House of Commons

Monday 20th April 2026 Commons Chamber

Monday 20 April 2026

The House met at half-past Two o’clock

Prayers

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Speaker’s Statement

Monday 20th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Before we start today’s business, I want to make a brief statement about a security matter. I have been informed by the police that a former parliamentary employee was arrested last week under the Computer Misuse Act 1990. The police investigation is ongoing. As the House knows, we do not discuss the details of such issues on the Floor of the House—it is an ongoing criminal investigation. I do not intend to take points of order on the matter, and I will update Members when I am in a position to share more information.

Oral Answers to Questions

Monday 20th April 2026 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)]

1. What steps she is taking to increase the level of educational capacity in areas of increasing population.

[The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)]

My Department is providing local authorities with £2.5 billion of capital funding to create mainstream school places. We encourage them to work with planning authorities and housing developers as we build 1.5 million homes to help families on to the housing ladder and to drive growth. Where school roll numbers are falling, we are making use of the extra space by opening Best Start school-based nurseries and special educational needs and disability inclusion bases.

[Shaun Davies]

Telford is the third fastest growing town in the UK. The Government are investing in my town, and the Secretary of State saw the fruits of that investment during a recent visit. However, teachers and educational staff need us to go further by investing in new school places, bringing a new university campus to the heart of Telford and narrowing the attainment gap of children with SEND and on free school meals. What more will the Government do to invest in fast-growing places such as Telford, and will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss unlocking Telford’s potential?

[Bridget Phillipson]

My hon. Friend is a real champion for children and young people in Telford, as I saw when we had a tour of the town, including of the local school-based nursery, of brilliant schools such as the new Thomas Telford primary free school, and of the great further and higher education options. Labour is backing my hon. Friend’s ambition for Telford’s children through accessible and affordable childcare, schools at which every child can achieve and thrive, and the new free breakfast clubs that he opened just last week.

[Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)]

My constituency has a large and growing Jewish population, but because of Labour’s VAT hike, Immanuel college, a Jewish school in my constituency, announced last week that it was closing. At a time of rising antisemitism, and deep fear among the Jewish community, access to a Jewish education is more important than ever, but that announcement risks depriving many Jewish students in my constituency and the wider area of access to one. What assurances can the Secretary of State give those children and their parents about access to such an education, particularly when local Jewish state schools are enormously oversubscribed?

[Bridget Phillipson]

I completely agree that there can be no place for antisemitism in our school and colleges, or indeed anywhere in our society. That is why I have asked Sir David Bell to lead an independent review to look at what more we need to do to root out antisemitism from our schools and colleges. I encourage the right hon. Gentleman to share any thoughts with Sir David as he takes forward that important work.

On the school that the right hon. Gentleman refers to, I encourage him and the school to work together with the local authority. However, I continue to believe that raising money to invest in our state schools is the right decision.

[Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)]

2. What steps she is taking to roll out Best Start family hubs.

[Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)]

11. What progress her Department has made on the roll-out of Best Start family hubs.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Olivia Bailey)]

This Government are opening thousands of Best Start family hubs and network sites in every part of England, building on our proud legacy of Sure Start, providing families with community and connection, and ensuring that every child is supported to get ready for school. The Conservative party eroded support for families; we are bringing it back.

[Perran Moon]

Cornwall has a strong network of family hubs, including in Pool and Hayle in my constituency. Although I am sure that the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats would love for us to forget, it should never be forgotten that the failed austerity adopted by their coalition Government hollowed out such services. Will the Minister confirm that, as part of the Best Start in Life initiative, areas with the highest level of social deprivation will be prioritised for funding?

[Olivia Bailey]

I thank my hon. Friend for all that he has done to support family hubs in his constituency and across Cornwall. Yes, we have asked local authorities to ensure that 70% of hubs are in the most deprived areas, so that support gets to the families and communities under the greatest pressure. What a contrast with the Conservatives: on their watch, pressure on families grew while support shrank.

[Laura Kyrke-Smith]

I welcome the Government’s ambitious roll-out of Best Start family hubs, and I am thrilled that Elmhurst family centre in Aylesbury has been selected as Buckinghamshire’s first family hub—something for which I have been proudly campaigning. Will the Minister set out how that programme will make a difference to families in Aylesbury, including on a matter close to my heart, namely the mental health and wellbeing, and the social connection of parents of young kids and their families?

[Olivia Bailey]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on everything she has done to secure a Best Start family hub in Aylesbury. Family hubs are places where people can drop in, meet other parents and get help without feeling judged, including vital mental health support. They do not just improve outcomes for children; they also create a sense of community for parents.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

I welcome the decision to have a Best Start family hub in Kendal West in my constituency, which is a very deprived part of our community. Kendal is the biggest town in our community, but it is only one of 95 parishes in my vast constituency, and many people who live in often quite poor neighbourhoods, from Appleby and Brough to Flookburgh and Grange and all places in between, are nowhere near that centre. Will the Minister think carefully about how to support communities in rural and dispersed areas such as mine so that they have family hubs close to where they live?

[Olivia Bailey]

I am pleased to hear about the family hub in Kendal West. The hubs that open this month are just the start. We have committed to 1,000 hubs by 2028, and an additional 2,000 network sites within the same time period. The hon. Gentleman’s point about rural communities is important, which is why we are keen to work across the private and voluntary sectors to ensure the maximum possible reach for these services.

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

3. What steps she is taking to promote apprenticeships as an alternative to university education.

[John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)]

12. What steps she is taking to promote apprenticeships as an alternative to university education.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

13. What steps she is taking to promote apprenticeships as an alternative to university education.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)]

Following a 40% drop in apprenticeship starts over the previous decade, we are now seeing them rise for those under 25, and achievement rates are also up. We want an extra 50,000 young people to benefit from apprenticeships. That is why we are introducing new grants for small and medium-sized businesses to take on apprentices, and why we have introduced new foundation apprenticeships.

[Lewis Cocking]

New figures reveal that 73% of teachers think there is not enough focus on preparing young people for employment while they are still in school. A good apprenticeship can bridge that gap, but the number of starts has fallen for those under 19 in the past year. Will the Minister change course and lead a real change, and shift away from dead-end university degrees to high-quality apprenticeships for every young person across the country who wants one?

[Josh MacAlister]

I agree with the hon. Member about the need for high-quality careers education in schools. The Labour Government are committed to ensuring that we bring back work experience for every young person, and we will be following the standards set out by other organisations to ensure that we get good-quality careers education and support the Careers and Enterprise Company. We do not need to set up this issue as a debate or a choice between higher education and technical further education. Both need attention, and there has been under-investment and a lack of support for apprenticeships—that we can agree on.

[John Cooper]

At an awards ceremony in Scotland last month, apprentices said time and again how they were told throughout their school careers that their grades were good enough to go to university, and that they should think again about going into an apprenticeship. Apprenticeships create not just jobs but careers, so what can the Department do to help in Scotland where the Scottish Government have wrecked so much of Scottish education? Can they be prevented from destroying apprenticeships as well?

[Josh MacAlister]

Education is a devolved matter, so the one thing I can do as a Minister in this Parliament is encourage people to vote for Scottish Labour and for Anas Sarwar to be the First Minister of Scotland. The hon. Member is right to highlight the absolutely shameful record of the Scottish National party on education, not only in its approach to the curriculum, teacher training and standards, but in withdrawing from PISA—the programme for international student assessment. The lack of progress that has been made on education north of the border is shocking. This Government are taking bold steps with SMEs to ensure that we create routes to apprenticeships for 50,000 more young people.

[Dr Johnson]

On Thursday this week an excellent apprentice in my office will graduate with a first-class degree. Unfortunately, no one will be able to follow in his excellent footsteps, because the Government have withdrawn funding for the chartered management degree apprenticeship. Given the benefits of degree apprenticeships, will the Minister please reconsider?

[Josh MacAlister]

This Government made changes to the apprenticeship levy and have introduced the growth and skills levy to focus the apprenticeship system where it should be focused. Most Members across the House would agree that with the apprenticeship levy—now the growth and skills levy—we needed originally to create routes for those who were not able to go to university to achieve level 4 and above qualifications. That is where this Government are focusing our attention and we will not apologise for that, because those are the young people who are missing out on opportunities at the moment and need an apprenticeship system that is focused on them.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Education Committee.

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

I recently met a young constituent who is hoping to start a legal apprenticeship. He told me that he has had to research each apprenticeship opportunity himself and, unlike his peers who are applying to university, he is having to apply in the crucial weeks before his A-levels, when he needs to be revising. The Government rejected the Education Committee’s recommendation that information on apprenticeships should be available via UCAS, so that students have a single source of all post-16 and post-18 opportunities, and that the timescale for applications should be aligned with university applications. Will the Minister update the House on what the Government are doing to make apprenticeships available to young people on a more equitable basis?

[Josh MacAlister]

As someone who represents a constituency with one of the highest proportions of young people not going to university and going through apprenticeship or technical routes, I recognise the Chair of the Education Committee’s description of the complexity of the system of applications and the timing issues. I am happy to speak to her and ensure that there is a proper dialogue between the Committee and the Department on that issue.

[Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)]

I appreciate the efforts that Ministers and the Government are making to offer apprenticeships. In coastal towns such as Margate, Broadstairs and Ramsgate in my constituency, the growth sectors rely heavily on non-graduates, including in clean energy, ports and logistics, creative and cultural industries, nature protection, tourism, and leisure and hospitality, as well as health and social care. Will the Minister outline how “mission coastal” in the Education White Paper could address some of the skills and training gaps that are currently limiting the unleashing of our amazing coastal talent?

[Josh MacAlister]

I thank my hon. Friend for making such an important point. There are a few ways to address this question. Too many of our coastal areas do not have the school standards in place to enable children to make the progress needed to access those opportunities. We need to ensure that there are real routes for young people to get into work opportunities, which is why the new deal that this Government are setting out will give a £2,000 grant for small and medium-sized enterprises taking on 16 to 24-year-olds who are new to work. There will be a new £3,000 youth jobs guarantee for hiring apprentices aged 18 to 24 who have been out of work and on universal credit for six months, and we are fully funding apprenticeship training in SMEs for young people.

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

Stafford college already delivers an outstanding apprenticeship achievement rate of 77.5%, which is an extraordinary 15% above the national average. Last week, it was announced that it will be one of the four new technical excellence colleges for advanced manufacturing. Its bid was built on its existing brilliant relationships with local employers, such as GE Vernova, Hitachi, Siemens and Moog. However, we know that there is always more to do, so will the Minister set out how the Government will support those extending colleges, such as the Newcastle and Stafford Colleges Group, and those employers already backing Britain by investing in skills here, so that more apprentices can go through our programmes?

[Josh MacAlister]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on her efforts in campaigning for that technical excellence college. We announced 19 TECs last week, and our package of measures to create another 50,000 apprenticeships for young people will give power to the elbow of institutions such as Stafford college, so that they can continue to make progress.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)]

Apprenticeships should be the building blocks of a stronger economy. That is why the Conservatives are pledging to double the number. If the Minister has done his homework, he will know that any increase in apprenticeship numbers is due to the last-minute rush to do level 7, which this Government cancelled. In fact, if level 7 apprenticeships are stripped out of the figures, apprenticeship vacancies are at their lowest since 2020. With youth unemployment at an all-time high and apprenticeship vacancies at their lowest, it is time for the Minister to come clean: this Government are failing young people, are they not?

