
[27:05]number 10 let me uh give um the answer nobody in number 10 was informed about UK SV's recommendation Mr. Speaker, just
[27:15]to be clear and for the record, the Cabinet Office Permanent Secretary did receive information recently and then sought the necessary and legal advice.
[27:24]Once those checks were completed by the Cabinet Office Permanent Secretary, I was told that is in the last two weeks or so. That was entirely the right procedure to get the legal advice and
[27:35]then to bring it to my attention at the first opportunity. It was the right uh procedure that was followed by my officials in the last few um weeks. Uh,
[27:44]Mr. Speaker, in relation to um why I was furious uh about the process, for the very reason, Mr. Speaker, I strongly believe I should have been given this
[27:54]information at the very outset. I strongly believe there were repeated uh times when I should have been told I should have been told uh on appointment.
[28:06]I should have been told when Peter Mannison 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
[28:17]statement to the select committee. And I should have been told when I ordered a review of um vetting. Mr. Speaker, in
[28:24]relation to um the uh uh point she makes about what I said in February in answer to a question of hers, um I make it very
[28:35]clear, Mr. Speaker, I had not seen the security vetting file. I did not know that UK SP the question asked me about vetting. I knew about the due diligence and that's why I put before the house
[28:46]what I knew about the due diligence um in relation to Epstein. The question asked me about vetting and I had I knew what the due diligence has said and therefore I told the house what the due
[28:56]diligence has said. I didn't tell them uh what security vetting had said because I hadn't seen the file uh in relation um to that. Uh Mr. Speaker, uh, in relation to the particular details in
[29:08]relation to Peter Mandlesson, I acted uh, on all of the information I had available to me. The simple fact of the matter is I should have had more of information. I didn't have that information. The House should have had
[29:18]that information and I've now set it out in full to the House. >> Chair for Select Committee End Thornbury. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The
[29:29]truth is is that my committee did ask, we asked on the record and we got a partial truth that could hardly be the whole truth. But they we are on record
[29:39]as asking the very questions that hecklers on the other side say should have been asked and the answers are there on the record to see just what we got when we did ask. Mr. Mr. Speaker, may I just turn to my question? A month
[29:51]before Mandelson's appointment was announced, the then cabinet secretary advised that the necessary security clearance should be acquired before confirming a political appointment. That doesn't seem to have been the usual
[30:03]practice. I'm glad that it's changed because it was clearly abused because what happened was that somebody probably Peter Manderson himself leaked to the press his appointment as US ambassador
[30:14]effectively bouncing the government into confirming it. But then when the con confirmation did come forward it about his appointment, it did not make clear
[30:25]that it was subject to vetting in either the offer letter to Peter Mandlesson or in the government's press release. I'm afraid to say, doesn't this look like for certain members of the prime
[30:36]minister's team, getting Peter Mandlesson the job was a priority that overrode everything else and that security considerations were very much second order. Prime Minister.
[30:47]>> Well, um can I thank her for a question? Um the her committee did ask uh relevant questions and that's why um I have
[30:58]indicated that it was it was unforgivable that the foreign secretary was asked to sign a statement in response to those very questions without being told um about the um recommendation. The questions were
[31:10]asked. She was uh asked to advise um and asked to sign a statement without being uh told the relevant information and that is unforgivable. Um as for the
[31:21]appointment before uh develop vetting um I've changed that process now so it can never happen um again and she heard me quote the evidence of the former cabinet secretary and the former um uh uh
[31:33]permanent uh secretary in relation to that. Mr. Speaker, um can I just deal with the third point she makes? um
[31:41]that and that is that somehow um the um Downing Streets um wish to appoint Peter Mandlesson over road security concerns.
[31:52]M mi no Mr. Speaker Mr. Speaker Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear. If I had been told that Peter Manderson or
[32:01]anybody else had failed security had not been given clearance on security vetting, I would not have appointed
[32:09]them. A a deliberate decision was a deliberate decision was taken to withhold that uh material from me. A
[32:20]deliberate decision was taken to withhold that material. This was not a lack of asking. This wasn't an oversight. It was a decision. It was a
[32:29]It was a decision taken not to share that information on repeated occasions. >> Said David Leberal Democrats.
[32:41]>> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's 2022 all over again. Yeah, >> back then when he stood on this side of the house and it was Boris Johnson who
[32:52]was accused of misleading Parliament and scapegoating senior officials, the then leader of the opposition couldn't have been clearer. The public need to know, he said,
[33:03]>> that not all politicians are the same, that not all politicians put themselves above their country and that honesty, integrity, and accountability matter. So
[33:12]he promised change, Mr. Speaker. He promised to break the cycle and stop the chaos. And he promised a government with, and I quote, more focus on
[33:23]long-term strategy, not the short-term distractions that can animate Westminster. >> I'm afraid the fact that he even had to make the statement today shows how badly
[33:35]he has failed, >> how badly he has let down the millions of people across our country who are so desperate for change. He blames his officials. He says he had
[33:47]no idea. He gives every impression of a prime minister in office but not in power. >> The facts remain even on his own
[33:57]account. The prime minister appointed Peter Manson as ambassador to the United States even after he had been warned about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.
[34:08]The prime minister announced the appointment before Manson had been vetted despite the clear risk to national security of putting someone unsuitable in that role. >> Y
[34:18]>> and one of his top officials just three weeks into the job clearly believed the prime minister wanted Manson to be appointed regardless of what the vetting
[34:28]process turned up. And the prime minister has relied on the vetting process to defend his decisions. So why did he ask so few questions personally
[34:37]about the vetting process itself? >> We all know the truth. Mr. Speaker, the prime minister knew that appointing Manslson was an enormous risk.
[34:49]>> He decided it was a risk worth taking, >> a catastrophic error of judgment. >> And now that it's blown up in his face, the only decent thing to do is to take
[35:01]responsibility. Back in 2022, the prime minister rightly accused Boris Johnson of expecting others to take the blame while he clung on.
[35:12]>> That was not acceptable then and it's not acceptable now. >> So I hope the prime minister can at least tell the house this and we'll be
[35:22]listening very carefully to his answer. Was he given advice by Simon Casease, the then cabinet secretary, that the necessary security clearances should be
[35:33]acquired before he confirmed his choice for US ambassador? And did he follow that advice? Yes or no? Mr. Speaker, after the years of chaos
[35:45]under the Conservatives, we needed a government focused on the interests of the people, the cost of living crisis, the health and care crisis, our national security. We needed a government of
[35:56]honesty, integrity, and accountability. So, will the fi prime minister finally accept that the only way he can help to deliver that is to resign?
[36:06]>> Prime Minister, >> Mr. Speaker, um I set out in my statement uh the full facts. Um and in September when the Bloomberg emails came
[36:18]to light, I asked the cabinet to review the proc the cabinet se then cabinet secretary to review the process. He told me the process was um as it should have been and as soon as the information
[36:28]about security vetting came last Tuesday, I asked for the facts to be established so I could update um parliament. He asks me about the announcement before um develop vetting.
[36:39]Uh he's heard the evidence that I've given to the house from the former cabinet secretary and from the former permanent secretary. In relation to the advice from Simon Casease, Mr. Speaker, when I asked the former cabinet
[36:50]secretary to review the process uh after September 25, he specifically addressed whether the process had been followed by referencing the Simon case letter and
[37:02]assured me that the process was the right process to have followed. So that so in answer to his question um that was specifically looked at by Sir Chris Wmold in the review that was conducted
[37:13]in September of last year. Dame Dian, sorry Dian, >> the prime minister has gone on at
[37:32]considerable lengths about process and procedure. But ordinary people don't really care about process and procedure. They want
[37:44]transparency and they want to know that they can have confidence in the words of elected politicians like all of us in
[37:53]this chamber. On the question of Peter Mandlesson, it was in the '9s that Peter Mandlesson had to resign from the
[38:04]cabinet for the first time because of his dealings with the millionaire Jeffrey Robinson. It was a few years
[38:13]later he had to resign for the cabinet for the second time because of his relationships with the billionaire Hinduja family
[38:24]that Peter Mandleton has a history. Peter Mandlesson
[38:35]has a history. And what this house wants to know is why knowing Peter Mountain's
[38:43]history going back now 30 years and given what has been known.
[38:52]It's one thing to say as he insists on saying nobody told me. Nobody told me anything. Nobody told me. The question
[39:02]is why didn't the prime minister ask? Um m >> Mr. Speaker, in relation to her
[39:16]question, let me be clear. Um uh I should not have appointed Peter Mandlesson. Um as su as soon as the further revelations came to light, I did ask I asked the cabinet secretary to
[39:27]review the process so I could be assured about the process. He wrote to me on the 16th of September setting out the conclusions of that review and assuring me the process had been followed
[39:37]properly. >> Sim of PAT. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The prime minister has spoken about process and
[39:49]the reviews and trying to put that which went wrong right. That is to be supported. But he's also asking the House and the country to believe that notwithstanding
[40:00]a front page media splash that Peter Mandolson had failed the vetting process. That there was nobody in number
[40:10]10 or in any government department that even thought to say, "Is there any truth in this?
[40:18]>> Could I have a briefing on that? We need to knock this story down." If nobody asked, that is the shameful thing.
[40:30]>> And if nobody asked, does it not say to the prime minister that the operation of his government, which seems to be
[40:39]process, strategy, review never my fault, is not sustainable and is not welcomed by the country at large.
[40:50]In answer to his question, um the FCDA was repeatedly asked um in light of uh inquiries. The same answer came back because a clear decision had been taken
[41:01]that this information was not going to be disclosed and it wasn't disclosed to me, let alone to anybody else. So yes, repeatedly the FCDO was asked. The same answer came
[41:13]back as the answer that was given to me. The the decision was that I wasn't to know and nobody else was to know. That was wrong. >> John,
[41:24]>> can I say that on this side of the house at least to my honorable friend,
[41:31]many will appreciate his apology today, >> but many of us will remain bewildered still why that appointment took place
[41:41]despite the warnings that many of us gave him. And isn't the reality this that when he sought to realize his ambition to become leader of the Labour
[41:51]Party with a very little base within the party, he became dependent on Max Sweeney and Mandlesome and Labor
[42:00]together to organize fund his election and that when he became prime minister, the reward for Max Sweeney was control of number 10 and for Mandolen the
[42:11]highest diplomatic office and the message, the unspoken message to civil servants was what Mandlesson wants, Mandlesson gets. This has damaged the
[42:22]party that I've been a member of for 50 years. I urge him I urge him I urge him to take steps to clear this toxic
[42:33]culture out of our party and take the first step by having an independent inquiry into Labor together. >> Prime Minister
[42:43]Um, Mr. Speaker, can I um just deal with what's at the heart of that question in relation to an unspoken message to civil servants? I I I don't accept that um Mr.
