Oral Answers to Questions
Kemi Badenoch Excerpts(1 day, 22 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
Does the Prime Minister stand by his statement at the Dispatch Box on 10 September last year that
“full due process was followed”—[Official Report, 10 September 2025; Vol. 772, c. 859]
in the appointment of Peter Mandelson as our ambassador to Washington?
The Prime Minister
Yes, I do. Let me make it clear at the outset that the appointment itself was a mistake. It was my mistake. I have apologised to the victims for it, and I do so again. What I set out to the House on Monday is that Foreign Office officials granted security clearance to Mandelson against the recommendation of UK Security Vetting. Yesterday, Sir Olly Robbins was asked if he shared that decision with me, No. 10 or any other Ministers. He gave a clear answer: no. That puts to bed all the allegations levelled at me by those opposite in relation to dishonesty. I believe—[Interruption.] Last week, they were all saying that it must have been shared with me; Sir Olly was very clear yesterday it was not. I believe not sharing it was a serious error of judgment. That information should have been shared with me and other Ministers, and if it had been, Mandelson would not have been committed to post.
Mrs Badenoch
It has not put to bed anything. On 11 November 2024—long before any vetting had happened—the Prime Minister received advice from Simon Case, the then Cabinet Secretary. The advice said the appointment would require
“the necessary security clearances…before confirming”
the Prime Minister’s choice. This advice was ignored, so how can the Prime Minister still believe that confirming Mandelson before the security clearances was following “full due process”?
The Prime Minister
This was looked into by Sir Chris Wormald. I asked him to review the appointment process, including the vetting. He confirmed—his words—“appropriate processes were followed”. The Leader of the Opposition has put great weight on the order of events. I remind her what Sir Chris said last November in evidence to the House. He said that
“when we are making appointments from outside the civil service…the normal thing is for…security clearance to happen after appointment but before the person signs a contract and takes up post.”
That is what happened in this case. Sir Olly Robbins himself also gave evidence, and he said that
“as is normally the case with external appointments”
in his Department,
“the appointment was made subject to obtaining security clearance.”
On top of that, Sir Olly Robbins has made it clear that the fact that developed vetting was after the announcement made, in his words, no material difference to the conclusion that was reached. I add this: what Sir Olly Robbins wrote to the Committee yesterday was this:
“When the Prime Minister informed the House that the proper process had been followed in respect of”
national security vetting,
“he was correct.”
Mrs Badenoch
It is very interesting that the Prime Minister mentions Chris Wormald. He is relying on advice given to him after Mandelson was sacked by a Cabinet Secretary the Prime Minister then sacked. That is not relevant. I am talking about the advice he was given before the appointment. He keeps mentioning Sir Olly Robbins. Sir Olly Robbins told us that the Prime Minister even sought clearance from His Majesty the King before the vetting. He had already got agreement from the US Administration—the Chair of the Select Committee said that. Mandelson was a done deal. Yesterday, Sir Olly Robbins said that the
“focus was on getting Mandelson out to Washington quickly.”
He said the Prime Minister’s team showed a “dismissive attitude” to vetting, and they even argued Peter Mandelson did not need any vetting at all. This clearly was not proper process. Why was due process not followed?
The Prime Minister
Let me deal with this directly, particularly this question of pressure in relation to the decision to appoint Peter Mandelson and to put him in place. Sir Olly Robbins could not have been clearer in his evidence yesterday. He said that
“I didn’t feel under…pressure personally in terms of my judgment”—
his words. He went on to say:
“I…have complete confidence that…recommendations to me and the discussion we had and the decision we made were rigorously independent of”
any “pressure.” On top of that, he was asked if any “conversations…led” him
“to believe that…Mandelson needed to take up this role regardless of”
the vetting outcome. He said:
“I can say with certainty that it was never put to me that way.”
No pressure existed whatsoever in relation to this case. What is unacceptable is that the recommendation of UKSV was not given to me before Mandelson took up his post.
Mrs Badenoch
We all heard what Sir Olly Robbins said yesterday. The fact of the matter is that the Prime Minister spent a lot of time telling us just how furious he was to learn that Mandelson failed the vetting—the same Prime Minister who was trying to get him to Washington without any vetting at all. It’s just unbelievable. The reason the Cabinet Secretary advised the Prime Minister to carry out full vetting before the appointment—this is common sense, Mr Speaker—was to protect our national security. The due diligence document said that Mandelson remained on the board of the Kremlin-linked defence company Sistema long after Putin’s first invasion of Ukraine in 2014. The Prime Minister told us on Monday that he had read that due diligence report. Why did the Prime Minister want to make a man with links to the Kremlin our ambassador in Washington?