[Josh MacAlister]

The Conservatives’ new deal is funded by cutting opportunities in higher education. The Tory plan—[Interruption.] The Opposition Front Benchers’ proposal—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. This is a question to the Minister, not about what the Opposition might be doing.

[Josh MacAlister]

I apologise, Mr Speaker.

The proposals we have set out as a Government are all about expanding opportunities so that we get young people out of worklessness and into job opportunities. That is why we have set out a new deal for young people. To put it politely, the shadow Minister’s proposals borrow from a number of the features that we have set out in our plan. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

[Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

4. What steps her Department is taking to help reduce the cost of living for students.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)]

We know that students and graduates have been left facing the sharp end of the cost of living crisis. That is why we are making the system fairer for students, graduates and taxpayers by capping interest rates, future-proofing maintenance loans, reintroducing maintenance grants and making care leavers automatically eligible for maximum support. With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will share that we are concerned about students affected by providers’ misclassification of weekend courses. As Ministers, we have asked the Student Loans Company to collect any overpayments through normal student finance repayments and pause recoveries of overpaid grants until at least September while we consider the next steps.

[Abtisam Mohamed]

A recent cost of living survey by Sheffield Hallam students’ union shows that 82% of students are struggling, and many are working more hours at the expense of their studies. Too many are skipping meals and going without essentials, harming their health and their participation in university life. That is compounded by serious financial challenges at our universities, including staff cuts that are putting further pressure on the learning experiences of students. What action is the Minister taking across Government to review and widen financial support for students? Will he meet me to discuss the financial situation at Sheffield Hallam University?

[Josh MacAlister]

My hon. Friend is a vocal champion for higher education and students in her constituency. To help disadvantaged students, we are future-proofing maintenance loans by increasing them by forecast inflation every year. We continue to look for ways to make the student finance system fairer for students, graduates and taxpayers overall.

[Suella Braverman (Fareham and Waterlooville) (Reform)]

The number of foreign students claiming fraudulent student loans is at a record high. That is making a mockery of the student finance system and costing the British taxpayer millions of pounds which could otherwise be diverted to support British students. What are the Government doing to reduce this fraudulent practice and fix our broken student loans system?

[Josh MacAlister]

We take this issue extremely seriously, but the description given by the right hon. and learned Member is of her own legacy in government as a Conservative politician. She is now a Reform politician. Nowhere in her question was an apology for the appalling track record of creating the plan 2 student loans system in the first place and administering it in a way that has led to the results that she describes.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)]

As the Minister said, on 23 March the Department told universities that weekend courses do not qualify for funding. The Student Loans Company’s own guidance changed only this year, and the issue affected 20,000 students, including those in key professions, such as nurses. The Secretary of State has been taken to court by nine universities, the National Union of Students is demanding that she halt her clawback, and Martin Lewis has said that this is an almighty mess. I heard what the Minister had to say, but I know that this Government always find someone else to blame, so will he confirm that any aggressive debt collection will absolutely be stopped and that payments will not be demanded from innocent students?

[Josh MacAlister]

I like the hon. Member, but unfortunately his question was written before I gave my earlier answer. The Institute for Fiscal Studies says that the Tory student loans plan would cost £4 billion and

“would not make an immediate difference to most graduates’ monthly repayments.”

[Jodie Gosling (Nuneaton) (Lab)]

5. What assessment she has made of the effectiveness of supported internships.

[The Minister for School Standards (Georgia Gould)]

Last week we announced an expansion of our supported internships offer to unlock opportunities for more young people with special educational needs and disabilities, so that they can benefit from a seamless transition into the world of work. I have spoken to young people and teachers and heard how transformative supported internships can be for confidence and in supporting children to take those steps into work, and we are determined to get behind the talent of children with SEND.

[Jodie Gosling]

I thank the Secretary of State for her commitment to supporting supported interns and for the announcement of £9 million for non-EHCP—education, health and care plan—pilots. Almost 80% of our brilliant supported interns in Nuneaton go on into paid employment, well above the national average of 5% of young people with learning difficulties. Will the Secretary of State please give us more information about what support will be available to enable our colleges to deliver in line with the SEND White Paper? Also, will she join me at either our brilliant Queen Elizabeth award-winning North Warwickshire and South Leicestershire college, or at George Eliot hospital to see the real impact of supported interns and celebrate their achievements?

[Georgia Gould]

I am incredibly grateful for the work of my hon. Friend in championing children with special educational needs and disabilities, both before and during her time as a Member of Parliament, and thank her for bringing her expertise to this discussion. I would be delighted to visit and see some of the work of supported internships in practice. As I have set out, we have invested £9 million and are continuing to work with colleges to support inclusion, as well as support into employment.

[Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)]

I have been contacted by a mum in my constituency who is trying to find a supported internship for her son, who has an EHCP. Even with the “Find an apprenticeship” service, parents are left having to research and find suitable options themselves. What further action will the Minister take to ensure young people with SEND are not disadvantaged in accessing supported internships?

[Georgia Gould]

I welcome the hon. Lady’s question. We want to make it much easier for children with special educational needs and disabilities to find support and access opportunities, and are working closely with colleges to do that. As part of our reforms, we will be delivering new national inclusion standards that set out our expectations, and as I have said, we are investing in broadening supported internships.

[Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)]

6. What steps her Department is taking to fund sports facilities in secondary schools in South Dorset constituency.

[The Minister for School Standards (Georgia Gould)]

The Government are opening up access to music, art, drama and—crucially—sport. We want schools to have access to high-quality sports facilities so that children can achieve and thrive. The Department is improving school facilities through guidance and rebuilding programmes, with £2.1 billion of capital funding.

[Lloyd Hatton]

Budmouth academy has received a record multimillion-pound investment from this Labour Government to rebuild many of the school’s buildings. However, its crumbling outdoor courts—which are home to the South and West Dorset netball league—are currently not included in the rebuild. More than 300 women and girls are part of that league, and of course the courts are also used by students all year round. We desperately want to rebuild the courts, so can the Minister work with us to explore how those courts can be included in the scope of the rebuild?

[Georgia Gould]

I would like to start by acknowledging the proactive response of the brilliant team at Budmouth academy in response to a recent meningitis case, and I am really pleased to hear how welcome the investment in the school rebuilding programme is at that academy. On top of that investment, the Aspirations Academies Trust has been provisionally allocated investment of over £1.9 million to improve its estates. I would welcome the opportunity to meet my hon. Friend to discuss this matter further.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

I hope that schools in South Dorset and—crucially—the Minister will have read the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport’s “Game On” report, which was published today. It makes the case for increased physical activity in schools and the positive impact it has on a pupil’s ability to learn. However, recent reports suggest that the Government are proposing funding cuts for physical education, so will the Minister please give a very clear commitment today that there will be no reduction in funding for PE in our schools? In fact, I would love to hear from her that there will actually be increased investment in our children’s health, wellbeing and learning through a more active school day.

[Georgia Gould]

The Government absolutely want to see children engaged in physical activity, and to support that through the school day. We have recently announced funding for school games organisers and will be setting out further information about our new partnership model, which will bring together different partners from across the private, public and voluntary sectors to ensure that children in every community have opportunities.

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

7. What plans she has to review school food standards requiring mandatory servings of meat, fish and dairy.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Olivia Bailey)]

This Government are updating the school food standards for the first time in more than a decade to reduce sugar, increase fibre and reduce unhealthy foods. Parents want this, it is crucial for children’s health, and it will drive a transformation in the quality of the food on our children’s plates.

[Fleur Anderson]

I am pleased that the consultation on school food standards was launched last week. Many constituents have contacted me about the benefits of having more and better vegetarian school meals. Having fewer meals from processed meat is healthier, better for the planet and better value. Does the Minister support updating the guidelines so that the required number of protein-based meals can be met through delicious plant-based options and not just meat and fish?

[Olivia Bailey]

Our revised standards will ensure that children can enjoy eating nutritious, familiar foods. That includes ensuring that delicious and varied vegetarian options are available every day, including pulses as the main protein three times a week. The consultation closes on 12 June, and I invite Members across the House to encourage their constituents to take part.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

I am concerned that we do not serve more British-sourced food in our schools. Indeed, it is estimated that between 20 million and 40 million chickens are imported each year from China. That number has gone up 172% since the general election. What are the Government doing to ensure that our young people are eating British-sourced foods?

[Olivia Bailey]

I agree with the objective that the hon. Member sets out. That is why we are working with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to support our pledge that 50% of all food purchased across the public sector will be locally produced or certified to higher environmental standards.

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

8. What steps she is taking to support schools with falling rolls.

[The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)]

The Department is working with schools to plan ahead and organise appropriately for changing demographics. Falling rolls funding is available to local authorities, and more widely we are looking creatively at how we can turn extra space in schools into an opportunity, including through opening up Best Start school-based nurseries to make childcare more accessible and affordable.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

Some of my borough’s schools are among the top 1% in the country, but we have a forecast drop of 6.1% for reception and 8.3% for year 7 over the next three years. The picture is poor across London, but Hackney is one of the worst-affected boroughs. Given the patchwork of local schools, with academies, free schools, which fall under the Secretary of State’s remit, and voluntary aided and maintained schools, how will we ensure that the school communities and families work together across our capital and across the country?

[Bridget Phillipson]

I would be more than happy to discuss further the particular local challenges that my right hon. Friend is experiencing. We are aware of the impact of falling rolls on schools, and we are working with councils, including those in London, to develop a framework to help them manage it. Our aim is to make sure that our schools estate is more resilient and flexible in response to changing local demand, and our Best Start school-based nurseries and new SEND inclusion bases are a great example of that. I know that it is often housing pressures on communities such as hers that cause particular challenges. I am therefore delighted that this Government are investing a record £39 billion to kick-start social and affordable house building, which will make a real difference in Hackney, in London and right across the country.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

It is true that the effects of the falling birth rate have been felt most so far in places such as Hackney, but it is coming to many more places, and the effect will be felt in a much more magnified way, particularly in small rural schools. Does the Secretary of State accept that the funding formula will have to change away from being so heavily reliant on a per capita amount, so as to support our small rural schools?

[Bridget Phillipson]

The right hon. Gentleman is right in saying that while falling rolls present a particularly pronounced challenge in London, we are seeing the issue right across the country. We will work with the sector to develop a framework for the use of mainstream school space, including pressures such as demographic change, and we intend to publish that in the autumn. I note the point that he makes about small rural schools. We want to make sure that those schools can support their local communities, and we will keep under review all the funding that we operate to ensure that that is a reality.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister—welcome to the Front Bench.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. One reason for improved academic standards in our schools under the last Government was the ability for good schools to expand and for failing schools to be put under new leadership. How will the Secretary of State ensure that underachieving schools with falling numbers are transformed with new and rigorous leadership, rather than conscripting unwilling parents to send their children to them?

[Bridget Phillipson]

I do not recognise the characterisation offered by the hon. Gentleman. He will know that through the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, we are making changes that will allow local authorities and local areas to manage school places within their communities better, especially where we are seeing demographic change. Let me add that far too many schools were not serving children well—that was a situation that we inherited—but we are being taking firmer and swifter action to support those schools through our regional improvement for standards and excellence initiative. We cannot wait for late-stage failure before we go in and make change happen. Children and families deserve much more than that, and they deserve much better than the failed approach of the party opposite.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

With falling school rolls in Twickenham, across London and in other parts of the country, school budgets are coming under increasing pressure that is compounded by the underfunding of teachers’ pay rises, breakfast clubs and free school meals. Data from the House of Commons Library predicts a £4.4 billion black hole in funding for teachers’ pay rises alone over the next three years, and there is no way in which “productivity savings” can bridge that gap. Will the Secretary of State commit herself to funding those rises fully, so that headteachers are not forced to cut the number of support staff and extracurricular activities that are so important to children’s education and wellbeing?