[42:54]speaker. Um it is simply not good enough on a question of national security where clearance the recommendation is clearance to be denied uh for um anyone
[43:04]particularly senior civil servants um to do anything other than provide me with the relevant information and that is what should have happened in this case. >> Sir Jeremy Wright very much
[43:16]>> Mr. Speaker, the prime minister has been very clear about his view of the urgency of his response since he learned of this vetting information. So I want to ask
[43:27]him about the events of last week. He will know that the intelligence and security committee asked for any information relevant to vetting to be supplied to it in the first branch of
[43:39]information we were to consider. We didn't receive anything about vetting at that time. The prime minister has told us now that on Tuesday evening he became
[43:49]aware of the information he has set out. But the intelligence and security committee was not told about the existence of that information. Information the prime minister must have
[44:00]recognized was within the terms of the humble address and would need to be supplied to the ISC. We were not told by his officials about the existence of
[44:09]that information until Thursday after it had been published its existence had been published in the Guardian newspaper. So I am bound to ask the
[44:19]prime minister this. If that information's existence had not been disclosed by the press, would we have been told about it?
[44:28]>> And if so, why did the ISC have to learn of its existence from the Guardian and not from the government? Prime Minister, >> thank you for his question and and the
[44:39]answer is uh yes uh it would have been provided to the committee. Um and I I think as he acknowledged it has now been
[44:48]provided to um the committee. The the reason for the delay is on Tuesday night I found out simply that the
[44:57]recommendation had been made um to deny clearance and yet clearance had been given. I wanted to understand uh who gave that clearance on what basis and
[45:08]who knew about it so I could update the house and obviously make the information available to the um committee and that's what I uh asked on Tuesday night my officials urgently to do so the full
[45:19]picture could have um been put before both the house and the committee and I'll make sure that um the full picture is put before the committee. >> Hello sir Strafer. >> Thank you Mr. Speaker. Many of my
[45:30]constituents are rightly appalled that someone who betrayed not just our country but every single victim of Jeffstein was able to serve in such a prestigious position. Whatever the judgment in the security vetting file,
[45:42]that decision to appoint him was wrong. And I welcome the prime minister's owning an apology for that moment. >> But many of my constituents are also rightly concerned to learn that not a
[45:52]single democratically elected official in government was informed about that decision. Given this, what undertakings is the prime minister instigating right across government to ensure that in the
[46:02]future it's our democratic decision makers who put in the full picture for these crucial judgments? >> Prime Minister, >> can I uh thank him and um Mr. Speaker,
[46:13]that is precisely why I've asked um for the entire um develop vetting process to be reviewed reviewed by Sir Adrian Fulwood. And I've made it absolutely
[46:24]clear to this house um uh 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.
[46:36]>> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The prime minister wants us to focus on process and not his judgment. But this entire sorry episode is the direct result of
[46:47]his decision to make a direct appointment to one of the most senior roles in the FCDO of somebody who was wholly inappropriate for the role. So
[46:57]can the prime minister at least confirm to the house that this was a singular error of judgment and that his number 10 operation has not proposed political
[47:07]appointee for any other senior role in the FCDO. Prime >> Minister >> in relation to um the decision. Yes, it was my decision. It was an error of
[47:18]judgment and that's why I've apologized to the victims of Epstein. I've done it again today and right to do so. in relation to the second point of his question whether any other political appointments I will have to just check
[47:30]on that and get back to him um because I'm not AC there are very many appointments made very many appointments made to senior positions and I will just check that for him
[47:39]>> Gorgel Mr. Speaker, the House and the public understand the importance of independent security vetting and why sensitive personal information must be protected, but they are also shocked
[47:50]that decisions of such significance could be taken without the knowledge of the prime minister. I have worked closely with the prime minister and know how seriously he takes national security and accountability to this house. So,
[48:01]can the prime minister set out what steps he will take to remove any ambiguity? So where there are serious concerns, those risks are flagged to ministers, ensuring that accountability to this
[48:12]house and to the country is always upheld. >> Prime Minister, >> I thank her for her question, Mr. Speaker. That is why uh last week the chief secretary removed the uh suspended
[48:23]the power of the FCDO uh to make a recommendation or to take a decision contrary to the recommendation of UK SV. >> So David de Mr. Speaker, the prime
[48:35]minister has twice rebuffed first the leader of the opposition then the leader of leader of the Liberal Democrats when they said that the then cabinet secretary's advice the prime minister was to get the clearance before the
[48:46]announcement. So I'm going to read in one sentence from a document entitled options for HMA Washington from the cabinet secretary today to him him
[48:56]personally. It says, "If this is the route you wish to take, you should give us the name of the person you would like to appoint, and we will develop a plan for them to acquire the necessary
[49:06]security clearances and do due diligence on any potential conflicts of interest or other issues of which you should be aware before confirming your choice."
[49:17]>> The House doesn't want to hear about what Mr. Wilhold said a year later. That was the advice then. >> Why didn't he follow it? Mr. Speaker, uh he reads out the pattern
[49:30]from um Mr. Casey's advice. Uh the process that was followed was what I understood to be the usual process. In other words, in in other words, the appointment was subject to the security
[49:41]vetting. It is why when Sir Chris Walmold looked at it in September, he addressed the question by reference back to Simon Casey's letter because I I
[49:51]wanted to know the process that had been followed was the right process and that is what sir Chris WMO looked at. He looked at it expressly by reference to the Simon case letter that has just been
[50:03]read out and assured me that the right process was followed when he reviewed it. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Anybody who
[50:11]knows the prime minister will know full well that he would never
[50:18]ever deliberately mislead this house. >> But the reality is this, Mr. Speaker. X
[50:31]post factor uh vetting is utterly pointless when the appointment >> is political.
[50:41]And the trouble, Mr. Speaker, that we all face is that trust in the prime minister
[50:51]and in politics is diminishing as this sorry saga continues.
[50:58]So in the 17 days we have leading to those very important elections, never mind question, those very important elections.
[51:09]What does the prime minister propose to do to win back the trust of the country? >> Prime Minister, >> Mr. M speaker in relation to his point
[51:20]about um vetting in relation to political appointments I I don't agree but I do agree that the due diligence for direct ministerial appointments
[51:30]should be the same as for any other appointments. Um it clearly wasn't and that's why in September I ordered uh that it be changed in order to make sure it is the same process whether it's a
[51:41]direct ministerial appointment um or any other uh appointment in relation to uh the country. Mr. Speaker, it is important that we remain focused on the cost of living and on dealing with the
[51:52]war on two fronts that we face in this country and I intend to do that. >> Steven Flynn, Mr. Mr. Speaker, um the harshest and most important truth in
[52:02]this entire process is that the prime minister of the United Kingdom chose to proactively ignore the victims of Jeffrey Epstein when he made the
[52:12]political choice to put Peter Mandles in as the UK's most senior diplomat in the United States of America despite knowing
[52:22]that he had maintained a friendship with Jeffrey Epstein himself. We have since seen Peter Mandlesson be investigated for potential misconduct in public
[52:33]office. And we of course now learn through the media that Peter Mandlesson had failed his security vetting. The prime minister blames all of this, all
[52:42]of it on the judgment of others. But I'm interested in his judgment. Does he believe himself to be gullible,
[52:51]incompetent, or both? >> Prime Minister, >> Mr. speaker. Um, I thank him for his question. I've laid out I I' I've laid out the relevant facts.
[53:02]It is absolutely clear that nobody is suggesting that this information was made available to me. It clearly wasn't made available. It should have been made available and I would not have made the
[53:12]appointment had it been made available. That is why I set out the facts in some considerable detail to the house with relevant quotes from all the relevant players in this. >> Stella Cre.
[53:23]>> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The prime minister is being candid about some of the challenges in this process. I'm sure he will share the frustration across
[53:33]this house that revelations keep coming and this matter keeps coming back to parliament. Now he says that he has acted to prevent any further challenges
[53:43]in the vetting system for the government for senior appointments. Can he therefore give all of our constituents and this house the reassurance that he
[53:54]has no further sense there will be any challenges to any other senior appointments through the vetting process that this government has made.
[54:05]>> Um Mr. Speaker, that is precisely why I've asked for a review to be carried out of the uh security um vetting. Uh I I have no reason to believe that to be the case, but I want I want to be
[54:16]assured about the security vetting process, and that's why I've asked Sir Adrian Fulford uh to look at it so he can give me that further reassurance. I will then, of course, pass that on to the house. >> Karan Bradley.
[54:27]>> Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The prime minister has just told us that after he sacked Peter Mandel, he changed the process so that now an appointment cannot be announced until after security
[54:38]vetting is passed. Why did he do that if he didn't think there was a problem with the security vetting? >> Well, Mr. Speaker, in September, um it
[54:48]became clear to me that um in relation to the due diligence that been carried out by the cabinet office, uh Peter Mson had been asked questions by my staff and
[54:59]given answers which were not truthful. That was exposed by the Bloomberg emails. At that point, I became concerned about the entire process. I asked for the review of the process by
[55:10]uh Sir Chris Wormald which he carried out but I also made it immediately clear that I would change the due process so that whether it's direct ministerial um appointments or any other appointments
[55:19]the same process was gone through and I also wanted to make it clear that I didn't think that it was right that appointments should be announced before security vetting um was gone through in
[55:30]any circumstances and therefore I changed it straight away. >> Rachel Blake. >> Thank you Mr. Speaker, my constituents are deeply concerned about the
[55:41]appointment of Peter Mandlesson and they want to see complete transparency going forward. I'm really concerned to read that the civil servants in their cabinet
[55:52]office may have had this information about a month ago and it has taken them this long to be able to be in a position where they can share the information with the democratically elected person
[56:03]making this appointment. What can the prime minister share with us today so that we don't have to face this type of issue going forward? >> Prime Minister,
[56:14]>> can I address that head on? Because what happened was that the information came um to the attention of um senior civil servants um who were in fact um doing
[56:26]the compliance work on the humble address. Uh when they um saw the information about developed vetting uh they took legal advice straight away. um
[56:35]to um ask whether it was um legal to disclose that to me. They got that advice and as soon as the advice was given, they disclosed it to me straight away last Tuesday. That was the right
[56:46]and appropriate thing for them to do. There's no criticism of what they did. >> Rachel Gilmore. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We know that
[56:56]last September MI6's finding that Mandals's compromising business interests was accurate. I mentioned it
[57:03]myself on September the 15th in 2025. He failed his security vetting. We also know the former cabinet secretary
[57:13]advised the prime minister to carry out security clearance for Mandlesson before his appointment. It was reported in the Times yesterday
[57:23]that Mandlesson was given strap very very highest security vetting well beyond DV despite being failed for DV.
[57:34]>> It is likely that the Americans will have serious questions about what secrets of theirs a compromised British ambassador might have accessed.
[57:44]Despite all this, we also know that the PM and number 10 were utterly determined to appoint Mandlesson as ambassador to DC come hell or high water. My question
[57:56]is why? >> Prime Minister, can I assure her that I have ordered a review of any national security issues arising arising in relation to what I found out last Tuesday and I'll obviously update the
[58:07]house uh when that review is complete. >> Dr. Rupah. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I also thank the prime minister for his heartfelt statement. And if we're judging parties
[58:17]on actions, not words, for reviving the post of anti-corruptions are it was vacant for three of his predecessors years and years starting with Forest
[58:27]Johnson's lockdown breaches. So can I ask the prime minister now that we HAVE THE HEAVYWEIGHT MARGARET HODGEJ IN POST, WHAT PLANS does he have for this broader
[58:37]policy area? Well, I'm sure that Margaret Hod will do a very good job in that role as she's done in so many other roles previously.