The Prime Minister
Let me deal with the first allegation the right hon. Lady put in that question. It was always the case that there would be developed vetting in this case. That was the understood process. That was carried out. It was reviewed by Sir Chris Wormald, and he said it was the appropriate process. Sir Olly was absolutely clear that nobody put pressure on him to make this appointment, whatever the sequence of developed vetting. In relation to what was in the due process, any issues of national security are dealt with in the developed vetting process. I knew that. Peter Mandelson received clearance through that process.
The problem, as I said to the House, was that I was unaware that UKSV recommended against clearance. That is information that should have been brought to my attention. It recommended, with red flags, that there should not be clearance and that it was high concern. That information should have been made available to me at the time and subsequently. The fact that it was not was a very serious error of judgment.
Mrs Badenoch
I do not know what planet the Prime Minister is on. Appointing someone with known links to the Kremlin is not full due process. If anybody had brought that sort of name to me when I was a Secretary of State, I would have said, “No way.” The Prime Minister thought someone with Kremlin links was still probably okay—“Let’s do some vetting.” Why does this matter? He keeps leaning on Sir Olly Robbins, a man he sacked—he keeps leaning on him. Sir Olly Robbins said yesterday that Peter Mandelson was given access to highly classified briefings even before he had received clearance. That was a clear national security risk. How can the Prime Minister still maintain that full due process was followed?
The Prime Minister
As a Member of the House of Lords and Privy Counsellor, and in accordance with guidance, documentation could have been provided to him and was provided to him. STRAP material comes after developed vetting, but because he was a Privy Counsellor he could have access to other material before developed vetting.
Mrs Badenoch
This is a joke. The Prime Minister says a Member of the House of Lords. Does he mean people like Matthew Doyle? [Interruption.] I am amazed at the level of chuntering from Labour MPs. The Prime Minister promised them probity. What he has given them is cronyism and an old boys’ club, where Matthew Doyle is being proposed as an ambassador. It is ridiculous.
We all heard Sir Olly Robbins’ testimony yesterday. The head of the Foreign Office was sacked for the Prime Minister’s own failings. His Back Benchers know that is not fair. Even his most loyal Cabinet members will not defend it. The Prime Minister did not follow the process the then Cabinet Secretary set out in November 2024. He knows he did not follow due process, yet he told the House he had.
Mr Speaker, I cannot accuse the Prime Minister of deliberately misleading the House, but everyone can see what has happened here. This was not due process. Everyone knows the price of misleading the House. Will the Prime Minister finally take responsibility and go?
The Prime Minister
Let us be absolutely clear. Before Mandelson took up his post, UKSV recommended with red flags that clearance should be denied, and there was high concern. That that was not brought to my attention, or to the attention of the Foreign Secretary at the time or subsequently, is a very serious error of judgment, and anyone in my position would have lost confidence in the former permanent secretary. The Leader of the Opposition claimed on Friday that Mandelson could not have been cleared against security advice, but she was wrong about that. She said that Ministers must have been told, but she was wrong about that. She claimed there was deliberate dishonesty, but she was wrong about that—wrong, wrong, wrong. She rushed to judgment, as she always does, just like with the Iran war. I was elected by the British people because the Opposition let the country down for 14 long years. [Interruption.] Whatever she says—whatever noise they make—nothing is going to distract me from delivering for our country.
Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment
Kemi Badenoch Excerpts(2 days, 22 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Government’s accountability to the House in connection to the appointment of Peter Mandelson as Ambassador to the United States of America.
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this important debate.
The Prime Minister personally decided to appoint a serious, known national security risk to our most sensitive diplomatic post. Peter Mandelson was not just a man who had already been sacked twice from Government for lying and not just a man who had a public relationship with a convicted paedophile, but a man with links to the Kremlin and China—links so close that they were raised as red flags with the Prime Minister before his appointment.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister did not deny that he knew about those links before he appointed Mandelson. He could not deny that because by his own admission he had seen the documents that proved the links. I cannot overstate how serious a matter this is. The Prime Minister sent a known security risk to Washington, to a position where he would see our most important ally’s top secret intelligence. What if he had seen something and leaked it to one of our enemies? How much would that have damaged our security partnership? We cannot even be sure that that did not happen.
What is most extraordinary is that the Prime Minister appointed Peter Mandelson before vetting was complete. He did that despite a letter from the then Cabinet Secretary, Lord Case, clearly expressing to the Prime Minister that the process required security vetting to be done before the appointment. So how can he then have claimed on the Floor of the House that the process was followed, when he knew that it had not been? The Prime Minister mentioned the word “process” more than 100 times in Parliament yesterday, but he was the one who did not follow that process.