[Bridget Phillipson]

I am pleased that we have been able to give teachers the pay rises that they deserve, because they play an enormous role. We know it is teaching quality that makes the biggest difference to children’s life chances. We are investing record sums in our schools, investing record sums in capital, and ensuring that we have school places.

I disagree with the hon. Lady about our new breakfast clubs, which are being rolled out across the country—more opened just last week—and which are being well received by parents, teachers and heads. I invite her to go and visit one, and see for herself the transformation that it is driving.

[Michelle Scrogham (Barrow and Furness) (Lab)]

9. What assessment her Department has made of the adequacy of the progress of the school rebuilding programme.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)]

We are fixing crumbling schools and colleges, which are a direct consequence of under-investment in our country. Labour is investing £20 billion in the school rebuilding programme, and more than 500 schools are already in the programme, with well over half in delivery. We will select a further 250 by early 2027, and we are also launching a new renewal and retrofit programme to modernise the school estate.

[Michelle Scrogham]

In January 2023, children at Sacred Heart Catholic primary school in my constituency were forced to evacuate their building after inspectors warned that it could collapse. I am pleased to welcome its headteacher, Simone Beach, to the Public Gallery today, and I know that the whole House will join me in thanking her for her exceptional leadership during three extremely challenging years.

This is one of the starkest examples of the consequences of under-investment in school buildings. I thank the ministerial team for their close engagement over the last 18 months, and for the investment to build a brand-new school which is due to open in September 2027. What further support can be provided as the school’s staff continue to face the financial impact of the evacuation three years later, working across a number of temporary sites?

[Josh MacAlister]

I thank my hon. Friend for drawing the House’s attention to Simone, who is sitting in the Gallery. She is a wonderful Cumbrian, and a fantastic example of the excellence of school leaders and headteachers throughout the country. She has stewarded the school through a tumultuous few years, and with our Government support we will ensure that the new school setting is there for children who will need it in the future. Renewing our school estate is a massive challenge for the country: it is not just about building new schools, but about getting ahead of the curve so that we can modernise and retrofit existing school buildings that would otherwise have needed rebuilding altogether in 10 or 20 years’ time.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

RAAC—reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete—has been an huge issue here in Britain, but we have some examples back home in Northern Ireland as well. It is important that we share the way in which we address these problems. The Minister is always helpful, and I thank him for that. Will he contact the Education Minister in Northern Ireland to ensure that he and the Government can share what they have learnt here with us in Northern Ireland, so that we can address the issue in a similar way?

[Josh MacAlister]

The RAAC crisis here in England highlighted wider issues with the legacy of the school estate that England is now having to reckon with. I believe that we are now on top of that issue, and the Government are committed to stripping RAAC out of all schools in the years to come and ensuring that we have the school estate that we need. We have learnt a huge amount through that process, and I should be very glad to connect the hon. Member with relevant colleagues in the Department for Education and with Ministers in the Northern Irish Government.

[Sally Jameson (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

10. What steps she is taking to help increase levels of fostering.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)]

We are undertaking a once-in-a-generation reform of children’s social care, which includes ensuring that children in care are surrounded by enduring, loving relationships close to their communities, their friends and their schools. Creating an extra 10,000 homes in foster care is my top priority as the children’s Minister, and we are now implementing an ambitious action plan to meet that target.

[Sally Jameson]

I thank the Minister for his answer. Can he outline how he will implement the expansion of foster carers so that more children can stay close to home and in their schools, reducing their vulnerability to sexual exploitation and county lines—something that disproportionately impacts children in residential care? Will he also set out what more he is doing to support foster carers to make sure that they have an independent voice heard in local authorities, but also practical help such as house extensions and modifications, so that they can continue to increase the number of children they support and provide a home to?

[Josh MacAlister]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight that we need to take action on a whole range of fronts to transform our fostering system, so that we can expand it and retain the brilliant foster carers we already have in this country. That is why we are backing the plan with £88 million. We are taking action to bring local authorities together to create new end-to-end fostering hubs with clear targets. That process is currently under way, and my hon. Friend is right to highlight the really important action of the Room Makers programme. The Government will fund the extension and expansion of foster carers’ homes so that they can take in more children. That is important, because we are funding a residential care system in this country that is the size it is because we do not have the foster homes that we need.

[Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)]

Does the Minister accept that if we are to promote fostering credibility, we must move beyond simply running adverts saying that we need more foster carers and ensure that fostering is both financially realistic and backed by strong, reliable support for those who step up to care?

[Josh MacAlister]

Yes. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to highlight both of those issues. We are expanding and funding the Mockingbird programme so that foster carers can get wider, family network-like support when they undertake this really important role, so that they are not left isolated. We are funding that to expand it across the country. We are also undertaking a piece of research to look at the variation in fostering allowances and fees across the country, and to identify both the variation and the relationship between the amount paid and the retention of carers, to address the exact point that he raises.

[Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)]

14. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of 30 hours of free childcare on early years providers.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Olivia Bailey)]

This Labour Government’s record expansion of free childcare is saving working families across the country over £8,000 a year. We have worked closely with early education providers across the sector throughout the roll-out, and I thank them for their tireless work. We are investing over £9 billion in early years entitlements this year, and I am pleased to say that we have seen a huge increase in the number of places that providers have on offer.

[Mr Bedford]

I recently met several early years providers, who told me that the 30 hours funded childcare scheme is placing real strain on their businesses because the policy does not take into account the setting up time, the packing away time, and the time spent training and dealing with compliance issues with their staff. Combined with the recent national insurance rises, this is threatening the financial viability of these businesses. Will the Minister agree to review the policy’s implementation so that providers, particularly smaller ones that rely on that funding, are kept financially viable and can provide their services to the people who need them?

[Olivia Bailey]

I thank the hard-working staff in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. When the Government say we are prioritising the early years, we mean it. We are investing £9.5 billion this year. Rates have increased more than ever before to reflect inflationary pressures and the increases to the national living wage; we have increased the pass-through rate from local authorities to providers, and we have continued to lift the early years pupil premium. We are determined to give every child the best start in life.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

15. What assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the governance of multi-academy trusts.

[The Minister for School Standards (Georgia Gould)]

This Government believe that a collaborative school system is the best way to drive high and rising standards, so that every child can achieve and thrive. In our schools White Paper, we have set out how we plan to support further collaboration while improving accountability to deliver the education our children deserve.

[Alison Bennett]

There are three schools in my Mid Sussex constituency that were part of the University of Brighton academy trust. Given that serious concerns about financial management at UBAT persisted for years before re-brokerage was triggered, will reforms to the multi-academy trust governance system include early warning systems, so that failing trusts are identified and intervention takes place before reaching the point of failure?

[Georgia Gould]

I really welcome the hon. Lady’s question. I absolutely agree that we need to spot the early warning signs of financial failure. That is why we are bringing in a new Ofsted inspection framework for multi-academy trusts that will look at other issues, including governance and financial management.

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

16. What recent progress her Department has made on implementing the complaints scheme provided for in the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)]

The Secretary of State has made a written statement to the House this morning confirming the timing of the commencement of the higher education free speech complaints scheme and the regulatory conditions. The complaints scheme will be commenced from 1 September this year, and the regulatory powers of the Office for Students from 1 April 2027.

[Harriet Cross]

I thank the Minister for that update. The scheme is long overdue, but of course it does not go far enough. Let us take, for example, the case of Brodie Mitchell, who was suspended from Royal Holloway for a spat at a freshers fair. Under the new guidelines, he would not be able to complain directly to the Office for Students. Why is that?

[Josh MacAlister]

The OfS system in place at the moment allows for students to complain about breaches of freedom of speech. The written statement laid this morning by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is all about expanding that coverage to staff, visiting lecturers and other speakers, as well as ensuring we have a system under which the OfS can go back to institutions and hold them to account.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)]

My hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) is absolutely right. Whether it is Zionist views, gender critical perspectives, climate scepticism, or challenging the perceived wisdom that diversity is our strength with the need to put terrorism barriers around Christmas markets, there is a clear two-tier approach to free speech on our campuses, and students are the nub of it, which is exactly why the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act gave students the right to go to the Office for Students. Why can academics and visiting speakers complain under this proposal, but not students? It is called the Office for Students, or is the Minister planning to rename it “the office for everybody on campus except students”?

[Josh MacAlister]

As I have said, at the moment students have a route of redress through the Office for Students. The Government have been focused on pulling together an enforceable regime, and it is welcome that both Labour and Conservative Members, across the House, are supportive of action to protect freedom of speech at our universities.

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)]

It has been a busy month since the last Education questions, so I will give the House a short update on what my Department has done since then to give our children the best start in life. We began opening 200 new Best Start family hubs, building on the proud legacy of Sure Start; we opened 500 new free breakfast clubs to save parents £450 and give children a great start to the day, and announced the next wave of school-based nurseries, as research showed that Labour has halved childcare costs for families; and we scrapped the two-child limit, putting Labour on course to lift a record number of children out of poverty. Labour is boosting family finances and children’s life chances.

[Dr Chambers]

Last week in my Winchester office, I held a meeting for parents of children with special educational needs and disabilities, and some were in tears when discussing the fight they have had to get the care to which they are entitled. Can we assure parents that any reforms made to the SEND system—which are much needed—will not cause the absolutely crippling mental health anguish, stress and anxiety that the current system has been causing?

[Bridget Phillipson]

I recognise what the hon. Gentleman has said, because I have spoken to so many parents, families and children across the country who have been badly let down by a system that has not put children’s needs first. We are determined to change that through the once-in-a-generation SEND reforms that we are setting out. I am glad to hear that he held an event in his constituency, and I encourage all Members to make sure that parents, educators and others share their views as part of our consultation.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

T8. As the MP for Sandhurst, I am proud to represent many armed forces families. As the Minister will know, armed forces families often move around, but no particular support seems to be given to their children. There is no marker to identify these children, they do not qualify for fair access protocols, and they are given no particular priority in admissions. Will she meet me to discuss how we can better support the children of armed forces families?

[The Minister for School Standards (Georgia Gould)]

We are deeply grateful for the service of our armed forces families. I would welcome the opportunity to meet my hon. Friend, and I recently met members of the all-party parliamentary group on the armed forces. We will be bringing forward further admissions reforms shortly.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)]

We learnt last week that in the tragic Southport case, when the headteacher warned about the killer’s increasing extreme behaviour, the social worker accused the headteacher of racially stereotyping the pupil as

“a black boy with a knife”.

The result was that the warnings were rewritten in many cases. And that was not a one-off. We know it also happened in the Sara Sharif case, where

“race was a bar to reporting possible child abuse”,

and we saw the failure repeatedly with the grooming gangs scandal. Being too scared of causing offence means children are being harmed, so I ask the Secretary of State directly: what concrete action is she taking to stop repeated cases of political correctness overruling the safeguarding of children?

[Bridget Phillipson]

There is no more important responsibility than making sure our children are kept safe from harm. We will take forward any measures that arise out of the Southport inquiry to ensure we can do everything within our power to keep children safe, whether in school or in the home. We are already taking action to reform children’s social care—we are recruiting more social workers and the numbers are very high at the moment—but it is through our Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill that we are delivering the single biggest upgrade to child protection legislation in a generation. It should be on the statute book already, but the right hon. Lady and the Conservative party continue to block its progress.

