Security Vetting

David Davis Excerpts

Monday 20th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[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.