This morning, we have heard the bombshell testimony of the former permanent secretary of the Foreign Office, Sir Olly Robbins. Sir Olly Robbins had a long and distinguished career serving Ministers. He is not the sort of person to give us a frank personal account of how things played out last January. So when he told us today that Downing Street put the Foreign Office under “constant pressure” to clear Peter Mandelson, that No. 10 showed a “dismissive approach” to Mandelson’s vetting process, that it would have been “very difficult indeed” to deny clearance and that doing so would have “damaged US-UK relationships”, we know he is giving us only the slightest indication of how bad things were. And that there was actually an overwhelming drive from the Prime Minister’s office to ensure Peter Mandelson was installed as ambassador.
Sir Olly Robbins has told us that No. 10 showed no interest in the vetting—no desire to wait and ensure that due process was followed. In fact, the Cabinet Office even questioned the need for Peter Mandelson to be vetted at all: the same Cabinet Office that had discovered Mandelson’s links to Epstein, China and Russia in its due diligence—the Cabinet Office that the Minister is in charge of right now. Instead, according to Robbins,
“The focus was on getting Mandelson out to Washington quickly”,
and before the vetting even started Peter Mandelson had already been granted access to
“highly classified briefing on a case-by-case basis”.
This is what the Prime Minister calls full due process.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
Did my right hon. Friend not find it astonishing that in the testimony today the ex-leader of the Foreign Office said that he was made to understand that before they had completed their clearances, Mandelson already had STRAP clearance, which gave him access to the most secure and most dangerous information held by Government?
Mrs Badenoch
I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. He is absolutely right: it is extraordinary and it is shocking.
The Prime Minister might have refused to answer my question around his knowledge of Mandelson’s links to the Russian defence company Sistema yesterday, but that is only because he knows that we know the answer. It was there in the due diligence: his choice of ambassador retaining an interest in a Russian company linked to Vladimir Putin after the invasion of Crimea. And the Prime Minister’s response to seeing that information? According to Robbins, “constant pressure” on the Foreign Office to get the appointment done.
The Prime Minister, as my right hon. Friend has just mentioned, placed top secret intelligence in the hands of a man he knew to be a national security risk. He did so before the official security vetting not just knowingly but deliberately, and to an extent that left a senior civil servant with a distinguished career under the clear and obvious impression that the vetting must return only one possible outcome: that Peter Mandelson should be appointed. None of that was following full due process by the letter or the spirit of that phrase. This is no longer just about what the Prime Minister was or was not told; this is about what he did before the vetting process had even started.
And we now know that Mandelson was not a one-off. According to Sir Olly Robbins, No. 10 also asked for the disgraced Matthew Doyle, the Prime Minister’s then director of communications, to be made an ambassador. Astonishingly, the Prime Minister’s office even told Robbins to keep the request a secret from the Foreign Secretary. The idea that it is No. 10 who are the victims of others not following due process is, quite frankly, laughable.
The Prime Minister told Parliament yesterday that it was “staggering” that Olly Robbins had not shared the recommendations of UK Security Vetting with the then Cabinet Secretary, Chris Wormald. But today we learned from Robbins that he had never seen the original vetting file. If the Prime Minister is furious that Sir Olly Robbins did not share the vetting details with him or the former Cabinet Secretary, why is he not furious with the Cabinet Office for not sharing it? Put simply, why exactly did he sack Olly Robbins?
It is no surprise that the Prime Minister is not here today. These are difficult questions. He cannot claim not to have known about the risk that Mandelson posed, because, as he said yesterday, he saw the due diligence that disclosed it. I still find it inconceivable that, despite that failure of vetting being a front-page news story, no one in No. 10 was aware of it. He cannot deny that his decision put Britain at risk. The British public deserve to know how this failure happened and they deserve to hear it from the Prime Minister himself.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister had the chance to set the record straight, but Members on all sides—and no doubt the public—were left wholly unsatisfied with the answers he gave. I am sure they will share my deep disappointment that the Prime Minister has chosen not to be here today. There remain serious questions about the decisions that he took over the appointment of Peter Mandelson, but the Prime Minister does not want to answer any more questions today, so, in typical fashion, he has thrown someone else under the bus. I feel for the Minister sent out as a human shield for the Prime Minister. It is not this Minister who made the Mandelson appointment; that was above his pay grade. He cannot tell us what the Prime Minister was thinking when he made those decisions and he will not be able to provide this House with the answers that it deserves to hear.
This is simply what the Prime Minister does. Sue Gray, Matthew Doyle, Morgan McSweeney, Chris Wormald, Olly Robbins, Peter Mandelson—those appointments were the Prime Minister’s decision, people the Prime Minister chose to appoint and all people he then chose to sack. Are we meant to believe that all these people are the problem, rather than the Prime Minister’s judgment?
As usual, the Prime Minister’s explanations yesterday left us with even more questions than answers. He says that he was justified in appointing Mandelson before vetting because of advice he received from the then Cabinet Secretary, Chris Wormald. But how can that make sense, when that advice only came after the scandal had erupted? Post hoc advice is pointless. Soon after that, he then sacked Chris Wormald. Why is the Prime Minister now relying on the evidence of the very man he told us was doing so badly in the job that he sacked him?