[Laura Trott]

If the Secretary of State wants to start keeping children safe online, then we will stop our objections—but she is refusing to do that. In another example of so-called progressiveness, local authorities across the country are, unbelievably, trying to stop exclusions when children are bringing knives to school. This is happening right here in London, with Sadiq Khan’s inclusion charter, and in Sheffield, where the policy led to the tragic stabbing of Harvey Willgoose, whose killer had previously brought an axe into school and was not excluded. Will the Secretary of State condemn the spread of anti-exclusion ideology and support schools to exclude when knives are brought on to the school estate?

[Bridget Phillipson]

School leaders have my full support in taking action on issues such as violence. Of course there should be an expectation—a clear expectation—that action is taken where it applies to cases such as those the right hon. Lady set out, but I would just slightly caution her in talking about some of the details of those cases in the way that she has. We all have a responsibility to ensure we give full and accurate accounts of exactly what has taken place. I look forward to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill allowing us to take further action to keep children safe at home and in their communities—wherever they are. We will not hesitate to act.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Some 4% of children are diagnosed with foetal alcohol spectrum disorder. It is totally avoidable, yet it can impact on movement, communication, thinking, concentration and many physiological changes, placing significant demands on the SEND system. Will the Education Secretary work with the Health Secretary to deliver a 1,001 critical days strategy, preventing FASD and rising demand on the SEND system?

[Georgia Gould]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that critical issue. It is an area on which we are already working closely with health colleagues, both in our support for families but also in response to children’s SEND needs. We have a meeting later, where we will discuss the matter.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

I was deeply alarmed by reports that Labour MPs were being given pre-written feedback to share, following consultation sessions with constituents on the Government’s special needs reforms. The Secretary of State promised to put families at the heart of her changes, so will she assure parents and carers that the SEND consultation is entirely free from political interference and that they will be listened to, especially with regard to their rights?

[Bridget Phillipson]

I can give the hon. Lady my absolute assurance that, through the consultation we are running at the moment, we want to hear directly from parents, children and those working in education. The first event happened today across the country, and there will be events right across the country and online. I am pleased that Labour Members are speaking to their constituents to understand the changes we want to bring. I would, of course, be happy to discuss any aspect of the reforms with the hon. Lady, because I want to ensure we can build a system that delivers better outcomes for children and that stands the test of time, too.

[Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)]

Our ambitious child poverty strategy puts more money into the pockets of families and working parents. Removing the two-child cap benefits 2,260 children in my constituency, and the Secretary of State is doing much more on top of that, which we are missing out on in Scotland. Does she agree with me that we need a Government in Scotland who are more interested in education than gimmicks?

[Bridget Phillipson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that is why people across Scotland should vote for Anas Sarwar and Scottish Labour. Last month I was in Scotland hearing directly from parents about the difference that lifting the two-child limit will make—measures that were opposed by the Conservatives, who would plunge hundreds of thousands of children back into poverty. There is so much more that we could do together if we had a Government in Scotland who were as determined to tackle child poverty as this Labour Government are. It is time for change and a new direction in Scotland.

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

T2. There are some brilliant specialist SEND schools in my constituency, such as Muntham House and Aurora Vincent House. In the White Paper, there is currently no clear definition of a specialist school, and concerns remain that provision is being framed as something to be reduced, rather than planned for. What role does the Department see special schools having in the reformed system, and how will they be funded?

[Georgia Gould]

We agree that special schools play an incredibly important role in the system by providing vital care for children with complex needs and supporting their wider education. They have an important role in the schools White Paper with regard both to education support and to the outreach they do for mainstream schools. We are proposing the introduction of specialist provision packages precisely in order to end the postcode lottery and create more clarity over what specialist provision should look like.

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Secretary of State for visiting St Paul’s primary school in my constituency a few weeks ago to meet the excellent head, Angela Batchelor, and her staff team, where we heard at first hand from parents the importance of the wraparound nursery service and the additional breakfast club. One of the issues raised was SEND, which I know the Secretary of State is really looking at. Can she outline when we will see those changes coming through in order to help the families who are struggling with accessing SEND services from their local authority?

[Bridget Phillipson]

It was fantastic to visit my hon. Friend and see at first hand the impact of our changes for children and families across her constituency. She is right that our current SEND system just is not working for children or families, and I encourage her constituents to share their thoughts with us through the consultation. However, we are not waiting to drive the change we know is desperately needed; just last week, I announced the first wave of investment in our Experts at Hand programme, which will make a huge difference in ensuring that children can get the specialist support that they need much more quickly.

[Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)]

T3. A local employer—himself a former apprentice—tells me that his industry is now in crisis, with his firm’s apprentice intake falling from 60 to just 20 this year due to this Government’s decisions. Meanwhile, Reaseheath College is having to turn students away and restrict courses in agricultural engineering and construction due to a lack of funding. With nearly 1 million young people not in education, employment or training, does the Minister accept that this Government are failing young people, and will she instead back the Conservatives’ plan to create 100,000 more apprenticeships by lifting funding caps and supporting employers with up to £5,000 per apprentice?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)]

The Conservatives’ legacy of almost 1 million young people being out of work and education is shameful, but we are cleaning up this mess. I am delighted to share with the House that we are introducing a new deal for young people that includes a £2,000 grant for small to medium-sized enterprises taking on 16 to 24-year-olds to work and a new £3,000 youth job grant for hiring apprentices aged 18 to 24 who have been on universal credit for more than six months. We are the Labour party, which means we are about getting young people into work.

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Ind)]

Whistleblowers have raised serious concerns with me about the governance of academy trusts in my constituency. I have raised this matter privately with the Secretary of State, but I wonder whether she might arrange for a Minister to meet those whistleblowers so that they can have those concerns taken seriously, as I am seriously concerned myself.

[Bridget Phillipson]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue. I would, of course, be happy to ensure that a meeting takes place so that that information can be shared and fully considered. Through the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, we are also bringing forward further accountability when it comes to trusts to ensure that there is an inspection framework around them. Perhaps I could discuss that further with the hon. Gentleman, too.

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

T4. Eastbourne headteachers have expressed grave concerns about the impact of the new Ofsted framework on staff wellbeing, and its punishing impact on schools in deprived areas. Will the Minister meet me and Eastbourne headteachers for a roundtable to discuss how we can avoid disastrous consequences happening again?

[Georgia Gould]

I would be very happy to meet the hon. Member. The new framework has been designed to support the wellbeing of heads and to give a clear and full view of school performance, but I am happy to continue that conversation.

[Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

I welcome the Government’s announcement that there will be eight Best Start family hubs across Bassetlaw—including in Manton, Retford, West Bassetlaw, the Oasis community centre, Hallcroft, Harworth and Bircotes, and Misterton. That is the highest number in the country. Does the Minister agree that this will guarantee an excellent start for hundreds of children across my constituency?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Olivia Bailey)]

I do agree, and I thank my hon. Friend for all she has done for children and families in her constituency. We are determined to ensure that every child gets the best start in life, and that every family gets the community and connection that these hubs will offer.

[Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)]

T5. Some 25% of Selston high school has had to be closed down because of structural problems. It has submitted a bid to the school rebuilding programme. Can the Minister please ensure that it gets the funding it needs to reopen its doors?

[Josh MacAlister]

I was concerned to hear that the school needed to shut last Monday—[Interruption.] Cheering a school closure is no laughing matter. Of course, I am thankful that the children will be back in school on Tuesday. I would be happy to speak to the hon. Member about the situation, but of course it is a legacy of the party of which he used to be a Member.

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome the Experts at Hand service and the £3.7 million that has been given to Cornwall to set it up. We struggle, however, to get occupational therapists, educational psychologists and speech and language therapists in rural and coastal areas. What incentives are there, and what is the Minister doing, to encourage people to come down to Cornwall and work in our services?

[Georgia Gould]

We were delighted to announce £429 million for new speech and language therapists, occupational therapists and educational psychologists, which will go to communities around the country. We are working closely with colleagues in Health to ensure that there are no cold spots and that every single school and child has access to that essential support.

Security Vetting

Monday 20th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Before I call the Prime Minister, I wish to make a brief statement. The subject that we are about to discuss is of the utmost seriousness. I expect the discussion to be focused on the facts and the issues at hand, and not on personal attacks against individual Members. Although certain criticisms may be made about the Government collectively, “Erskine May” makes it clear—in paragraph 21.24—that any accusations against individual Members about lying or misleading the House may be made only on 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 the substantive matters under discussion. If a debate is needed about matters of individual conduct, that must be drawn in the proper terms with notice. I encourage all Members to engage in respectful debate, as our constituents would expect.

15:33

[The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to provide the House with information that I now have about the appointment of Peter Mandelson as our ambassador to the United States.

Before I go into the details, I want to be very clear with this House that while this statement will focus on the process surrounding Peter Mandelson’s vetting and appointment, at the heart of this there is also a judgment I made that was wrong. I should not have appointed Peter Mandelson. I take responsibility for that decision, and I apologise again to the victims of the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, who were clearly failed by my decision.

Last Tuesday evening, 14 April, I found out for the first time that on 29 January 2025, before Peter Mandelson took up his position as ambassador, Foreign Office officials granted him developed vetting clearance, against the specific recommendation of the United Kingdom Security Vetting that developed vetting clearance should be denied. Not only that, but the Foreign Office officials who made that decision did not pass this information to me, to the Foreign Secretary, to her predecessor, now the Deputy Prime Minister, to any other Minister, or even to the former Cabinet Secretary, Sir Chris Wormald.

I found this staggering. Therefore, last Tuesday I immediately instructed officials in Downing Street and the Cabinet Office to urgently establish the facts on my authority. I wanted to know who made the decision, on what basis, and who knew. I wanted that information for the precise and explicit purpose of updating this House, because this is information I should have had a long time ago, and that this House should have had a long time ago. It is information that I and the House had a right to know.

I will now set out a full timeline of the events in the Peter Mandelson process, including from the fact-finding exercise that I instructed last Tuesday. Before doing so, I want to remind and reassure the House that the Government will comply fully with the Humble Address motion of 4 February.

In December 2024, I was in the process of appointing a new ambassador for Washington. A due diligence exercise was conducted by the Cabinet Office into Peter Mandelson’s suitability, including questions put to him by my staff in No. 10. Peter Mandelson answered those questions on 10 December, and I received final advice on the due diligence process on 11 December. I made the decision to appoint him on 18 December. The appointment was announced on 20 December. The security vetting process began on 23 December 2024.

I want to make it clear to the House that, for a direct ministerial appointment, it was usual for security vetting to happen after the appointment but before the individual starting in post. That was the process in place at the time. This was confirmed by the former Cabinet Secretary, Sir Chris Wormald, when he gave evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee on 3 November 2025. Sir Chris made it clear that

“when we are making appointments from outside the civil service…the normal thing is for the security clearance to happen after appointment but before 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 Olly Robbins, said that Peter Mandelson

“did not hold national security vetting when he was appointed, but, as is normally the case with external appointments to my Department and the wider civil service, the appointment was made subject to obtaining security clearance.”

After I sacked Peter Mandelson, I changed that process so that an appointment now cannot be announced until after security vetting is passed.

The security vetting was carried out by UK Security Vetting—UKSV—between 23 December 2024 and 28 January 2025. UKSV conducted vetting in the normal way, collecting relevant information, as well as interviewing the applicant, in this case on two occasions. Then, on 28 January 2025, UKSV recommended to the Foreign Office that developed vetting clearance should be denied to Peter Mandelson. The following day, 29 January 2025, notwithstanding the UKSV recommendation that developed vetting clearance should be denied, Foreign Office officials made the decision to grant developed vetting clearance for Peter Mandelson.

