Security Vetting Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate
Department: Cabinet Office

Security Vetting

Fleur Anderson Excerpts
Monday 20th April 2026

(1 day, 11 hours ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Keir Starmer Portrait The Prime Minister
- View Speech - Hansard - - - Excerpts

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 Portrait Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
- View Speech - Hansard - -

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?