[58:47]>> Sir Julian Lewis, >> who first suggested to the prime minister that Mandlesson should be appointed as our ambassador to the United States or was it just his own
[58:58]idea? Did it never cross his mind that Mandlesson was at risk of failing the vetting process? And before sacking
[59:08]Oliver Robbins last week, did the prime minister ask him why he overruled the verdict of the security veters? And if
[59:17]so, what was his explanation? >> I did ask him and I didn't accept his explanation. That's why I sat down.
[59:28]Rachel Mas. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. At the beginning of February, in February 2026, we learned that Peter Mandlesson had
[59:39]shared highly sensitive government information with Jeffrey Epstein from the former Prime Minister Gordon Brown. At that juncture, if I was in his shoes,
[59:51]I would have been forensic in recognizing a security risk and wanting detailed answers. What's not adding up
[59:59]for me is why we are now in midappril before we get this information and why the prime minister didn't drill down to ensure that we had the security
[1:00:10]information which clearly we learned that Peter Mandlesson had breached. Prime >> Minister, >> Mr. Mr. Speaker, it was at that point that I did ask uh order the review of
[1:00:21]the security vetting because I was concerned that it had failed. In fact, because of information I wasn't given, it hadn't failed. It had actually uh uh
[1:00:32]given the recommendation that clearance should be denied. the fact that when I ordered a review of um UKSV uh senior officials in the foreign
[1:00:43]office didn't at that stage if at no other stage bring to my attention the information they hadn't told me is astonishing because I was ordering a review uh of the uh the the process
[1:00:55]which I was uh uh which looked as though it had failed when in fact it had flagged uh the relevant concerns to Oliver Dalton. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
[1:01:04]Further to the point uh from my honorable friend, the member for New Forest West, I think the prime minister does owe it to the house to tell us what Sir Ollie Robbins response to him was
[1:01:16]when he said he'd overall that advice because in my experience, senior officials are actually very keen to deliver on the wishes of ministers, particularly a newly elected prime
[1:01:27]minister. And my concern here is that implicitly as other members have made the point uh Saria Robbins was
[1:01:36]responding to a desire from the prime minister because it was perfectly clear in all of the newspapers the allegations were out there about about Peter Mandlesson but the prime minister decided to proceed anyway. The official
[1:01:48]wished to deliver on the desire of the minister. That's why he overruled the advice and I fear also gave him a degree the prime minister a degree of plausible deniability.
[1:02:00]>> Prime Minister, >> let me let me answer that. Um uh in um relation to uh Sari, let me start by saying he's had a distinguished um career and I must say that and I do say
[1:02:10]that I still notwithstanding that he should have provided this information to me and he could have provided it to me. He's giving evidence tomorrow, but I can say to the house that when I spoke to
[1:02:19]him uh on um on Thursday, um his um view to me was that uh he couldn't uh provide this information to me because he wasn't
[1:02:30]allowed to provide the information to me that I well I don't want to put words in his mouth because it's very important he gives his own evidence in relation to
[1:02:41]the question that's being asked of me. When I said, "Why wasn't this shared with me?" He did. Listen, >> I've been asked what questions I put to him, and I've been asked the answer. I'm trying to give that answer. I'm trying
[1:02:52]to give it without putting words into Ollie Robbins's mouth because I don't think that's fair of me to do so. But what he said to me was um essentially that he took the view that this process
[1:03:03]did not allow him to disclose to me the recommendation of UK SV. No doubt he'll be asked further questions about that. He did that. That that is the reason
[1:03:12]that he gave to me. >> Sarah Champion, >> there are 61 conflicts raging around the
[1:03:23]world. I've never known international diplomatic relationships to be more fractured. FCDO is pushing through 40% cuts of aid and 25% cuts of staff. All
[1:03:35]under the watch of the permanent under secretary. So, can I ask the prime minister what risk assessment was carried out before he was removed? >> Prime Minister,
[1:03:46]>> Mr. Speaker, I um was dealing with a very serious issue. Um I asked um my team to establish urgently the facts on Tuesday night. I spoke to the former
[1:03:58]permanent secretary on Thursday night. as a result uh of that of the information I had and the exchanges I had um I made it clear that I no longer had confidence in him.
[1:04:09]>> Anderson. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The problem the prime minister's got is is no one believes him. The public don't believe him. The MPs on this side of the house don't believe him. His own gullible
[1:04:20]backbenches don't believe him. So, does the prime minister agree with me? He's been lying. >> Prime Minister
[1:04:30]Sorry, we don't use those words and I'm sure the members withdrawn it. >> Mr. Speaker, I have the greatest respect for you and your office, but I will not withdraw. That man couldn't lie straight
[1:04:42]in bed. >> The order. >> Mr. Anderson, you'll have to leave. >> Phil Brittle. Speaker, >> when Sir Ollie Robbins came before the
[1:04:54]Foreign Affairs Committee on the 3rd of November last year, he was asked by my honorable friend, the member for Liverpool Walton whether in the context of vetting, Lord Mandlesson's
[1:05:03]appointment was escalated. Citing a need to maintain the integrity of the vetting system, S Oi replied, and I quote, I certainly cannot comment on
[1:05:14]that, I'm afraid. Does the prime minister not find it perverse that when specifically asked by members of this parliament about Mandlesson's vetting, Sir Ollie declined to discuss the very
[1:05:24]topic we are now debating in this house? Prime Minister. >> Well, I I've read that um evidence um and it remains my strong view um that
[1:05:35]the recommendation of UK SV could and should have been shared with me and could have should have been shared with the foreign secretary and thus with the select um committee and it should have been
[1:05:46]>> Mitchell. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Uh further to the question raised by my right honorable friend, the member for
[1:05:54]Hardswear. Mr. Speaker, is it not pretty poor form that the prime minister shovels the blame for this, particularly
[1:06:04]onto Ollie Robbins, a fine and experienced civil servant who was appointed two days after the prime minister's Mandlesson announcement.
[1:06:15]Surely, Mr. Speaker, the buck stops at the top. Well, Prime Minister, >> can I say say again, Sally Robbins has had a distinguished uh career and I've
[1:06:26]worked with him over a number of years. Nonetheless, um he should he could and should have shared this uh crucially relevant
[1:06:35]information with me um before Peter Mandlesson took up his post and he should have done at various points after that. Um and it was because of that uh that I lost confidence in him. That
[1:06:46]doesn't mean he hasn't got a distinguished career. He does have a distinguished career. >> Davy. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the prime minister for his statement. I know the prime minister is aware that public
[1:06:58]confidence in politicians needs to drastically improve in order to retain the public's trust. With this in mind, reform has been accepting donations from
[1:07:07]millionaires in cryptocurrency, making it difficult to trace who actually funds them. Does the prime minister agree the reform relying on millionaires dodgy
[1:07:18]cryptocurrency is a security risk? >> Mr. Speaker, we've taken a number of measures in relation to crypto. >> Relevant. Don't worry. Let's move on. Super.
[1:07:29]>> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In the uh readout of the prime minister's meeting on the 15th of April on vetting, it says and I quote, "There is no evidence that
[1:07:38]the decision to grant DV despite the UK SV advice had been disclosed to anyone outside FCCO and UK SV
[1:07:49]shared with the permanent is that neither the chair of the joint committee on intelligence nor the national security adviser
[1:08:00]were aware of this security risk with our most important strategic ally until the vetting document itself was shared
[1:08:10]with Cat Little. >> Yes, >> Prime Minister say sorry. Um I understand that to be the case obviously. No, I'm only saying that it wasn't my
[1:08:22]decision um to withhold it. I I understand if I've understood Sari's position correctly that his argument is he can't share it or he couldn't share
[1:08:33]it with anyone with no with with anyone at the science generate certainly wasn't shared with the national security adviser I don't think it was shared with anybody else um but it's a question
[1:08:44]as far as I know it hasn't been until um it was seen by my officials legal advice was taken and shown to me it wasn't shared with anybody else
[1:08:53]>> sing uh thank you Mr. Speaker, I thank the prime minister for his statement and the clarity contained within that and for his apology. Again, um despite the
[1:09:03]pro protestations of leaders of parties opposite uh and members opposite and including some on these benches as well, I'm sure everybody in this house agrees that the government of the day uh should
[1:09:14]take advice of our intelligence investment services and act on it. Yeah, >> in view of everything we have heard and this is a fundamental question for me. How can government act on intelligence
[1:09:25]service and vetting advice if ministers never get to receive that advice? >> Prime Minister. >> Well, um, Mr. Speaker, in in many instances, it's the recommendation of UK SV that is effectively the final
[1:09:37]decision. So, of course, uh, it's known in the foreign office. Um, there is the additional part of the process um, in which the final decision is in fact
[1:09:47]taken by the foreign office. um officials rather than um the recommendation of UKSV. That is what has now been suspended. Um so that in the foreign office as well um the
[1:09:58]recommendation of UKSV is what matters. >> Gavin Robinson. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Mr. Speaker, the prime minister knows that he is the main character in an
[1:10:08]ongoing national scandal and given all the blame aortioned in his statement, it is incredible that only one person has
[1:10:18]lost their position. But would the prime minister also recognize it is incredible to learn that in Northern Ireland a political appointment was made
[1:10:30]following the refusal to clear an individual for security access. that they have continued in their post,
[1:10:39]engaged on issues connected with the legacy of our troubled past with full security clearance despite security service concerns
[1:10:50]and they continue to this day. So if the prime minister is ordering a a review by Sir Adrien Fulford, will he ensure it includes within its terms
[1:11:02]of reference or separately a deep dive into the appointment of Marie Anderson, the Northern Ireland Police OMBbudsman,
[1:11:11]why she was appointed, why the security information was ignored, and how this can be the case. Prime Minister,
[1:11:21]>> can I thank him and um um I will ensure the review covers all the uh relevant um issues and material and I'll take into account what he's just said. >> Go.
[1:11:33]>> The prime minister has the right to expect that his senior civil servants will always tell him the truth and the whole truth. He will recall that Mrs. Thatcher used
[1:11:45]to say of Lord Young that she liked David because he always brought her solutions and not problems while her other ministers brought her problems.
[1:11:56]Does he believe that there is a problem within the civil service? that promotion and advancement is on the back of not
[1:12:05]giving your ministers problems and that on this occasion the senior official at the FCDO knew
[1:12:15]that if he did tell the prime minister what he ought to have told the prime minister, he was bringing him a problem. Prime Minister, I I
[1:12:25]>> thank him and can I just be clear um we we have thousands of civil servants acting every day uh with integrity and professionalism doing the job to their
[1:12:35]very best um ability. As I understand what OI is saying, he is saying that he believed he couldn't give me this information, that he was prohibited um
[1:12:45]from doing so. I disagree with him. I think he could and should have given me this um information but I don't think um that um that is any reason to suggest
[1:12:56]that across the civil service people act for any improper motive. >> So Bernard Jen >> thank you Mr. Speaker. Can I just point out that the developed vetting process
[1:13:07]has always been highly protected because otherwise it wouldn't work. People would not give information to the developed
[1:13:16]betting process if they thought that any detail of that was likely to be disclosed or even if the result the assessment low, medium or high risk was
[1:13:28]likely to be to be uh exposed. And that is why the previous Labor government in 2010 wrote into the Constitutional
[1:13:37]Reform and Governance Act section three in order to prohibit that disclosure. And if he is now saying that developed vetting is now going to be available to
[1:13:48]ministers on a routine basis, wouldn't it be undermining the very process upon which we depend for our national security? Prime Minister,
[1:13:58]>> with respect, I don't um agree with his analysis. I certainly agree that the information that's provided into the process by the applicant has to be
[1:14:08]protected because as anybody who's been through the process will know, it's an incredibly detailed um and intrusive um process and it's very important that
[1:14:19]individuals give um full and truthful accounts of all the questions they're giving to. That is why that needs to be protected. I do not accept um that that means that the recommendation of the UK
[1:14:31]SV cannot be shared with ministers including the prime minister. I do I think there's a distinction between the two. I accept the first. I utterly reject the second.