To be clear, for many Departments a decision from UKSV is binding, but for the Foreign Office the final decision on developed vetting clearance is made by Foreign Office officials, not UKSV. However, once the decision in this case came to light, the Foreign Office’s power to make the final decision on developed vetting clearance was immediately suspended by my Chief Secretary last week.

I accept that the sensitive personal information provided by an individual being vetted must be protected from disclosure. If that were not the case, the integrity of the whole process would be compromised. What I do not accept is that the appointing Minister cannot be told of the recommendation by UKSV. Indeed, given the seriousness of these issues and the significance of the appointment, I simply do not accept that Foreign Office officials could not have informed me of UKSV’s recommendations while maintaining the necessary confidentiality that vetting requires.

There is no law that stops civil servants from sensibly flagging UKSV recommendations while protecting detailed, sensitive vetting information, to allow Ministers to make judgments on appointments or on explaining matters to Parliament. Let me be very clear: the recommendation in the Peter Mandelson case could and should have been shared with me before he took up his post. Let me make a second point: if I had known before Peter Mandelson took up his post that the UKSV recommendation was that developed vetting clearance should be denied, I would not have gone ahead with the appointment.

Let me now move to September 2025, because events then, and subsequently, show with even starker clarity the opportunities missed by Foreign Office officials to make the position clear. On 10 September, Bloomberg reported fresh details of Mandelson’s history with Epstein. It was then clear to me that Peter Mandelson’s answers to my staff in the due diligence exercise were not truthful, and I sacked him. I also changed the direct ministerial appointments process so that full due diligence is now required as standard. Where risks are identified, an interview must be taken pre-appointment to discuss any risks and conflicts of interest. A summary of that should be provided to the appointing Minister. I also made it clear that public announcements should not now be made until security vetting has been completed.

In the light of the revelations in September last year, I also agreed with the then Cabinet Secretary, Sir Chris Wormald, that he would carry out a review of the appointment process in the Peter Madelson case, including the vetting. He set out his findings and conclusions in a letter to me on 16 September. In that letter, he advised me:

“The evidence I have reviewed leads me to conclude that appropriate processes were followed in both the appointment and withdrawal of the former HMA Washington”.

When the then Cabinet Secretary was asked about that last week, he was clear that when he carried out his review, the Foreign Office did not tell him about the UKSV recommendation that developed vetting clearance should be denied for Peter Mandelson. I find that astonishing. As I set out earlier, I do not accept that I could not have been told about the recommendation before Peter Mandelson took up his post. I 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 UKSV recommended that Peter Mandelson should be denied developed vetting clearance. It was a vital part of the process that I had asked him to review. Clearly, he could have been told, and he should have been told.

On the same day that the then Cabinet Secretary wrote to me, 16 September 2025, the Foreign Secretary and the then permanent secretary of the Foreign Office, Sir Olly Robbins, provided a signed statement to the Foreign Affairs Committee. The statement says:

“The vetting process was undertaken by UK Security Vetting on behalf of the FCDO and concluded with DV clearance being granted by the FCDO in advance of Lord Mandelson taking up post in February.”

It went on to say:

“Peter Mandelson’s security vetting was conducted to the usual standard set for Developed Vetting in line with established Cabinet Office policy”.

Let me be very clear to the House. This was in response to questions that included whether concerns were raised, what the Foreign Office’s response was and whether they were dismissed. That the Foreign Secretary was advised on, and allowed to sign, this statement by Foreign Office officials without being told that UKSV had recommended Peter Mandelson be denied developed vetting clearance is absolutely unforgivable. This is a senior Cabinet Member giving evidence to Parliament on the very issue in question.

In the light of further revelations about Peter Mandelson in February of this year, I was very concerned about the fact that developed vetting clearance had been granted to him. Not knowing that, in fact, UKSV had recommended denial of developed vetting clearance, I instructed my officials to carry out a review of the national security vetting process. But, as I have set out, I do not accept that I could not have been told about UKSV’s denial of security vetting before Peter Mandelson took up his post in January 2025, I do not accept that the then Cabinet Secretary could not have been told in September 2025 when he carried out his review of the process, and I do not accept that the Foreign Secretary could not have been told when making statements to the Select Committee, again in 2025.

On top of that, the fact that I was also not told, even when I ordered a review of the UKSV process, is frankly staggering. I can tell the House that I have now updated the terms of reference for the review into security vetting to make sure it covers the means by which all decisions are made in relation to national security vetting. I have appointed Sir Adrian Fulford to lead the review. Separately, I have asked the Government Security Group in the Cabinet Office to look at any security concerns raised during Peter Mandelson’s tenure.

I know that many Members across this House will find these facts to be incredible. To that, I can only say that they are right. It beggars belief that throughout this whole timeline of events, officials in the Foreign Office saw fit to withhold this information from the most senior Ministers in our system of government. That is not how the vast majority of people in this country expect politics, government or accountability to work, and I do not think it is how most public servants think it should work either.

I work with hundreds of civil servants—thousands, even—all of whom act with the utmost integrity, dedication and pride to serve this country, including officials from the Foreign Office who, as we speak, are doing a phenomenal job representing our national interest in a dangerous world—in Ukraine, the middle east and all around the world. This is not about them, yet it is surely beyond doubt that the recommendation from UKSV that Peter Mandelson should be denied developed vetting 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 ultimately to the British people. I commend this statement to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Leader of the Opposition.

15:49

[Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)]

I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement. His reputation is at stake, and everyone is watching, so it is finally time for the truth.

Earlier today, Downing Street admitted that the Prime Minister inadvertently misled the House. The Prime Minister has chosen not to repeat that from the Dispatch Box. I remind him that, under the ministerial code, he has a duty to correct the record at the earliest opportunity. The Prime Minister says he only found out on Tuesday that Peter Mandelson failed the security vetting. The earliest opportunity to correct the record was Prime Minister’s questions on 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 public in answering questions today, so let me start with what we do know.

We know the Prime Minister personally appointed Peter Mandelson to be our ambassador to the United States. We know that Mandelson had a close relationship with a convicted paedophile. We know that he had concerning links with Russia and China—links that had already raised red flags. We know that the Prime Minister announced the appointment before vetting was complete—an extraordinary and unprecedented step for the role of US ambassador.

The Prime Minister says that it was “usual” because it was a political appointment, so I remind him, and the rest of the Labour Front Bench who are heckling, that Peter Mandelson was a politician who had been sacked twice from Government for lying. That meant he should have gone through the full security process. We also know that when Peter Mandelson failed the security vetting, he was allowed to 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 security.

Let me turn to what we do not know. We still do not know exactly why Peter Mandelson failed that vetting. We do not know what risks our country was exposed to. We do not know how it is possible that the Prime Minister said repeatedly that this was a failure of vetting, went on television and said things that were blatantly incorrect, and not a single adviser or official told him that what he was saying was not true. At every turn, with every explanation, the Government story has become murkier and more contradictory. It is time for the truth.

There are too many questions to ask in the allotted time, so I will ask the Prime Minister just six. I have taken the unprecedented step of providing these questions to the Prime Minister in advance, so he has them in front of him. I have asked for these questions to be put online for the public. They and I expect him to answer.

The Prime Minister appointed a national security risk to our most sensitive diplomatic post. Let us look at how this happened. The right hon. and learned Gentleman told me at PMQs in September 2025 that

“full due process was followed”—[Official Report, 10 September 2025; Vol. 772, c. 859.]

in this appointment. We now know that in November 2024, Lord Case, the then Cabinet Secretary, told him that this process required security vetting to be done before the appointment. He did not mention any of what Lord Case said in his statement earlier. First, does the Prime Minister accept that when he said on the Floor of the House that “full due process was followed”, that was not true?

Secondly, on 11 September last year, journalists asked his director of communications if it was true that Mandelson had failed security vetting. These allegations were on the front page of a national newspaper, and yet No. 10 did not deny the story—why?

Thirdly, will the Prime Minister repeat at the Dispatch Box his words from last week: that no one in No. 10 was aware before Tuesday that Mandelson had failed his vetting?

Fourthly, the Prime Minister says he is furious that he was not told the recommendations of the vetting, yet on 16 September, a Foreign Office Minister told Parliament that

“the national security vetting process is rightly independent of Ministers, who are not informed of any findings other than the final outcome.”—[Official Report, 16 September 2025; Vol. 772, c. 1387.]

That was the Government’s stated process, so why is the Prime Minister so furious that it was followed?

Fifthly, on 4 February 2026, the Prime Minister told me from the Dispatch Box that the security vetting that Mandelson had received had revealed his relationship with Epstein. How could the Prime Minister say that if he had not seen the security vetting?

Finally, Sistema is a Russian defence company that is closely linked to the Kremlin and Vladimir Putin’s war machine. Was the Prime Minister aware before the appointment that Peter Mandelson had remained a director of that company long after Russia’s invasion of Crimea?

Everyone makes mistakes. It is how a leader faces up to those mistakes that shows their character. Instead of taking responsibility for the decisions he made, the Prime Minister has thrown his staff and his officials under the bus. This is a man who once said,

“I will carry the can for mistakes of any organisation I lead.”

Instead, he has sacked his Cabinet 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 those people were fired for a decision that he made.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman’s defence is that he, a former Director of Public Prosecutions, is so lacking in curiosity that he chose to ask no questions about the vetting process, no questions about Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein and no questions about the security risk that Mandelson posed. Apparently, he did not even speak to Peter Mandelson before his appointment. It does not appear that he asked any questions at all. Why? Because he did not want to know. He had taken the risk and chosen his man, and Whitehall had to follow.

It is the duty of the Prime Minister to ensure that he is telling the truth—or does the ministerial code not apply to him? I am only holding the Prime Minister to the same standard to which he held others. On 26 January 2022, he said from this Dispatch Box to a previous Prime Minister:

“If he misled Parliament, he must resign.”—[Official Report, 26 January 2022; Vol. 707, c. 994.]

Does he stand by those words, or is there one rule for him and another for everyone else?

[The Prime Minister]

Let me respond to those points. First, when I found out what had happened on Tuesday evening last, I wanted to have answers to the questions of who had made the decision to give clearance on developed vetting contrary to the advice, why that was done, and who knew about it, so that I could provide the information to the House. That is the exercise that has been conducted since Tuesday evening, so that I could come here today to give the full account to the House, which I have just set out.

The right hon. Lady asks me about developed vetting security clearance after the appointment. What I set out was not my words; I read out the evidence of the former permanent secretary and the former Cabinet Secretary in relation to that. I think the quotes that I have given the House are clear enough.

The right hon. Lady asks why Peter Mandelson failed. It is important to make a distinction between the information provided to the review and the recommendation. The information in the review must be, and has been, protected—otherwise, the integrity of the entire system would fall away—but the recommendation does not have to be, and should not have been, protected.

In relation to the answer about full due process, that was the information that I had and which I put before the House, and it was confirmed to me by Sir Chris Wormald. In September, I asked him to conduct a review of the process to assure me that the process was correctly carried out. He did that and wrote to me on 16 September to give me his conclusions. In relation to reports in the media, No. 10 was repeatedly asked about the facts surrounding Peter Mandelson’s clearance, and was assured that the proper process was followed in that case.