[1:14:40]>> Jen Kirk. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Foreign Office shared the outcome of the vetting process, but not the conclusions of the vetting reports. Not just the detail,
[1:14:52]but the conclusions too. If the prime minister is going to own a decision, he needs to know what is within it. What changes will he be making to stop this happening again? >> Prime Minister,
[1:15:03]>> well, um I thank her for a question and and that's why I've asked for a review of the entire process so it can be looked at um from start to finish, including the question of whether there
[1:15:13]should be any circumstances in which um the recommendation of UK SV could not be followed. >> Lisa is small. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm going to try again because a number of uh members and
[1:15:23]right honorable members have asked a question. I'm not quite sure I heard an answer from the prime minister. Why did the prime minister choose to ignore the advice from the then cabinet secretary
[1:15:33]Simon Case to seek security vetting before confirming Peter Mandelen as his pick? >> I understood the procedure um to be that the appointment was made subject to the
[1:15:44]security vetting. That that's that's what I was told. But but the question she raised is is the question I raised in September which is why I asked Chris
[1:15:54]Walmold to look at the process a and in particular he looked at the uh advice the letter from Simon Casease uh to ask
[1:16:05]answer the question was the process followed and he well he gave me the answer that he gave me the answer that he thought right having concluded that process >> Abraham >> thank you Mr. speaker and I thank my
[1:16:16]right honorable friend for his his statement, but for for clarity, could he confirm to who and when the UK security vetting report outcomes were made
[1:16:28]available and also what guidance is given to senior officials on matters that must be escalated to their ministers? Prime Minister,
[1:16:38]>> the the um process was that UKSV um um informed um FCDO of um their
[1:16:48]findings and their recommendation. Um and um then there's um an escalation process. It's part of the process in the sense that it is the FCDO um in these
[1:17:00]particular cases to make the final um decision which is what they did in this case. Say Duncan Smith. >> Speaker, want to return again to the real nub of what this is. The prime
[1:17:10]minister knew as we all knew about uh his uh representation as to who should actually be the ambassador. In this particular case, a man that had been
[1:17:21]sacked twice out of cabinet. But more than that, in the public domain at the time were all his links clear with the Chinese companies and his meetings with
[1:17:31]Xi. Furthermore, his time in Sustain where he stayed there after 2014 in the invasion, not just for that, but his meetings with Putin and of course his
[1:17:40]relationship with Derapasca who was negotiating uh on the tax levels and the tariffs on aluminium when he was the EU
[1:17:51]commissioner responsible. So with all of that going on, his announcement of this uh man into the ambassador position, why did he think that therefore he didn't
[1:18:02]know something about him? He knew he was corrupt. He was corrupting and he was the wrong choice. Surely that's why he overturned Case's review, Case's advice
[1:18:13]to have the review before he made the decision. >> Exactly. >> Prime Minister, >> no, that's not the case. But look, the the judgment call to appoint it was my judgment call and that was an error and I've apologized um for it particularly
[1:18:24]to the uh victims of um Epstein. But um the develop vetting uh process was carried out in the way I've indicated to the house. I should have been told at
[1:18:35]the time um of the recommendation. Had I been told I wouldn't have made the appointment. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today's
[1:18:44]statement may well be about process and procedure, but surely Prime Minister, the real issue is why, when Peter
[1:18:54]Mandlesson's reputation was already known, was he ever considered for such an important role? >> Prime Minister,
[1:19:05]>> Mr. Speaker, I' I've accepted that that was my decision and I've apologized for it. >> Ellie Jones, Dr. Brother John. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The prime minister says it's staggering and
[1:19:16]unforgivable that he wasn't told about the vetting. But what's really staggering and unforgivable is that he appointed Peter Mandlesson before the vetting. That he appointed Peter Mandolson knowing about his friendship
[1:19:28]with the pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. What's unforgivable is that the prime minister was more concerned with pandering to Donald Trump than with standing with the victims and survivors.
[1:19:39]Now the prime minister has not accepted a simple sorry from his civil servant. He thinks that's inadequate. The country thinks a simple sorry is inadequate from him. Will he take personal
[1:19:50]responsibility for his staggering and unforgivable errors of judgment and resign? >> Prime Minister. >> Mr. Speaker, I've set out to the house the facts of what happened in this
[1:20:01]particular case and I am staggered and I find it unbelievable. I wasn't given the information I should have been given. >> Richard Bergen. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
[1:20:10]Uh, the prime minister made the political decision to appoint Peter Mandlesson, but central to that decision along with other policy and political
[1:20:22]political position decisions would have been the prime minister's former chief of staff, Morgan Mweeny. So, can the prime minister confirm to the house
[1:20:32]whether Morgan Mweeny passed all his security vetting and confirm whether or not uh Morgan Mweeny ever handled documents for which he had anything
[1:20:43]other than the appropriate level of clearance. >> Prime Minister >> all the appropriate necessary develop vetting has taken place in number 10 and
[1:20:53]everybody has passed that passed on. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If, as we've
[1:21:01]been assured, there was no law that prevented the permanent under secretary telling the prime minister the outcome of Manlson's developed vetting, then
[1:21:13]presumably by the same token, there was no law that prevented the prime minister from asking. >> So, can he be very clear with the house
[1:21:24]on one point? Did he >> as prime minister ever ask the question? Did Mandlesson fail his vetting?
[1:21:35]>> And if he did ask that question, who did he ask that question of and when did he ask it? >> Prime Minister, Peter Madison was given
[1:21:45]develop vetting clearance. Uh that was uh the clear position. He was given clearance. That that's the facts as I've set them out.
[1:21:55]Clappford, Mr. Speaker, >> Prime Minister has always behaved with the utmost integrity and honor when he's been dealing with this house and he is
[1:22:05]an eminent lawyer who understands the consequences of deliberately coming here to dismissle parliament. On top of that, he also understands the likelihood of a
[1:22:15]paper trail unraveling such such a deception. So, it's inconceivable that he would intentionally mislead this house. But does he agree with me that
[1:22:26]all of the documents relevant to this matter must be made public in in in accordance with the humble address that was passed on the 4th of February and
[1:22:36]that no ministers or officials should engage in trying to prevent any of those documents being made public. >> Yes, we um will comply with the humble
[1:22:47]address um in full. That is uh the process that's going on. >> Mr. Mike Bay. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. >> The prime minister said today, "I know
[1:22:58]many members across this house will find these facts to be incredible." >> He's right. We do. along with his
[1:23:08]staggering lack of curiosity and his inability to take on board's warnings about his good friend Peter Mandlesson
[1:23:18]because the prime minister was given a due diligence document by the cabinet office which told him several reasons why Peter Mlesson should not be
[1:23:28]appointed. fired twice from government, business dealings in Russia and China, and the fact that he'd maintained a relationship with Epstein after his
[1:23:38]imprisonment for pedophilia. The prime minister knew this but appointed him anyway. Why, Prime Minister, why? >> Prime Minister
[1:23:50]>> Peter Manson was asked various questions on the back of the due diligence exercise um and he didn't tell the truth in those um answers. But look, the uh decision to appoint him was an error. It was my error and I've apologized for it.
[1:24:01]>> Sir Russell, >> thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is accepted by many on these benches that the prime minister did not know the outcome of the vetting. But the cabinet
[1:24:13]secretary came on Tuesday and she had clearly spent a month researching whether or not she could provide the advice that she did. So she clearly thought very carefully about the information that she brought. When the
[1:24:24]prime minister then launched an in investigation rather than coming straight to the house with the information that she had provided, was that because the information was
[1:24:34]insufficient to present to the house and if so when was he planning to come to the house? >> Prime Minister.
[1:24:42]>> Yeah, it it was insufficient because um all it told me was that um the recommendation of UK SV was um to deny
[1:24:52]clearance. What it didn't what it didn't tell me was what who then um provided the clearance, why did they do it, and who knew? Um and they they were questions that the house um obviously
[1:25:04]would want to raise with me. And that's why I urgent that's why I urgently asked for those facts to be established so I could come to the house uh today and provide the full um account that I have provided to the house.
[1:25:16]>> Colum. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Develop vetting should be carried out before someone has and I quote frequent and uncontrolled access to top secret material or any
[1:25:26]access to top secret or coded otherwise known as strap material. The prime minister has promised full transparency. So I ask him three questions. Did Peter Manderson have access to any top secret
[1:25:38]or strap material before his DB clearance on the 29th of January? Did Peter Manderson have any restrictions placed on his access to top secret or strap material during his time in
[1:25:49]Washington? And if so, has the prime minister assured himself that Mandlesson did not leak any of this material just as he had leaked commercially confidential material to Jeffrey Epstein
[1:26:00]under Gordon Brown? >> I did not understand that he had access to strap material before he took up his post as ambassador. He did have access after he took up this post and that why
[1:26:10]I have ordered um a review of any security concerns that may arise. >> Justin Madd, >> thank you Mr. Speaker. I think we all find it staggering, don't we, that someone can fail their security vetting and still be appointed to such a
[1:26:22]sensitive and critical role and it's even more staggering as we've heard that the prime minister wasn't informed of that failure. Now, I agree with what the prime minister said. He didn't need to know the details, but he did need to
[1:26:32]know that he'd failed the security vetting. And it's in terms of the detail that I want to ask the prime minister this. If people didn't know what the concerns were on security for Peter
[1:26:44]Mandlesson, how could any minister, how could any official, how could any other state deal with him on sensitive security issues? I understand the prime minister's doing an inquiry into that, but it's very important that parliament
[1:26:55]has oversight of that issue because I'm very concerned there's been another failure there to manage our security interests. Prime Minister, I thank him in in a case such as this in relation to such a
[1:27:07]sensitive post, um I don't think it's right that somebody should be appointed at all if the UK SV are recommending that clearance is not um given. So that would be my position on this.