In relation to those in No. 10, let me give the answer. Nobody in No. 10 was informed about UKSV’s recommendation. To be clear, and for the record, the Cabinet Office permanent secretary received information recently, and then sought the necessary and legal advice. Once those checks were completed by the Cabinet Office permanent secretary, I was told. That is in the last two weeks or so, and that was entirely the right procedure—to get the legal advice, and then to bring it to my attention at the first opportunity. The right procedure was followed by my officials in the last few weeks.

In relation to why I was furious about the process, it was for the very reason that I strongly believe I should have been given this information at the very outset. I strongly believe there were repeated times when I should have been told. I should have been told on appointment, and I should have been told when Peter Mandelson was sacked. The Cabinet Secretary should have been told when he reviewed the process. The Foreign Secretary should have been told before she was asked to sign a statement to the Select Committee, and I should have been told when I ordered a review of vetting.

In relation to the point that the right hon. Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch) makes about what I said in February, in answer to a question of hers, I make it very clear that I had not seen the security vetting file. I did not know that UKSV—[Interruption.] The question asked was about vetting. I knew about the due diligence, which is why I put before the House what I knew about the due diligence in relation to Epstein. I told the House what the due diligence had said. I did not tell it what security vetting had said, because I had not seen the file in relation to that. As for the particular details on Peter Mandelson, I acted on all the information I had available to me. The simple fact of the matter is that I should have had more information; I did not have that information. The House should have had that information, and I have now set it out in full to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Dame Emily Thornberry.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

The truth is that my Committee did ask. We asked on the record, and we got a partial truth that could hardly be the whole truth. We are on record as asking the very questions that hecklers on the Opposition Benches say should have been asked. The answers are there, on the record; people can see what we got when we did ask.

A month before Mandelson’s appointment was announced, the then Cabinet Secretary advised that the necessary security clearance should be acquired before a political appointment was confirmed. That does not seem to have been the usual practice. I am glad that it has changed, because the process was clearly abused. Someone—probably Peter Mandelson himself—leaked his appointment as US ambassador to the press, which effectively bounced the Government into confirming it. When the confirmation of his appointment came forward, neither the offer letter to Peter Mandelson nor the Government’s press release made it clear that the appointment was subject to vetting. Does it not look as though, for certain members of the Prime Minister’s team, getting Peter Mandelson the job was a priority that overrode everything else, and security considerations were very much second order?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her question. Her Committee did ask relevant questions, and that is why I have indicated that it was unforgivable that the Foreign Secretary was asked to sign a statement in response to those very questions without being told about the recommendation. The questions were asked; the Foreign Secretary was advised and asked to sign a statement without being told the relevant information. That is unforgivable. As for the appointment before developed vetting, I have changed that process now, so that it can never happen again; my right hon. Friend the Committee Chair heard me quote the evidence of the former Cabinet Secretary and the former permanent secretary in relation to that.

Let me deal with my right hon. Friend’s third point, which is that somehow Downing Street’s wish to appoint Peter Mandelson overrode security concerns—[Interruption.] No, Mr Speaker, let me be very clear: if I had been told that Peter Mandelson, or anybody else, had failed or not been given clearance on security vetting, I would not have appointed them. A deliberate decision was taken to withhold that material from me. This was not a lack of asking; this was not an oversight—[Interruption.] It was a decision taken not to share that information on repeated occasions.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Sir Ed Davey, Leader of the Liberal Democrats.

[Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)]

It is 2022 all over again. Back then, when the Prime Minister was in opposition, and when it was Boris Johnson who was accused of misleading Parliament and scapegoating senior officials, the then Leader of the Opposition could not have been clearer; he said:

“The public need to know that not all politicians are the same—that not all politicians put themselves above their country—and that honesty, integrity and accountability matter.”—[Official Report, 25 May 2022; Vol. 715, c. 298.]

He promised “change”. He promised to

“break this cycle and stop the chaos.”

He promised a Government with

“more focus on long-term strategy, not the short-term distractions that can animate Westminster.”

I am afraid that the fact that he has even had to make a statement today shows how badly he has failed—how badly he has let down the millions of people across our country who are so desperate for change.

The Prime Minister blames his officials. He says that he had “no idea”. He gives every impression of a Prime Minister in office, but not in power. The facts remain, even by his own account, that the Prime Minister appointed Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United States even after he had been warned about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. The Prime Minister announced the appointment before Mandelson had been vetted, despite the clear risk to national security of putting someone unsuitable in that role. One of his top officials, just three weeks into the job, clearly believed that the Prime Minister wanted Mandelson to be appointed regardless of what the vetting process turned up. The Prime Minister has relied on the vetting process to defend his decisions, so why did he ask so few questions personally about the vetting process?

We all know the truth: the Prime Minister knew that appointing Mandelson was an enormous risk, but he decided that it was a risk worth taking—a catastrophic error of judgment. Now that has blown up in his face, the only decent thing to do is take responsibility. Back in 2022, the Prime Minister rightly accused Boris Johnson of expecting others to take the blame while he clung on. That was not acceptable then, and it is not acceptable now. I hope that the Prime Minister can at least tell the House this. We will be listening very carefully to his answer. Was he given advice by Simon Case, the then Cabinet Secretary, that the necessary security clearances should be acquired before he confirmed his choice for US ambassador? Did the Prime Minister follow that advice—yes or no?

After years of chaos under the Conservatives, we needed a Government focused on the interests of the people—the cost of living crisis, the health and care crisis, and our national security. We needed a Government with honesty, integrity and accountability. Will the Prime Minister finally accept that the only way that he can help to deliver that is by resigning?

[The Prime Minister]

I set out in my statement the full facts. In September, when the Bloomberg emails came to light, I asked the then Cabinet Secretary to review the process. He told me that the process was as it should have been, and as soon as the information about the security vetting came to light last Tuesday, I asked for the facts to be established, so that I could update Parliament.

The right hon. Gentleman asks me about the announcement before developed vetting. He has heard the evidence that I have given to the House from the former Cabinet Secretary and from the former permanent secretary. In relation to the advice from Simon Case, when I asked the former Cabinet Secretary to review the process after September 2025, he specifically addressed whether the process had been followed by referencing the Simon Case letter, and assured me that the process was the right process to have followed. In answer to his question, that was specifically looked at by Sir Chris Wormald in the review that was conducted in September last year.

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Ind)]

The Prime Minister has gone on at considerable length about process and procedure, but ordinary people do not really care about process and procedure; they want transparency, and they want to know that they can have confidence in the words of elected politicians like all of us in this Chamber.

It was in the ’90s that Peter Mandelson had to resign from the Cabinet for the first time, because of his dealings with the millionaire Geoffrey Robinson. A few years later, he had to resign from the Cabinet for the second time, because of his relationships with the billionaire Hinduja family. Peter Mandelson has a history. Knowing that history, which goes back 30 years, and given what is known, it is one thing to say, as the Prime Minister insists on saying, “Nobody told me; nobody told me anything,” but what this House wants to know is: why did the Prime Minister not ask?

[The Prime Minister]

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

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

The Prime Minister has spoken about process, the reviews, and trying to put that which went wrong right. That is to be supported, but he is asking the House and the country to believe that notwithstanding a front-page media splash saying that Peter Mandelson had failed the vetting process, there was nobody in No. 10 or in any Government Department who even thought to say, “Is there any truth in this? Could I have a briefing on that? We need to knock this story down.” If nobody asked, that is the shameful thing; does it not say to the Prime Minister that the operation of his Government, which seems to be, “Process, strategy, review, never my fault,” is not sustainable, or welcomed by the country at large?

[The Prime Minister]

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

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

Many on the Labour Benches, at least, will appreciate my right hon. and learned Friend’s apology today, but many of us remain bewildered about why the appointment took place, despite the warnings that many of us gave him. Is not the reality this? When he sought to realise his ambition to become leader of the Labour party, with very little base within the party, he became dependent on McSweeney, Mandelson and Labour Together to organise and fund his election. When he became the Prime Minister, the reward for McSweeney was control of No. 10, and the reward for Mandelson was the highest diplomatic office. The unspoken message to civil servants was, “What Mandelson wants, Mandelson gets.” This has damaged the party that I have been a member of for 50 years. I urge the Prime Minister to take steps to clear this toxic culture out of our party, and to take the first step by having an independent inquiry into Labour Together.

[The Prime Minister]

Let me deal with what is at the heart of that question, in relation to an unspoken message to civil servants. I do not accept that. It is simply not good enough, on a question of national security where the recommendation is that clearance be denied, for anyone, particularly senior civil servants, to do anything other than provide me with the relevant information. That is what should have happened in this case.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)]

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 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 tranche of information we were to consider. We did not receive anything about vetting at that time.

The Prime Minister has now told us that he became aware on Tuesday evening of the information he has set out, but the Intelligence and Security Committee was not told about the existence of that information—information that the Prime Minister must have recognised 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 that information until Thursday, after its existence had been published in The Guardian newspaper. As such, I am bound to ask the Prime Minister this: if that information’s existence had not been disclosed by the press, would we have been told about it? If so, why did the ISC have to learn of its existence from The Guardian and not from the Government?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his question. The answer is yes, it would have been provided to the Committee, and as I think he acknowledged, it has now been provided to the Committee. The reason for the delay is that on Tuesday night, I found out simply that the recommendation had been made to deny clearance, and yet clearance had been given. I wanted to understand who gave that clearance, on what basis and who knew about it, so that I could update the House and obviously make the information available to the Committee. That is what I asked on Tuesday night my officials to do urgently, so that the full picture could be put before both the House and the Committee, and I will make sure that the full picture is put before the Committee.

[Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)]

Many of my constituents are rightly appalled that someone who betrayed not just our country but every single victim of Jeffrey Epstein was able to serve in such a prestigious position. Whatever the judgment in the security vetting file, that decision to appoint him was wrong, and I welcome the Prime Minister’s owning of, and apology for, that moment. However, many of my constituents are also rightly concerned to learn that not a single democratically elected official in Government was informed about the decision. Given this, what conversations is the Prime Minister instigating right across Government to ensure that, in future, our democratic decision-makers are given the full picture of these crucial judgments?

[The Prime Minister]

That is precisely why I have asked for the entire developed vetting process to be reviewed by Sir Adrian Fulford, and I have made it absolutely clear to this House and to the civil service that my strong view is that the information that was not provided to me could have been provided and should have been provided.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

The Prime Minister wants us to focus on process and not his judgment, but this entire sorry episode is the direct result of his decision to make a direct appointment to one of the most senior roles in the FCDO of somebody who was wholly inappropriate for that role. Will the Prime Minister at least confirm to the House that this was a singular error of judgment, and that his No. 10 operation has not proposed a political appointee for any other senior role in the FCDO?

[The Prime Minister]

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

[Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)]

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 that decisions of such significance could be taken without the knowledge of the Prime Minister. I have worked closely with the Prime Minister, and I know how seriously he takes national security and accountability to this House. Will he set out what steps he will take to remove any ambiguity, so that where there are serious concerns, those risks are flagged to Ministers, ensuring that accountability to this House and to the country is always upheld?

[The Prime Minister]

That is why last week the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister suspended the power of the FCDO to make a recommendation or to take a decision contrary to the recommendation of UKSV.

[David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)]

The Prime Minister rebuffed first the Leader of the Opposition and then the leader of the Liberal Democrats for saying that the then Cabinet Secretary’s advice to the Prime Minister was to get the clearance before the announcement. I will read one sentence from a document entitled “Options for HMA Washington”, from the Cabinet Secretary of the day to the Prime Minister personally. It states:

“If this is the route that 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 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.”

The House does not want to hear about what Mr Wormald said a year later. That was the advice then; why did the Prime Minister not follow it?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Member reads out the passage from Mr Case’s advice. The process that was followed was what I understood to be the usual process—in other words, the appointment was subject to security vetting. It is why, when Sir Chris Wormald looked at it in September, he addressed the question by reference back to Simon Case’s letter, because I wanted to know that the process that had been followed was the right process. That is what Sir Chris Wormald looked at. He looked at it expressly by reference to the Simon Case letter that has just been read out, and assured me that the right process was followed when he reviewed it.

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Ind)]

Anybody who knows the Prime Minister will know full well that he would never, ever deliberately mislead this House, but the reality is this: ex post facto vetting is utterly pointless when the appointment is political. The trouble that we all face is that trust in the Prime Minister and in politics is diminishing as this sorry saga continues. In the 17 days we have leading up to those very important elections, what does the Prime Minister propose to do to win back the trust of the country?

[The Prime Minister]

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

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

The harshest and most important truth in 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 political choice to put Peter Mandelson in as the UK’s most senior diplomat in the United States of America, despite knowing that he had maintained a friendship with Jeffrey Epstein himself. We have since seen Peter Mandelson investigated for potential misconduct in public office, and we of course now learn through the media that Peter Mandelson had failed his security vetting. The Prime Minister blames all this—all of it—on the judgment of others, but I am interested in his judgment. Does he believe himself to be gullible, incompetent, or both?

[The Prime Minister]

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

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Prime Minister is being candid about some of the challenges in this process. I am sure that he will share the frustration felt across the House as revelations keep coming and this matter keeps coming back to Parliament. He says that he has acted to prevent any further challenges in the vetting system for the Government in respect of senior appointments. Can he therefore give all our constituents, and the House, the reassurance that he has no further sense that there will be any challenges to any other senior appointments through the vetting process that this Government have made?

[The Prime Minister]

That is precisely why I have asked for a review of the security vetting to be carried out. I have no reason to believe that to be the case, but I want to be assured about the security vetting process, and that is why I have asked Sir Adrian Fulford to look at it, so that he can give me that further reassurance. I will then, of course, pass that on to the House.

[Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)]

The Prime Minister has just told us that after he sacked Peter Mandelson, he changed the process so that now an appointment cannot be announced until after security vetting is passed. Why did he do that if he did not think there was a problem with the security vetting?

[The Prime Minister]

In September it became clear to me that in relation to the due diligence that had been carried out by the Cabinet Office, Peter Mandelson had been asked questions by my staff and 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 Sir Chris Wormald, which he carried out, but I also made it immediately clear that I would change the due process so that, whether in the case of direct ministerial appointments or that of any other appointments, the same process was gone through. I also wanted to make it clear that I did not think it right that appointments should be announced before security vetting was gone through in any circumstances, and therefore I changed it straight away.

[Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)]

My constituents are deeply concerned about the appointment of Peter Mandelson, and they want to see complete transparency going forward. I am very concerned to read that the civil servants in the Cabinet Office may have had this information about a month ago, and it has taken them this long to be in a position to share it with the democratically elected person making the appointment. What can the Prime Minister share with us today so that we do not have to face this type of issue in the future?

[The Prime Minister]

May I address that head-on? What happened was that the information came to the attention of senior civil servants who were, in fact, doing the compliance work on the Humble Address. When they saw the information about developed vetting they took legal advice straight away, asking whether it was 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 and appropriate thing for them to do. There is no criticism of what they did.

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

We know that MI6’s finding last September that Mandelson had compromising business interests was accurate—I mentioned it myself on 15 September 2025. He failed his security vetting. We also know that the former Cabinet Secretary advised the Prime Minister to carry out security clearance for Mandelson before his appointment. It was reported in The Times yesterday that Mandelson was given STRAP—the very highest security vetting, well beyond DV—despite being failed for DV. It is likely that the Americans will have serious questions about what secrets of theirs a compromised British ambassador might have accessed. Despite all this, we also know that the PM and No. 10 were utterly determined to appoint Mandelson as ambassador to DC, come hell or high water. My question is: why?

[The Prime Minister]

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

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

I thank the Prime Minister for his heartfelt statement and—if we are judging parties on actions, not words—for reviving the post of anti-corruption tsar. It was vacant for years and years under three of his predecessors, starting with Boris Johnson’s lockdown breaches. Now that we have the heavyweight Margaret Hodge in post, what plans does the Prime Minister have for this broader policy area?

[The Prime Minister]

I am sure that Margaret Hodge will do a very good job in that role, as she has done in so many other roles previously.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Who first suggested to the Prime Minister that Mandelson should be appointed as our ambassador to the United States, or was it just his own idea? Did it never cross his mind that Mandelson was at risk of failing the vetting process? Before sacking Oliver Robbins last week, did the Prime Minister ask him why he overruled the verdict of the security vetters, and if so, what was his explanation?

[The Prime Minister]

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

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

At the beginning of February 2026, we learned from former Prime Minister Gordon Brown that Peter Mandelson had shared highly sensitive Government information with Jeffrey Epstein. At that juncture, if I had been in the Prime Minister’s shoes, I would have been forensic in recognising a security risk and wanting detailed answers. What is not adding up for me is why we are now getting this information in mid-April, and why the Prime Minister did not drill down to ensure that we had the security information that we have learned Peter Mandelson clearly breached.

[The Prime Minister]

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

[Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)]

Further to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), I think the Prime Minister owes it to the House to tell us what Sir Olly Robbins’s response to him was when he said he had overruled that advice. In my experience, senior officials are very keen to deliver on the wishes of Ministers, particularly a newly elected Prime Minister. My concern is that implicitly, as other Members have said, Sir Olly Robbins was responding to a desire from the Prime Minister, because it was perfectly clear in all the newspapers that there were allegations about Peter Mandelson, but the Prime Minister decided to proceed anyway. The official wished to deliver on the desire of the Minister, and that is why he overruled the advice. I fear that it gave the Prime Minister a degree of plausible deniability.

[The Prime Minister]

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

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

There are 61 conflicts raging around the world, and I have never known international diplomatic relationships to be more fractured. The FCDO is pushing through 40% cuts of aid and 25% cuts of staff, all under the watch of the permanent secretary, so can I ask the Prime Minister what risk assessment was carried out before he was removed?

[The Prime Minister]

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

[Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)]

The problem the Prime Minister has got is no one believes him. The public do not believe him, the MPs on this side of the House do not believe him and his own gullible Back Benchers do not believe him. So does the Prime Minister agree with me he has been lying?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sorry, but we do not use that word, and I am sure the Member will withdraw it.

[Lee Anderson]

Mr Speaker, I have the greatest respect for you and your office, but I will not withdraw: that man could not lie straight in bed.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Mr Anderson, you will have to leave.

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

When Sir Olly Robbins came before the Foreign Affairs Committee on 3 November last year, he was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Walton (Dan Carden) whether, in the context of vetting, Lord Mandelson’s appointment was escalated. Citing a need to maintain the integrity of the vetting system, Sir Olly replied:

“I certainly cannot comment on that, I’m afraid”.

Does the Prime Minister not find it perverse that, when specifically asked by Members of this Parliament about Mandelson’s vetting, Sir Olly declined to discuss the very topic we are now debating in this House?

[The Prime Minister]

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

[Sir Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)]

Further to the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden), is it not pretty poor form that the Prime Minister shovels the blame for this particularly on to Olly Robbins, a fine and experienced civil servant, who was appointed two days after the Prime Minister’s Mandelson announcement? Surely, the buck stops at the top.

[The Prime Minister]

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

[Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. I know he is aware that public confidence in politicians needs to drastically improve to retain the public’s trust. With that in mind, Reform has been accepting donations from millionaires in cryptocurrency, making it difficult to trace who actually funds it. Does the Prime Minister agree that Reform relying on millionaires’ dodgy cryptocurrency is a security risk?

[The Prime Minister]

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

[Mr Speaker]

Order. That is irrelevant. Let’s move on.

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

In the readout of the Prime Minister’s meeting on 15 April on vetting, it states:

“There is no evidence that the decision to grant DV despite the UKSV advice had been disclosed to anyone outside FCDO and UKSV”

until the vetting document itself was shared with the permanent secretary of the Cabinet Office. Is the Prime Minister therefore saying that neither the Chair of the Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security nor the National Security Adviser were aware of the security risk with our most important strategic ally until the vetting document itself was shared with Cat Little?

[The Prime Minister]

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

[Gurinder Singh Josan (Smethwick) (Lab)]

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and for the clarity contained within it, and for his apology again. Despite the protestations of Opposition party leaders and Opposition Members, and including some Members on the Government Benches too, I am sure that everybody in this House agrees that the Government of the day should take the advice of our intelligence and vetting services and act on it. In view of everything we have heard—this is the fundamental question for me—how can the Government act on intelligence service and vetting advice if Ministers never get to receive that advice?

[The Prime Minister]

In many instances, it is the recommendation of UKSV that is effectively the final decision, so of course it is known. In the Foreign Office, there is the additional part of the process in which the final decision is, in fact, taken by Foreign Office officials rather than the recommendation of UKSV. That is what has now been suspended so that in the Foreign Office as well, the recommendation of UKSV is what matters.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

The Prime Minister knows he is the main character in an ongoing national scandal. Given all the blame apportioned in his statement, it is incredible that only one person has lost their position. Does the Prime Minister also recognise that it is incredible to learn that in Northern Ireland a political appointment was made following the refusal to clear an individual for security access; that they have continued in their post and engaged on issues connected with the legacy of our troubled past with full security clearance, despite security service concerns; and that they continue to this day? If the Prime Minister is ordering a review by Sir Adrian Fulford, will he ensure it includes within its terms of reference or separately a deep dive into the appointment of Marie Anderson, the Northern Ireland police ombudsman: why she was appointed, why the security information was ignored, and how that can be the case?

[The Prime Minister]

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

[Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)]

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 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. Does he believe that there is a problem within the civil service that promotion and advancement is on the back of not giving your Ministers problems and that on this occasion the senior official at the FCDO knew that if he did tell the Prime Minister what he ought to have told the Prime Minister, he was bringing him a problem?

[The Prime Minister]

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

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

May I just point out that the developed vetting process has always been highly protected because otherwise it would not work? People would not give information to the developed vetting process if they thought that any detail of it was likely to be disclosed, or even if they thought that the result—the assessment of low, medium or high risk—was likely to be exposed. That is why the previous Labour Government wrote section 3 into the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010: in order to prohibit that disclosure. If the Prime Minister is saying that developed vetting information will now be available to Ministers on a routine basis, would he not be undermining the very process upon which we depend for our national security?

[The Prime Minister]

With respect, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman’s analysis. I certainly agree that the information that is provided into the process by the applicant has to be protected; as anybody who has been through the process will know, it is incredibly detailed and intrusive, and it is very important that individuals give full and truthful accounts for all the questions they are asked. That is why that information needs to be protected. I do not accept that that means that the recommendation of UKSV cannot be shared with Ministers, including the Prime Minister. I think there is a distinction between the two; I accept the first, but I utterly reject the second.

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Foreign Office shared the outcome of the vetting process, but not the conclusions of the vetting reports—not just the detail, but the conclusions. 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?

[The Prime Minister]

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

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

I am going to try again, because a number of right hon. and hon. Members have asked this question, and I am not quite sure I have heard an answer from the Prime Minister. Why did he choose to ignore the advice from the then Cabinet Secretary, Simon Case, to seek security vetting before confirming Peter Mandelson as his pick?