[1:27:18]>> So John Page, >> thank you Mr. Speaker. uh when I was privileged to serve as security minister, the prime minister was my shadow and dealing with matters of the
[1:27:28]most significant national security, he was straightforward with me as I was with him. So I hope it'll answer this straightforward question. Uh the humble
[1:27:38]address made clear that the IC will see any material related to national security or international relations. In the course of our work, we've clearly
[1:27:49]leazed with the cabinet office. When did the cabinet office know about this failure in vetting? Who knew? And why didn't they bring that material to the
[1:28:01]ISC when they found it? For we haven't we hadn't received it when he found out that this vacant had failed and yet
[1:28:12]others must have known that it had failed. Prime Minister, >> can I would you just um uh
[1:28:22]the the the situation was that as part of the work that was being done on the humble address, this information came to light, senior officials immediately took legal advice on whether it could be
[1:28:33]disclosed. Uh having got that legal advice, they immediately disclosed it to me. I think that was the proper process. I think it has now been disclosed to the committee albeit I think um on the
[1:28:44]Thursday rather than the Tuesday. Um but that's the process and and and just to defend that process I do think it was right for the senior officials having got this information to get legal advice
[1:28:55]on whether they could disclose it and who too. I think that was the right thing to do. As soon as they got that advice they brought it to my attention. Warren Turner >> has disgraced himself and by extension
[1:29:10]bought shame upon these two houses of which he was formerly a member. Does the prime minister agree that the famous Armstrong memorandum on the conduct of a
[1:29:19]civil service was correct and holds true today when it said it is the duty of a civil servant to make available to the minister all the information and experience at his or her disposal which
[1:29:31]may have a bearing on the policy decisions to which he is committed or preparing to make and to give to the minister honest and impartial advice
[1:29:40]without fear or favor and whether that advice accords with the minister's view or not. >> Prime Minister, >> yes, I do agree with that and that's why um this information could and should
[1:29:51]have been shared with me at the first opportunity and that was before Peter Mandlesson took up his post as ambassador. with several Roberts. >> The prime minister is hiding behind a
[1:30:03]thicket of legal ease and procedure, but he has a track record of appointing Labour's most favored sons and daughters to plum government jobs and into the
[1:30:13]House of Lords. In Wales, we know all about Labour's crony culture. Who could forget UK Labour's favorite first minister, Bourne Ging, propped up by
[1:30:24]number 10 in spite of dodgy donations? and now tipped for repairage. But the timing, Mr. Speaker,
[1:30:33]how will he explain to his party his role in bringing down Labour's century of dominance in Wales in the forthcoming elections? >> Prime Minister.
[1:30:45]>> Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm addressing the question today about the process in relation to Peter Mandlesson. I've set it out in some detail to the House and answered a number of questions. Alexander Beagum. >> In December 2024, the prime minister
[1:30:56]said in announcing Peter Mandlesson as US ambassador that he had unrivaled experience. This was despite the gravity of what was known about his record and available publicly. Is it not the case
[1:31:08]that Peter Mandelson's political appointment which was personally decided by the prime minister and announced in public before the security vetting was completed needed to progress and had to
[1:31:19]happen however it happened because of Manderson's role in the prime minister's own leadership campaign and because it served the interests of one particular faction in the Labour party.
[1:31:31]>> Prime Minister, >> Mr. Speaker, I I I don't accept uh that that is a reason uh for withholding from me the information about security clearance. >> John Wingdale.
[1:31:42]>> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. >> The result of the prime minister's terrible failure of judgment is that for over a year, this country's interests were represented in the United States by
[1:31:53]someone that our own security services deemed to be a security risk. today. >> Will he assure us that an investigation
[1:32:03]will take place into all aspects where our national security may have been damaged and that the results of that will be made available to the intelligence and security committee and where possible to parliament.
[1:32:13]>> Prime Minister >> uh yes I will. >> Thank you Mr. Speaker. I believe there's
[1:32:24]two sides to this. One is about process and the other one is about judgment. On process, I believe the prime minister where the prime minister was not told
[1:32:34]about the security vetting clearance uh and had he have known he would have sacked it. That we don't have a problem with. But the problem is why wasn't he told that and who's actually running uh
[1:32:45]the country and were the other ministers are kept in the dark by civil servants. on judgment issue. It was wrong and completely wrong in the first place to
[1:32:56]put Mandlesson forward uh as an ambassador. Will the prime minister write to me confirming this week that no one is in position who has failed uh the
[1:33:08]advanced security vetting process uh of all political appointments that have been made >> that is included in the review that I've set up and as soon as I've got the
[1:33:17]findings I'll share them with the house. >> Dave Dug. Yeah, >> Mr. Speaker, this saga is drawing to a close and it will come to a conclusion with the prime minister's resignation,
[1:33:28]whether he can accept that or not. What I can't accept is the ask me no secrets and I'll tell you no lies regime that he expects us to believe prevailed at the
[1:33:39]very top of government between officials and not just ministers, but the prime minister. He talked a lot today about what he didn't know and what he wasn't told. Well, he knew that Mandlesson had
[1:33:50]a serious human frailty for other people's wealth. We knew that Mandlesen was involved with the Russians. We knew that Manderson was sacked twice as a government minister. Can the prime
[1:34:00]minister explain what was Mandlesson's actual qualities that he was pursuing in the role as US ambassador? And what steps has he taken to contain the
[1:34:10]serious and measurable breach in national security that his appointment of Peter Mandlesson facilitated? >> Prime Minister. >> Mr. Speaker, I've made it clear it was
[1:34:21]an error to appoint Peter Mandlesson. There is a review going on into any uh security issues that may arise. >> Anderson. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I welcome the prime minister saying that he should not have appointed Peter Mandlesson. In
[1:34:33]November in the Foreign Affairs Committee, I asked about who sees vetting and was told by Sir Ollie Robbins, obviously the vast majority are relatively straightforward, ones that require more senior judgment and
[1:34:45]potentially a discussion about managing and mitigating risks are escalated appropriately. questions being asked by the foreign secretary or ministers or officials in number 10 should have been
[1:34:56]a signal to the civil servants to escalate this matter given the controversial nature of this political appointment. So I would like to ask the prime minister whether concerns about
[1:35:06]links to Epstein, to other countries or anything else were raised by him in conversations about his appointment at just before the time of his appointment
[1:35:16]that would have signaled that civil servants should escalate this >> prime minister. >> Well, Mr. Speaker, there were two different um uh processes. One was the due diligence process carried out by the
[1:35:26]cabinet office in which Peter Mandlesson was asked um questions. Um separately there was the develop vetting um process uh in which um the recommendation of UK
[1:35:37]SV was not shared with me until Tuesday um evening. >> Har seems to me that there are two different ways in which a minister can
[1:35:48]inadvertently mislead this house. One is by the things that they say but one is by the things that they don't say. And that is why I'm particularly interested
[1:35:59]in the letter that my right honorable friend the member for uh for uh Gulen Pockington raised the one from Lord Casease because that seems to have been written to the prime minister in
[1:36:11]November 2024 advising that a political appointment to an ambassadorial role ought to be uh preceded by full security of vetting when it was before it was
[1:36:22]announced. Now, it was announced by the prime minister in December 2024. Did he write on his decision there that he
[1:36:30]wanted it to be subject to him passing the full security vetting? What did he write on his box note? >> Prime Minister, >> Mr. Mr. Speaker, I understood it to be
[1:36:42]subject to develop vetting, but it was because of the um process that in September uh 25, I asked Chris Wald to do a review for me of the process, and
[1:36:53]he did that by reference back to the Simon Case letter. >> One more go. >> Thank you, speaker. I'm sure the prime minister is aware of the damage that this saga has done to public trust in
[1:37:04]politics and in politicians. However, I would like him to confirm that his focus and the focus of his government is on the issues that matter most to my constituents in Bambry, in particular,
[1:37:15]tackling the cost of living. Prime Minister. >> Well, um, absolutely, Mr. Speaker. The focus of me and the government is on the fact that we're facing a war on two fronts with serious consequences for our
[1:37:25]country. Um, and that we absolutely need to deal with the cost of living, which is the number one issue for all of our constituents up and down the country. >> Regen Ford. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. How did views
[1:37:36]from the United States administration affect the decision in the foreign office to persist with Mandlesson as UK ambassador to Washington DC after the
[1:37:47]vetting advice was received there? >> Prime Minister >> I don't believe that they did. Um this was UK security vetting carried out in
[1:37:56]the way I've described to the house. Um the issue is that um the recommendation was not shared um with me. that was a matter uh here in the United Kingdom. >> Perry Clark.
[1:38:08]>> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Um can I thank the prime minister for his statement. Could the prime minister provide the house with an update on the proposed legislation to remove period from
[1:38:20]disgrace peers like Peter Mandelson who has fallen so far below what is expected of those serving in the House of Lords. Prime Minister.
[1:38:31]>> Yes, I've made a commitment in relation to that uh legislation and work is progressing on it. >> D Caroline Dich. >> Thank you very much. Uh Mr. Speaker, at
[1:38:41]the risk of stating the obvious, uh the prime minister has based his defense today and over this whole sorry saga around his claim that he wasn't told. He
[1:38:52]wasn't told that Mandlesen failed security vetting. In fact, he said 11 times in his statement that he wasn't told. I'm just wondering how many times
[1:39:01]and on which specific dates did he himself directly ask for that information. >> Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker, it's not a claim. I wasn't told. I wasn't told and
[1:39:12]I don't think anybody is disputing that. Um the clearance the clearance was given on the 29th of January uh 2025. Uh that
[1:39:22]information was not provided to me. Um in September I did ask specifically about the process. Um I I did ask about the process. Chris
[1:39:32]Walmouth Chris Walmouth had made it clear to me that in carrying out that review he was not told about the um security clearance uh recommendation was
[1:39:42]made. I think on both occasions that information should have been provided um both to me and to the then cabinet secretary. >> Chris, Mr. Speaker, I I thank the prime
[1:39:53]minister for his statement in answer to my honorable friend earlier in this statement. And the prime minister said that he delayed coming to this house so that he could answer amongst other
[1:40:02]questions why UK SV was overruled. It seems wholly incredible that this decision was made on a personal whim by a senior civil servant. And is it not
[1:40:13]that it was made because of a political pressure from number 10 to advance a man who a particular faction in the Labour Party has looked to for moral and spiritual leadership for years. So, can
[1:40:23]the prime minister explicitly now confirm his understanding of why the decision to overrule UK SV was made? >> Well, Prime Minister,
[1:40:33]>> Mr. Speaker, I I don't accept um that um the view of anyone about Peter Mandlesson um could provide an explanation for not providing me with
[1:40:45]the information that he had um the recommendation was not to grant him security clearance. um we're talking about um a very serious issue on a very sensitive case. I clearly should have
[1:40:56]been given that uh information whatever uh the pressures that are always um there in government every day. >> Robert German, the prime minister's aids
[1:41:06]briefed that he's furious, angry stalmer, >> but why is it that he only ever seems to get angry when he's trying to save his own skin? >> Yes. Is he not angry about the 600 men
[1:41:18]who crossed the English Channel on small boats on Saturday? >> Is he not angry about the people who are queuing up for fuel at the forces and can't afford the chancellor's taxes?
[1:41:28]>> Isn't the truth that his government is now so paralyzed that its only agenda is cleaning up the mess left by the
[1:41:37]pedophile pal Peter Man? I think any minister of any government that hadn't been provided with this relevant information would rightly be
[1:41:48]frustrated and angry. >> Emily Darlington. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wanted to take a moment during the statement to focus on the young women who were exploited,
[1:41:58]abused, raped by Jeffrey Epstein and his friends. Years of being trafficked for rape, no one to turn to, and years of people not believing them. The idea that
[1:42:10]Mandlesson would call Epste's conviction wrongful is disgusting >> and I cannot imagine how it felt for the
[1:42:21]survivors to hear that. The PM was right to sack them. So, can I ask the prime minister to take the opportunity again to say to those young women that this house believes them and this government
[1:42:32]stands by them? And is he confident that no person with financial or personal links with sex traffickers would receive
[1:42:42]uh DV in the future? Can I thank her and she's right to focus on the victims um in this and that's why I started this statement um by making it
[1:42:54]clear that this was a judgment error on my part and the apology I have made is to the victims because I know the impact that this will have had um on them who have already suffered so very much
[1:43:05]>> KT right honorable friend the leader of the opposition asked this question but I don't believe received a response was the prime minister aware that Peter Madison was a director of systemma
[1:43:17]before he was appointed. >> Prime Minister, >> Mr. Speaker, I acted on the information that was provided uh to me in the due diligence um process. U the information
[1:43:28]that was dealt with in the uh security vetting process has not been made available to me, nor can that detail be made available to me. It's the recommendation that should have been made available to you.