[The Prime Minister]

I understood the procedure to be that the appointment was made subject to the security vetting. [Interruption.] That is what I was told. The question the hon. Lady raises is the question I raised in September, which is why I asked Sir Chris Wormald to look at the process, and in particular at the advice in the letter from Simon Case, to answer the question of whether the process was followed, and he—[Interruption.] Well, he gave me the answer that he thought right, having concluded that process.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. For clarity, could he confirm to whom, and when, the UK Security Vetting report outcomes were made available? Could he also say what guidance is given to senior officials on matters that must be escalated to their Ministers?

[The Prime Minister]

The process was that UKSV informs the FCDO of its findings and its recommendation, and then there is an escalation process, which is part of the process in the sense that it is for the FCDO, in these particular cases, to make the final decision, which is what it did in this case.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

Can I return to the nub of what this is about? The Prime Minister knew, as we all knew, of the representations about who should be the ambassador—in this case, a man who had been sacked twice out of Cabinet but, more than that, a man whose clear links with Chinese companies and whose meetings with Xi were in the public domain at the time, as were his time at Sistema, where he stayed after the invasion in 2014, and his meetings with Putin. There was also, of course, his relationship with Deripaska, who was negotiating on the tax levels and tariffs on aluminium when he was the EU commissioner responsible. With all that going on at the time of the Prime Minister’s announcement of that man into the ambassadorial position, why did he think he did not know something about him? The Prime Minister knew that he was corrupt, he was corrupting and he was the wrong choice. Surely that is why the Prime Minister overturned Case’s advice to have the review before he made the decision.

[The Prime Minister]

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

[Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)]

Today’s statement may well be about process and procedure, but surely the real issue for the Prime Minister is why, when Peter Mandelson’s reputation was already known, he was ever considered for such an important role.

[The Prime Minister]

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

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

The Prime Minister says it is “staggering” and “unforgiveable” that he was not told about the vetting, but what is really staggering and unforgiveable is that he appointed Peter Mandelson before the vetting—that he appointed Peter Mandelson knowing about his friendship with the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein. What is unforgiveable is that the Prime Minister was more concerned with pandering to Donald Trump than with standing with the victims and survivors. The Prime Minister has not accepted a simple “sorry” from his civil servant—he thinks that is inadequate. The country thinks that a simple “sorry” is inadequate from him. Will he take personal responsibility for his staggering and unforgiveable errors of judgment—and resign?

[The Prime Minister]

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

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister made the political decision to appoint Peter Mandelson, but central to that decision, along with other decisions about policy and political position, would have been the Prime Minister’s former chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney. Can the Prime Minister confirm to the House whether Morgan McSweeney passed all his security vetting and whether he ever handled documents for which he had anything other than the appropriate level of clearance?

[The Prime Minister]

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

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

If, as we have been assured, there was no law that prevented the permanent under-secretary from telling the Prime Minister the outcome of Mandelson’s developed vetting, then presumably by the same token there was no law that prevented the Prime Minister from asking. Can he be very clear with the House on one point? Did he as Prime Minister ever ask the question, “Did Mandelson fail his vetting?” and if he did ask that question, who did he ask it of and when did he ask it?

[The Prime Minister]

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

[Mr Francois]

Come on.

[The Prime Minister]

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

[Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister has always behaved with the utmost integrity and honour when dealing with this House, and he is an eminent lawyer who understands the consequences of deliberately coming to the House to mislead Parliament. On top of that, he also understands the likelihood of a paper trail unravelling such a deception, so it is inconceivable that he would intentionally mislead this House. But does he agree with me that all the documents relevant to this matter must be made public in accordance with the Humble Address that was passed on 4 February and that no Ministers or officials should engage in trying to prevent any of the documents from being made public?

[The Prime Minister]

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

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

The Prime Minister said today, “I know that many Members across this House will find these facts to be incredible.” He is right: we do—along with his staggering lack of curiosity and his inability to take on board warnings about his good friend Peter Mandelson. The Prime Minister was given a due diligence document by the Cabinet Office, which told him several reasons why Peter Mandelson should not be appointed, including that he was fired twice from Government, had business dealings in Russia and China, and had maintained a relationship with Epstein after his imprisonment for paedophilia. The Prime Minister knew this but appointed him anyway. Why, Prime Minister, why?

[The Prime Minister]

Peter Mandelson was asked various questions on the back of the due diligence exercise and he did not tell the truth in his answers. The decision to appoint him was an error: it was my error, and I have apologised for it.

[Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)]

It is accepted by many on the Government Benches that the Prime Minister did not know the outcome of the vetting, but the Cabinet Secretary came forward on Tuesday, having spent a month researching whether or not she could provide the advice that she did, so she had clearly thought very carefully about the information that she brought forward. The Prime Minister then launched an investigation, rather than coming straight to the House with the information that she had provided. Was that because the information was insufficient to present to the House? If so, when was the Prime Minister planning to come to the House?

[The Prime Minister]

It was insufficient because all it told me was that the recommendation of UKSV was to deny the clearance. What it did not tell me was who then provided the clearance, why they did it and who knew about it. They were questions that the House would obviously want to raise with me, which is why I urgently asked for those facts to be established: so that I could come to the House and provide the full account that I have provided to the House.

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

Developed vetting should be carried out before someone has “frequent and uncontrolled access” to top-secret material or any access to top-secret or coded—otherwise known as STRAP—material. The Prime Minister has promised full transparency, so I ask him these three questions. Did Peter Mandelson have access to any top-secret or STRAP material before his DV clearance on 29 January? Did Peter Mandelson have any restrictions placed on his access to top-secret or STRAP material during his time in Washington? If so, has the Prime Minister assured himself that Mandelson did not leak any of this material, just as he leaked commercially confidential material to Jeffrey Epstein under Gordon Brown?

[The Prime Minister]

I do 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 his post, and that is why I have ordered a review of any security concerns that may arise.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)]

We all find it staggering that someone can fail their security vetting and still be appointed to such a sensitive and critical role. It is even more staggering that the Prime Minister was not informed of that failure. I agree with what the Prime Minister said: he did not need to know the details, but he did need to know that Mandelson had failed the security vetting. My question to the Prime Minister is about the detail. If people did not know what the security concerns were of Peter Mandelson, how could any Minister, official or state deal with him on sensitive security issues? I understand that the Prime Minister is doing an inquiry into that, but it is very important that Parliament has oversight of the issue, because I am very concerned that there has been another failure there—the failure to manage our security interests.

[The Prime Minister]

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

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

When I was privileged to serve as Security Minister, the Prime Minister was my shadow. As we dealt with matters of the most significant national security, he was straightforward with me, as I was with him, so I hope that he will answer this straightforward question. The Humble Address made it clear that the Intelligence and Security Committee will see any material related to national security or international relations. In the course of the Committee’s work, we have liaised with the Cabinet Office, clearly. When did the Cabinet Office know about this failure in vetting, who knew, and why did they not bring that material to the Committee when they found it? We had not received it when the Prime Minister found out that the vetting had failed, yet others must have known that it had failed.

[The Prime Minister]

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

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

Peter Mandelson’s conduct has disgraced himself and, by extension, brought shame upon the two Houses of which he was formerly a Member. Does the Prime Minister agree that the famous Armstrong memorandum on the conduct of the civil service was correct and holds true today, as it says that

“it is the duty of the civil servant to make available to the Minister all the information and experience at his or her disposal which may have a bearing on the policy decisions to which the Minister is committed or…preparing to make, and to give to the Minister honest and impartial advice, without fear or favour, and whether the advice accords with the Minister’s view or not”?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, I do agree with that. That is why this information could and should have been shared with me at the first opportunity—and that was before Peter Mandelson took up his post as ambassador.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

The Prime Minister is hiding behind a thicket of legalese and procedure, but he has a track record of appointing Labour’s most favoured sons and daughters to plum Government jobs and into the House of Lords. In Wales, we know all about Labour’s crony culture—who could forget UK Labour’s favourite First Minister, Vaughan Gething, who was propped up by No. 10 in spite of dodgy donations and is now tipped for a peerage? On the timing, how will the Prime Minister explain to his party his role in bringing down Labour’s century of dominance in Wales in the forthcoming elections?

[The Prime Minister]

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

[Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

In December 2024, the Prime Minister said in announcing Peter Mandelson as US ambassador that he had “unrivalled experience”. That was despite the gravity of what was known about Peter Mandelson’s record and available publicly. Is it not the case 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 happen—however it happened—because of Mandelson’s role in the Prime Minister’s own leadership campaign and because it served the interests of one particular faction in the Labour party?

[The Prime Minister]

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

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

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 someone that our own security services deemed to be a security risk. Will he assure us that an investigation 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?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, I will.

[Tahir Ali (Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley) (Lab)]

I believe that there are two sides to this. One is about process, and the other is about judgment. On process, I believe that the Prime Minister was not told about the security vetting clearance, and that, had he known, he would have sacked Peter Mandelson. We do not have a problem with that. The problem is this: why was he not told that, and who is actually running the country? Are other Ministers being kept in the dark by civil servants? On the issue of judgment, it was completely wrong to put Mandelson forward as an ambassador in the first place. Will the Prime Minister write to me this week confirming that in all the political appointments that have been made, no one is in position who has failed the advanced security vetting process?

[The Prime Minister]

That is included in the review that I have set up, and as soon as I have the findings I will share them with the House.

[Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)]

This saga is drawing to a close, and it will come to a conclusion with the Prime Minister’s resignation, whether he can accept that or not. What I cannot accept is the “ask me no secrets and I’ll tell you no lies” regime that he expects us to believe prevailed at the very top of Government between officials and not just Ministers but the Prime Minister. He has talked a lot today about what he did not know and what he was not told. Well, he knew that Mandelson had a serious human frailty for other people’s wealth. We knew that Mandelson was involved with the Russians. We knew that Mandelson was sacked twice as a Government Minister. Can the Prime Minister explain what Mandelson’s actual qualities were that he was pursuing for the role as US ambassador, and what steps he has taken to contain the serious and measurable breach in national security that his appointment of Peter Mandelson facilitated?

[The Prime Minister]

I have made it clear that it was an error to appoint Peter Mandelson. There is a review going on into any security issues that may arise.

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

I welcome the Prime Minister saying that he should not have appointed Peter Mandelson. In November, in the Foreign Affairs Committee, I asked who saw the vetting and was told this by Sir Olly Robbins:

“Obviously, the vast majority of those are relatively straightforward. Ones that require more senior judgment, and potentially a discussion about managing and mitigating risks, are escalated appropriately.”

Questions being asked by the Foreign Secretary, by Ministers or by officials in No. 10 should have been a signal to the civil servants to escalate this matter, given the controversial nature of this political appointment. Were concerns about links to Epstein, to other countries or to anything else raised in conversations with Peter Mandelson, just before the time of the appointment, that would have signalled that civil servants should escalate this?

[The Prime Minister]

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

[Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

It seems to me that there are two different ways in which a Minister can inadvertently mislead this House: one is by the things that they say, and the other is by the things that they do not say. That is why I am particularly interested in the letter from Lord Case that my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) raised, because it seems to have been written to the Prime Minister in November 2024, advising that a political appointment to an ambassadorial role ought to be preceded by full security vetting before being announced. It was announced by the Prime Minister in December 2024. Did he write that he wanted his decision to be subject to Peter Mandelson passing the full security vetting? What did he write on his box note?