[1:43:38]>> Branch, thank you, Mr. Speaker. One of the things that I find most difficult to understand in this process is that when this scandal erupted in September of
[1:43:49]last year and before the prime minister came to this place and elsewhere to make statements about it, statements that he must have known would have involved
[1:43:59]talking about the vetting. Why he simply didn't order officials to share the vetting with him. Why didn't he? And does he regret not doing it?
[1:44:10]Well, I I I did ask um Sir Chris Ward to carry out a review. I I I worked on the basis that all the information would be shared with him. It
[1:44:21]was only um last week that I found out from Sir Chris that he himself had not been provided with information that he should have been provided for when he was carrying out the review on my behalf.
[1:44:33]>> Corbyn. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Can I take the prime minister back to the question asked by the member for Hackne North and Stoke Newington some while ago when she asked a quite simple question
[1:44:43]why the prime minister didn't ask any questions whatsoever about the nature of the security clearing that Mandlesson had achieved or why there was any doubt
[1:44:54]about him or was he so obsessed with his determination to appoint this tainted figure to be the ambassador to Washington he just wanted to ignore the rest and the officials just went along
[1:45:06]with it. Why didn't he ask the simple straight question? >> Prime Minister, >> Mr. Speaker, Peter Manson was given security clearance. Um, and that was clear to everyone, including myself.
[1:45:17]What I what I didn't re he was given clearance. He was cleared. He wouldn't have started the role if he hadn't been given clearance. As soon as it came to my attention last week that that was
[1:45:28]against the recommendation of UK SV, I did ask for the information I've now put before the House. Melan. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We all agree that Peter Mandlesson should never have
[1:45:40]been appointed and the prime minister has said this clearly and consistently and taken responsibility, including by apologizing. That is the right thing to
[1:45:50]do. Can the prime minister give further assurance that the government will continue to comply with the humble address in full? >> Uh, yes, I can give that assurance. We
[1:46:00]will. We got that. >> You Mr. Speaker, the prime minister said various things over the course of the last few weeks and months which have now turned out not to be true around the
[1:46:11]vetting process of Peter Mandlesson. >> Does the prime minister accept he inadvertently led misled the House of Commons? >> Yeah. >> Prime Minister. >> No, I did not mislead the House of
[1:46:21]Commons. I accept I accept that information that I should have had um and information that the House should have had should have been before the House. But I did not mislead the house
[1:46:32]and that's why I've set out the account in full. >> Jacob Collier. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Bloomberg files which caused the prime minister to sack Peter Mandlesson revealed that
[1:46:43]Mandlesson had been leaking confidential government information to a convicted pedophile during Gordon Brown's government. In his role as ambassador to Washington, there will have been access
[1:46:54]to highly sensitive and topsecret documents. So knowing that this was his previous behavior, is there any investigation by the government or security services into potential leaks
[1:47:04]during Mandlesson's tenure as ambassador? >> That's why I've asked for review to be carried out in relation to uh the material that could have caused any issues in relation to national security.
[1:47:16]>> Look Taylor. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Um on the 12th of September it was revealed in the independent newspaper that Mandlesson did not pass vetting by MI6 and
[1:47:27]therefore by UKSB. On the 16th of SE of September in this chamber my honorable friend the member for Tiveton and Minehead made the same claim in the presence of the minister the right
[1:47:37]honorable member for Cardiff South and Pinath. On hearing this information did the minister or the prime minister feel the need to ask if the specific claim there was true? And in the response that
[1:47:49]was given that DV clearance was granted by the FCDO as a KC, how did he not see the clear difference between the question that was asked and the answer
[1:48:00]that was given? And does he not agree with me that in his own words his explan explanation beggars belief? >> Minister, Mr. Speaker, at various points
[1:48:09]questions were asked um and um questions were therefore put to FCDO. The answer back was the same because they took the view that was not information they could
[1:48:19]share with anyone including myself. >> Dr. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Early today, NBC released an interview with hospice worker Rachel Benvdz who was 22 years
[1:48:31]old when she became one of the victims of Jeffrey Epstein's abuse. For 27 years, she has been waiting for the crimes committed against her to be recognized. And as she told NBC, and I
[1:48:42]quote, "Until we are heard, until survivors are heard and believed, then I don't think there's ever going to be justice." Does the prime minister agree that we owe it to the hundreds of
[1:48:53]victims like Rachel to put them first in these debates, not political point scoring, and that he was absolutely right to sack someone like Peter Manderson, who refused to believe these
[1:49:03]victims, and if he did, did not care? Well, I do agree with her and can I thank her for making sure that the victims are central uh in this as they should be.
[1:49:15]>> Andrew Madison. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The prime minister's been on his feet now for nearly two hours. So, can I put it to him that the most charitable explanation that can be put forward to explain this
[1:49:26]sorry saga is that it has been a bad probably terminal case of the three wise monkeys. See no evil,
[1:49:36]>> hear no evil, speak no evil. >> Prime Minister, >> Mr. Speaker, I've set out the procedure in some uh detail. Um information should have been provided to me. It was not
[1:49:46]provided to me. If it had been provided, uh I would not have uh allowed the appointment of Peter Mandlesson uh to proceed in the way that it did. >> General Bank. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Um, as we have
[1:49:57]heard, it's absolutely staggering that vital information on UKSB recommendations can be withheld from ministers taking decisions. Can the
[1:50:08]prime minister assure the house that in the uh review he is commissioning that we examine whether any other instances
[1:50:19]in which UKSB recommendations against granting DB status. um whether there are any other instances
[1:50:28]of that over not just the period of this government but the last 14 years because they have potential to have very serious security implications.
[1:50:39]>> Well, I I do think that needs to be subject to the review and that's why I've put amongst the reasons I've put the review in place. >> Christine Jording Jing. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It
[1:50:51]must be clear to the prime minister that many of us in this house are totally scared with this whole mess. But believe me, that's nothing compared to what I'm
[1:51:00]being told in the doors in Scotland by voters who feel that they expected and were right to expect more from this government after what they were promised. We've focused on process
[1:51:12]today, but the prime minister wouldn't have had to come here, wouldn't have had to stand at the dispatch box, answer all these questions if he had not make the made the decision, which he accepts was
[1:51:23]wrong, to appoint Peter Mandlesson, that's the root of this whole thing. So, having accepted responsibility, what does the prime minister think the consequence should be for that? And how
[1:51:33]do we restore faith? >> Can I just help the prime minister and help everyone in the room? There's a lot still trying to catch my eye with a lot. Please help each other. Let's speed up the questions. Prime Minister. >> Well, Mr. Speaker, I've accepted the
[1:51:45]error judgment on my behalf, but I was not provided with information. Had I been provided with it, I wouldn't have made the appointment. >> K Johnson. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This morning,
[1:51:54]the Scottish minister said that to deal with an unconventional US administration, we needed an unconventional ambassador. So, Prime
[1:52:05]Minister, does unconventional now mean appointing a man to a senior position when we know his lies, his corruption
[1:52:14]and misconduct has provided um corruption at the very heart of our democracy now? And can the prime minister tell us when he first knew of
[1:52:25]the evidence and the advice and why? Please, let's get other people in. Prime Minister I I first knew last Tuesday as I've set out to the house.
[1:52:35]>> John Bu. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. After the third time of asking at the time when the prime minister appointed Pisa Manson as
[1:52:46]ambassador, was he aware that he had been a director of Systemma? >> I was aware of what was in the due diligence and I've dealt with that. I
[1:52:56]was I wasn't aware of what were the issues that were dealt with in the security vetting nor the recommendation of uh UKSB. Well,
[1:53:06]>> Pinto Jinski Bailey, sorry. >> Thank you. Uh Mr. Speaker, Manson's appointment was a huge failure of the British state and I welcome the prime minister's cander in accepting his
[1:53:18]responsibility for his part in it. But does the prime minister agree that restoring public trust is a mammoth task and requires leaders on all sides to be
[1:53:29]careful with their language and to ensure that they understand the processes that they're talking about rather than throw about baseless accusations of quote lying.
[1:53:40]>> I do agree with that, Mr. Speaker. >> John Robertson. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The prime minister has been absolutely clear that
[1:53:52]he should have been shown the recommendation of UK security vetting. He knew he hadn't seen it, so why didn't he ask for it?
[1:54:02]>> Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker, the first I knew that there had been a recommendation to deny um clearance was Tuesday evening of last week. Um the
[1:54:14]security clearance had been given um by the foreign office before Peter Mandlesson uh took up uh the post. As soon as it came to my attention, I sought the information I put before the house today.
[1:54:26]>> I'm going to take Kevin Ber on and then I'm going to take Steve Joy. Kevin, >> thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members of the public watching this matter would have been baffled by all the speculation
[1:54:36]about who said what and when. So thank I thank the prime minister for his calm, clear answer today. But no prime minister wants or should be in a situation like this where governmental processes mean that critical information
[1:54:47]are not brought to the attention of ministers. So I welcome the forfeit review. But will the prime minister look at the wider relationship between government ministers and civil servants so that trust can be restored?
[1:54:58]>> Prime Minister. >> Yes, I will look at that. But I I do just want to um assert again um thousands of civil servants act with professionalism and integrity every day.
[1:55:09]On this occasion, uh, this information should have been brought to my attention. Had it been, the appointment would not have been proceeded with. >> Oh, sorry.
[1:55:20]>> Yeah. Carry on. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. During this session of Parliament, we have seen the head of the OBR carry the can and resign
[1:55:31]due to an error by a member of his team. What will it take for this prime minister to carry the can? Prime Minister. >> Mr. Speaker, I was not provided with information I should have been provided
[1:55:42]with. Had I been provided, I wouldn't have made the um decision. It was a deliberate decision. It wasn't negligence. It was a deliberate decision not to tell me. >> Not.
[1:55:54]>> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the prime minister for his statement and I thank him even more for the apologies on the appointment of Peter Mandlesson and being here today. I want to commit the
[1:56:05]words once again to the record of Virginia Du Fray. I think they are particularly relevant to Peter Mandlesson. She said, "Don't be fooled by those in Epstein's circle who say
[1:56:16]they didn't know what Epstein was doing. Anyone who spent a significant amount of time with him saw him touching girls that you wouldn't want a creepy old man
[1:56:27]touching your daughter. They can say they did not know he was raping children but they were not blind. Now on the house across the house there
[1:56:37]is consensus that we need to get to the bottom of this. I absolutely accept that the prime minister did not know about the security vetting but can the prime minister please update the house on when
[1:56:48]we can have the next trunch of documents from the humble address so that we can get to the bottom of who did know what and when. Prime Minister, >> can I thank her for her campaigning on behalf of these victims and many other
[1:56:59]victims um in relation to uh abuse, sexual abuse in particular and her insistence always that we must put the victims uh first. We are complaining uh complying with the uh humble address as
[1:57:10]quickly as possible and we will comply with it fully. >> Blundra. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In the Foreign Affairs Committee meeting back in November last year, I asked Sir Oliver
[1:57:21]Robbins whether the Foreign Office had a different view about who should be recommended for the posting of ambassador. Sir Oliver Robbins said to me that the prime minister took advice
[1:57:32]and formed a view himself and we then acted on that view. Isn't it the case that the prime minister was repeatedly warned before the appointment that Peter
[1:57:42]Madison carried reputational and political risk including that due diligence was not exhaustive and that vetting was not yet complete and yet he chose to proceed regardless announcing
[1:57:53]the appointment overriding civil service advice and putting our national security at risk. >> Minister Mr. Mr. Speaker, I simply don't accept that there's any good reason why I couldn't have been provided with the
[1:58:04]information that was withheld from me. Had it been provided to me, I wouldn't have made I wouldn't have proceeded with the appointment. >> Alison Taylor. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Can I thank the prime minister for such a clear and
[1:58:16]comprehensive statement? I'm sure the whole house is grateful to him for doing so. Listening to the party opposite, the old adage about throwing stones in glass houses comes to mind. I don't think
[1:58:27]there are enough glass houses in Scotland to replace the ones that they are breaking today. However, Mr. Speaker, having set the record straight. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that is now the time to return to the
[1:58:38]important business of government in preserving the country's peace and security? >> Prime Minister, >> yes, I do agree that the absolute focus needs to be on the fact that we're facing a war on two fronts and a cost of
[1:58:50]living crisis which this government is gripping. Sammy Wilson. Sammy, Mr. >> Speaker, the prime minister has told us that the cabinet secretary given bad
[1:59:01]advice, Peter Manderson lied to him and the foreign office didn't tell him anything. He's really in danger of being known as the mushroom prime minister
[1:59:13]kept in the dark and fed. I don't know if I'm allowed to say it, Mr. Speaker. I'm not saying but is it is a quest not that he wished to remain in the dark. He
[1:59:24]knew in September there was a security vetting >> and yet he never asked about it until April of this year. Surely that's an indication that he was quite happy to be
[1:59:35]kept in the dark because he'd made his mind up anyway. >> Prime Minister. >> No, no, Mr. Speaker. Um what I did was ask for the process to be reviewed. Um and uh Sir Chris Wal carried out that
[1:59:46]review. What transpired last week is that information was withheld from him in the review. So I asked for the review. I did ask the questions. He gave me his conclusions. What neither he knew
[1:59:56]nor I knew was that he too was not told the relevant material in the course of that review. >> Moras, Mr. Speaker, and I welcome the prime minister's statement. and I've sat
[2:00:08]here and I've uh listened today to one Conservative member after another preaching at us about standards of honesty and integrity. Can the Prime
[2:00:17]Minister remind us whether these are the same Conservatives who voted to change the rules on standards investigations in November 2021 just to get their
[2:00:28]colleague Owen Patterson off the hook. And can you remind us whether or not the leader of the opposition chose to abstain in that debate? It's not
[2:00:36]relevant. Don't worry. Brendan O'Hara, Mr. Speaker, >> I suspect that most reasonable people have included that if the prime minister
[2:00:46]knew and he inadvertently misled Parliament, then he should resign. If he didn't know, then he's running an incompetent shambolic government and really should resign. And if he was lied
[2:00:57]to yet again, then he's simply too gullible and lacking in basic curiosity to serve as prime minister. Is the prime minister so detached from reality that
[2:01:08]he's only person who cannot see that? >> Mr. Speaker, I the information was withheld from me. It was withheld from the cabinet secretary who was conducting
[2:01:18]conducting a review on my behalf. That became clear yesterday and I've set out the facts to parliament. Sir Desmond Sweden. >> On the 4th of February at column 780,
[2:01:30]my right honorable friend, the leader of the opposition, asked the prime minister, did the official security vetting that
[2:01:39]he received mention that Mandlesson had an ongoing relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. Prime Minister, yes it did.
[2:01:50]What on earth was it that he received that he was talking about which the >> the right honorable lady referred to as the official security vetting and he
[2:02:00]said yes he had received it >> the due diligence report >> thank you thank thank you Mr. Speaker, I I have a degree of sympathy for the
[2:02:12]prime minister. I truly do because he set out very succinctly how he followed the processes and procedures. But as a member of the bar, we are taught at a very embionic stage in our profession
[2:02:23]that if you take on a client and there's something suspicious, then you contact the ethics line. As a member of the bar, King's Council, that would have been a trait that he was all too familiar with.
[2:02:35]So, can the prime minister answer the basic question for the British public? Why didn't he take that basic step? >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Peter Manson was granted develop vetting clearance by the foreign office before
[2:02:45]he took up post. It was only last Tuesday that I found out that that was against the recommendation of UK SV. >> Joe Morrisy. >> Yeah.
[2:02:57]>> The Times reported last week uh that you repeatedly sought assurances from the FCDO that Peter Mandlesen had passed security vetting. Is this correct? And when did you seek these asurances?
[2:03:08]Prime Minister, Mr. >> Speaker, uh he got DV clearance before he would took up his post as ambassador. Uh that clearance was given by the foreign office. Um I found out that was
[2:03:19]against the recommendation on Tuesday evening of last week. >> Helen Maguire, Mr. >> Speaker, I have two brief questions. Was the decision not to give Mandlesson DV the view of the head of security in FTDA
[2:03:30]or only that of Ollie Robbins? And secondly, what information did the prime minister know after sacking people Anderson that made him change the appointment process? So that I quote, "Now an appointment cannot be announced until after security vetting is passed."
[2:03:42]It seems all to me that this decision was made if the prime minister didn't know that Peter Mandles had failed the vetting process. So what key information did the prime minister know then that
[2:03:51]made him review the appointment process? >> Well, the um decision to grant clearance was made by the FCDO after in September. it became clear to me the answers to the
[2:04:01]due diligence uh that Peter Manson had given were not uh truthful and that's why I set in place the various reviews that I did and also change the um approach in relation to when developed
[2:04:12]vetting um checks are carried out >> Mandal thank you Mr. Speaker, is the prime minister really saying that in the appointment of Peter Manderson, he
[2:04:23]didn't himself consider that there might be issues with his vetting process given his track record? And isn't it even more incredible that he then didn't query
[2:04:34]whether there had been any issues with that vetting process? >> Incredible. Prime Minister, >> the fact of the matter is he was given develop vetting clearance before he took
[2:04:44]up his post um as um the ambassador uh and that was a decision that was taken by FCDO >> Zora. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In September, the prime minister stood at
[2:04:55]this dispatch box and told the house he had full confidence in Peter Mandlesson, a man whose relationship with convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein was public knowledge. The prime minister knew and backs him anyway. Now he claims he had
[2:05:06]no idea that this twice fired government minister had failed MI6 vetting despite journalists putting that directly to Downing Street that very same month. Mr. Speaker, we all know that the prime
[2:05:16]minister appointed Mandolson because he owes his job to him. He appointed him. He defended him and now he claims to know nothing. He is gaslighting the nation. So let's call this out for what
[2:05:27]it is. The prime minister is a barefaced liar and if he had indecency order, order sit and leave. Leave now. I'll name you otherwise. I'd go now if I were
[2:05:37]you. >> Mr. Speaker, >> leave. I'm not. Leave. >> You've been I've now named I've given the option to leave. I'd leave if I were
[2:05:48]you. Very quickly. Move before I read it. I'm giving you one option. >> Right. Give me that. You have no duties. IT'S MY DUTY TO CARRY out and control this house. One chance. Do you want to leave now or not?
[2:05:59]>> Mr. Speaker, I have a duty to tell the truth. I name Zorus Sultana. >> Minister, I beg to move that the name the said member be suspended from the
[2:06:10]house. >> Mr. Speaker, call Jen Kitchen. >> Jen Kitchen. >> I beg to move that Zara Sultana be suspended from the service of the house. >> The question is that Zoro Sultana be
[2:06:21]named and leave this house. All those in favor, >> I >> leave. I'm sorry you've done this. I really am.
[2:06:32]Right. >> Come on. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
[2:06:42]>> Seven months ago, >> seven months ago, a national newspaper ran the story that Mandlesson had failed security vetting. So, how is it even
[2:06:52]possible that no one in number 10 knew until last week? Prime Minister, >> a number of inquiries were made. Um, questions were asked of FCDO and the
[2:07:04]answer they gave was the same. Um, they did not uh disclose uh to me or anyone in number 10 um that UK SV had um advised recommended against um
[2:07:15]clearance. >> Dr. Al Pink. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. uh when the prime minister asked his officials in January 2025, as he surely did, perhaps with an element of surprise in his
[2:07:27]voice, so Peter actually passed his secur security clearance, did he? What was the scenario that then unfolded? Did Sir Ollie Robbins declare, "I'm sorry, I can't tell you, Prime Minister. I'm not
[2:07:38]at liberty to say." Did he actively seek to mislead the Prime Minister by simply saying, "Yes, Prime Minister." or as seems more likely did that scenario never take place because the prime
[2:07:49]minister never thought to ask >> Mr. Mr. Speaker what happened in January was that um develop vetting uh clearance was given by the foreign office that was the simple fact of the matter it was
[2:08:00]only last week I found out the further circumstance I've now set out to the house >> Paul >> thank you Mr. Speaker, in the box note to the prime minister dated the 11th of November 2024, the former cabinet
[2:08:12]secretary Simon Casease advised the prime minister that before appointing a political appointee, he should get security clearance before announcing. The prime minister ignored that advice.
[2:08:23]The prime minister's response in that box note is redacted. So I asked him a very simple question. What was his answer on that box note and will he publish what he said? >> Prime Minister.
[2:08:34]>> Well, um, Mr. speaker. Um I made it clear that my position was that the appointment was subject to uh developed vetting. Um I can't in all conscience remember what exactly was in being
[2:08:44]reducted honest. Well, he's asking me what a redacted um I the process had understood to be subject
[2:08:56]to develop vetting. That's why I asked um Chris Wald to look at the process and reference back to Simon K. >> I'm London. There's 10 more minutes. That's it. Paul Coler. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker, the Foreign Office raised severe concerns regarding
[2:09:08]Peter Manderson's links with Epstein, Russia, and China in the due diligence report he received before the appointment was announced. The prime minister, however, brushed these concerns aside and announced Mandlesson
[2:09:17]as ambassador nonetheless. Given what the due diligence exercise had already flagged, it was surely predictable Manderson would fail security betting for those reasons. But number 10 had
[2:09:28]already told the foreign office before Sie Robbins took up his post to proceed the appointment. Notwithstanding these issues, that's exactly what he did by putting in place necessary safeguards. So, can the prime minister please
[2:09:40]explain why he's a sack a loyal and brilliant public servant? >> Prime Minister, >> because he didn't bring to my attention information he should have brought to my attention. Had he done so, I wouldn't have made the appointment. >> Mike one.
[2:09:51]>> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The prime minister dissembles over what he knew about Cisteemer and Mandlesson. But the cabinet office due diligence report sent to the prime minister on 24th of uh
[2:10:02]sorry on the 11th of December 2024 said Mandlesson served as a non-executive director of the Russian conglomerate esteemer which is itself a majority shareholder of RTI a defense technology
[2:10:13]company. Mandolson remained on the board until June 2017 long after Putin's annexation of Crimea in 2014. So will the prime minister finally confirm that he knew
[2:10:25]that Mandelson was a director of system long after the invasion of Crimea but appointed him anyway. >> Very good. I've made clear I did know what was in the due diligence report.
[2:10:36]I've made that clear to the house number of times today. I've actually made it clear to the house on previous occasions. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My concern is, Mr. Speaker, that this prime minister is going to run out of buses before he runs
[2:10:46]out of people to throw under them. And the issue is this because the prime minister has said that he will never turn on his staff and that should you should never turn on your staff. Well, Sue Grave scapegoed Tim Alan K. Sir
[2:10:57]Chris Worm forced out. Morgan Mweeni acts and now Ollie Robbins is sacked. Will the prime minister accept that the buck stops with him this is this is his fault and do the honorable thing. >> Prime Minister,
[2:11:08]>> Mr. Speaker, the information was withheld um by me uh from me by FCD FCDO uh in the circumstance I've set out to the house. French. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question to
[2:11:19]the prime minister is a straightforward one. Did Morgan Mousini or any of your advisers, past and present, know about this issue before last Thursday? >> No. >> Young,
[2:11:30]>> Mr. Speaker, to override the outcome of the developed vetting process, the FCDO must have been under pressure from someone. Ditching a tried and tested ambassador
[2:11:41]for a high-risk one seems odd behavior for a prime minister who claims to be so fond fond of proper process. So whose idea was it and who was applying the pressure?
[2:11:53]>> Mr. Speaker, can I just reject the idea that um any pressure is a good reason uh not to disclose to the prime minister that um UKSV recommended against
[2:12:04]clearance for a very senior sensitive appointment? I simply don't accept that that's an adequate reason whatever the pressure >> not speaker the prime minister is suggesting that the idea the security
[2:12:15]services had concerns about this appointment with a bolt out of the blue to him two weeks ago despite the fact it was on the front page of a national newspaper in September but my question is not about the vetting file because we all know the answer the prime minister
[2:12:26]is going to give separate to the vetting file at any stage was he made aware of element element of security services raising concerns about the appointment of Mandlesson >> prime minister
[2:12:37]No, Mr. Speaker, what I knew was that security clearance had been given uh by the foreign office in the way I've set out to the house. >> Sure Eastwood. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My constituents in Lagan Valley and across Northern
[2:12:48]Ireland and across the UK will be discussed that we have spent this amount of time discussing this issue when it should have been put to the four the first time it came in the press. >> Does the prime minister understand that
[2:12:58]every time we do this and we go through this, we destroy the reputation of this place? No matter who the government of the day is, your party don't even stand for election in my neck of the woods. So this is not party political. This is
[2:13:10]about protecting the reputation of this place. Do you understand? >> Prime Minister, >> uh that's why I wanted to give the house all the relevant information which I've given at some length this afternoon.
[2:13:20]>> Then good job. >> So we have now established that the prime minister did indeed know that Peter Mandlesson had been a director of system when he appointed him. Why on
[2:13:32]earth would be would the prime minister be so reckless with our national security to do that? >> Prime Minister, >> Mr. Speaker, I've made it clear that um I knew what was in the due diligence.
[2:13:42]I've also made it clear that FCDO granted a security clearance before Peter Manson took up his post. >> John Mil. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There's a simple question that we still don't have an
[2:13:52]answer to. Did Peter Madison fail his vetting procedure because of his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein or was it some other reason as yet undisclosed? >> Prime Minister.
[2:14:03]>> Speaker, um the information that was fed into the review um and the reasons for the review is protected because otherwise the integrity this is not a Peter Mandlesson issue. It's the
[2:14:14]integrity of the process. What I don't accept is that that means I can't be told the recommendation that comes out of it. >> Becca Smith. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the prime minister knew the difference between the due diligence information
[2:14:24]from the cabinet office and the security vetting that hadn't taken place when he appointed Peter Manderson on the 18th of December. >> Prime Minister, >> I did know the difference. >> Honorable.
[2:14:36]>> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. After years of sle and scandal under the previous government, the prime minister promised integrity and accountability. But my
[2:14:46]constituents in Stratford are not seeing change. They are seeing more of the same. A continuity government where warnings are ignored and standards
[2:14:55]sleep. Why should anyone believe that he is still capable of delivering the change that he promised? >> Prime Minister, >> Mr. Speaker, I um made sure the relevant inquiries were made so I could put the
[2:15:07]full picture before the house. That is the approach that I've taken as uh members have seen this afternoon. >> Stewart, >> thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is a humiliating day for the prime minister
[2:15:17]and for the house and for the whole country. And yet even still, Mr. Speaker, the the prime minister isn't being open with us. He's relying on some later inquiry when the when the cabinet
[2:15:29]secretary told him in writing in the official briefing that he must seek uh a vetting prior to the appointment of a
[2:15:39]political appointee. That's true, isn't it, Prime Minister? And can you give a straight answer just for once? >> As I say, the pro process was uh that the appointment was subject to developed
[2:15:50]vetting checks being carried out. Had I been made aware of the recommendation of UK SV, I wouldn't have made the appointment. What I did after the event was ask Chris Wald to look back at the
[2:16:01]process um which he did according to and by reference to the Simon case letter and he assured me the process being carried out properly. >> Krueger, Mr. Speaker, if uh Ollie
[2:16:11]Robbins could and should have provided this information to the prime minister at the first opportunity, as he said today, surely the same applies to Cat Little, Antonio Romeo, and the cabinet office officials who sat on this
[2:16:22]information for nearly a month before bringing it to the prime minister when the Guardian started asking questions of number 10. So surely if he why does he accept that they needed legal advice to do what he is saying should have been
[2:16:34]obvious? He sacked Ollie Robbins for not bringing him that information immediately. Why are they still imposed? >> Mr. Speaker, they acted entirely appropriately. They um they uh came
[2:16:45]across the information as 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. >> And that's objective.
[2:16:55]>> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Uh on the 4th of February, Peter Manson was notified by the appointments and interchange officer from the FCDO that he required strap level access in addition to his DV. He started the role on the 10th of
[2:17:06]February. On what date did Peter Manderson receive strap level access? >> Prime Minister, >> I I don't know the precise um date, but I'll endeavor to find out. >> Law, Mr. Speaker, given it's widely
[2:17:17]known Peter Mandlesson who's maintain a friendship with convicted pedophile Jeff Epstein, close links in both China and Russia in terms of business sat from two government posts. What I really want to
[2:17:26]ask the prime minister is this. What are the unique defining human qualities of the man I've just described it so attracted to you that he should be politically appointed as US ambassador
[2:17:38]and why now is he still defending him behind process instead of calling out what's wrong and taking the responsibility and resigning I'm not sending him behind process I'm sending out the process to the house
[2:17:49]>> Dr. Neil Shashri >> thank you very much Mr. Speaker Keith custodian Epsos custodes prime minister will know that who will guard the guards themselves with that in mind and holding
[2:17:59]those in power to account can he explain why he took more than a week or almost a week to come to this house when the public will have been expecting answers much much sooner >> prime minister
[2:18:10]>> because I wanted to know who took the decision the basis upon which they took it and who knew about the decision so I could set out a full account of the house which is what I've done this afternoon
[2:18:20]>> does it come to this Mr. Mr. Speaker, >> that this house and the country is being asked to believe that though he is the prime minister making the most critical
[2:18:30]diplomatic appointment that the United Kingdom can make that he the prime minister in the midst of the raging controversy that that provoked never
[2:18:40]asked if his nominee had been security vetted. Isn't it that that is staggering and incredible? And when it comes to our
[2:18:51]national security adviser, what was his role? What does he know? Could the House be told that? >> Mr. Speaker, the um
[2:19:01]attention uh on the process um began very much in September 25 when the Bloomberg emails uh were published. Uh that is when I uh agreed with the cabinet secretary car a review of the
[2:19:13]entire um process and and I've set that out at some length this afternoon. >> David Reed, >> thank you, Mr. Speaker. The prime minister has chosen to blame his officials for this debacle. So, can he confirm that he knows the names of the
[2:19:24]FCDO civil servants that made the decision to override UK SV on the 29th of January 2025? Yes or no? And has he made the decision to spend them all from juicy pending a full independent
[2:19:35]inquiry? Yes or no? >> Mr. Speaker, I've set out the facts to the house this afternoon. I have ordered um a review by Australia and Fulford of
[2:19:44]uh security vetting um so that if any further changes are needed, we can put them in place. >> Dr. Wrigley. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I understand that Peter Mandlesson's vetting clearance was conditional on him being
[2:19:55]accompanied to meetings with former clients such as Palanteer. Will the Prime Minister clarify why there is no record of his and Peter Mandela's meeting with Palanteer in Washington?
[2:20:06]And will he tell the House what it was all about? Prime Minister. >> Mr. Speaker, that was a routine meeting in the course of a visit I was on in the US. >> Honorable.
[2:20:16]>> Mr. Speaker, the prime minister is repeatingly telling us that he either was not told or he was not allowed to be told. But what culture has the prime minister created around him and across
[2:20:26]the civil service that no one felt that they could or should tell him this sensitive information? Prime Minister, >> I reminded her that in the last two weeks, uh, my senior officials have
[2:20:36]brought this to my attention uh, which is which is which they have 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.
[2:20:48]>> Josh Reynolds, >> the prime minister once promised to end the chaos and to restore honesty and integrity to government. Does he think that appointing a man who called a convicted child sex offender his best
[2:20:59]pal and whose connections with Epstein were already wellnown is consistent with that promise? And if it isn't, will he step aside and let someone else end his chaos and restore honesty and integrity to government?
[2:21:11]>> Mr. Mr. Speaker, I've accepted that I made an error in the appointment and apologized uh to the victims as I must and as I did. >> Gregor Stafford. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On the 4th of February, my right honorable friend, the
[2:21:22]leader of the opposition, asked the prime minister whether the vetting processor disclosed information about Epstein. The prime minister answered yes, it did. In his response to my honorable friend, the member for New
[2:21:34]Forest West, he said, "Oh, I'm I got confused between vetting and disclosure." But then in the answer to my friend, the honorable member for Southwest Devon, he said he knew the difference. So if that's not misleading
[2:21:45]the house, what is >> asked about the vetting process? The due diligence is part of the vetting process. Um and um rather than as it were rest on a technicality, I gave the
[2:21:56]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 in the due process uh due diligence and that's
[2:22:07]why I told the House Bartum. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The prime minister promised that unlike the Tories, his government would govern well and restore public trust. Yet this whole sorry manderson saga has reforced the
[2:22:19]belief in Yo and Byon that no government or politician can change. Can the prime minister explain to my constituents why he annoyed the then cab secretary's advice to get the security clearance
[2:22:30]before he confirmed Marathon as ambassador? >> Prime Minister, >> Mr. Speaker, I've dealt with that issue on a number of occasions. Right, that completes the number of questions. will
[2:22:38]let the front benches change over.