Let us move on to the Prime Minister’s claim that no one in No. 10 was aware that Mandelson had failed his vetting. Enough people in Whitehall knew. Enough people knew for journalists from The Independent, the Mail and Sky News to find out. Journalists have released texts with the Prime Minister’s director of communications, where they made No. 10 aware of this fact. He did not deny that the story was true. Why not? Something simply does not add up. Despite this, the Prime Minister went on to assure the House and the public that Mandelson’s appointment was down to a failure of vetting. I cannot fathom how the Prime Minister can still claim not to have misled the House on this point.
It is telling that when given the opportunity yesterday to apologise for misleading the House, even inadvertently, by my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), the Prime Minister chose not to. I suspect that he chose not to do so because he knows that if he did, he would be bound by his own words and by the standards to which he held previous Prime Ministers from this very Dispatch Box. In 2022, he said that if the Prime Minister misleads the House, he must resign—either the Prime Minister is a man of his word, or he thinks there is one rule for him and another for everyone else.
Unbelievably, half the permanent secretaries who were in post when Labour took office less than two years ago have now gone. The sacking of senior civil servants to carry the can for the Prime Minister’s failures has already cost taxpayers more than £1.5 million in payouts—that is before the sacking of Sir Olly Robbins. It is quite something for the former Cabinet Secretary Lord O’Donnell to warn that the Prime Minister has created
“one of the worst crises in relations between ministers and mandarins of modern times”,
adding that the sacking of Sir Olly Robbins
“risks having a serious and sustained chilling effect on serving and prospective civil servants”.
Another former Cabinet Secretary, Lord Butler, has said that the Prime Minister put Sir Olly in an “impossible” position. These are serious people who are calling out the Prime Minister’s behaviour. The former head of propriety and ethics and deputy Cabinet Secretary, Helen MacNamara, has called the decision to sack Robbins “unacceptable”. She said that if the Government had published the papers that Parliament demanded back in February, this argument would be so much easier for everyone because we would all be operating on the basis of the same facts, and she is right.
The delay in publishing the information required by the Humble Address is shocking. Where are the key annotations, decisions and meeting records—the box returns, as they are called in Downing Street? Why are crucial forms left blank? These missing documents add to the mystery. Why are the Government still trying to cover this up?
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will remember that I asked the Prime Minister yesterday about the box note of 11 November 2024, in which Simon Case recommended that vetting be gone through before the appointment was made. The Prime Minister’s decision note did not include the Prime Minister’s decision, which has been redacted from the conditions of the Humble Address. Does my right hon. Friend think that the redacted information would show what the Prime Minister was trying to achieve by appointing Peter Mandelson without the appropriate vetting?
Mrs Badenoch
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Why were the Prime Minister’s words redacted? These key pieces of information would help to solve this mystery—they would be much easier for us to understand than the words he gave at the Dispatch Box. I note that no Labour MPs have intervened on me, which is very unusual; when I am speaking in a debate, they are normally bobbing left, right and centre.
I am raising these concerns because of the seriousness of the situation the country is now in. With war in Europe, war in the middle east, a cost of living crisis and a global energy shock, we need a Prime Minister who has a grip on national security. Yet last week, the former Labour Defence Secretary and NATO Secretary-General, Lord Robertson, warned that the Prime Minister has shown “corrosive complacency” when it comes to defence. The same man who wrote the Prime Minister’s strategic defence review is now ringing the alarm bell to warn us of the grave consequences of the Government refusing to take the tough choices needed to increase defence spending.
This matters, because if we cannot trust our Prime Minister to tell the whole, full truth about this ambassadorial appointment—a key appointment in Britain’s national security architecture—it calls into question the assurances he gives us on everything else. It calls into question his promises to control taxes, which he has broken, his promises not to raise borrowing, which he has broken, and his promises to back business, protect our veterans, defend our farmers and prioritise growth, all of which he has broken. He has broken them because at his core, he is a man with no idea what he believes. Worse still, he appears to have no interest in doing the job of Prime Minister—just in being the Prime Minister. Curiosity is what drives serious leadership; without curiosity, problems are neither fully understood nor solved.
This whole affair just goes to show why this country is heading in such a woeful direction under the Prime Minister’s incurious regime. His defence yesterday summed it up: he said that no one told him and that he never thought to ask. This is, in his own words, incredible. However, even if we take the Prime Minister at his word—even if we believe the unbelievable—it is no better. He appointed Mandelson despite knowing that he was a threat to our national security; he said that due process was followed, having failed to follow that process himself; and he pressured the Foreign Office into signing off on this appointment. In 2022, the Prime Minister said:
“I believe that if you’re the leader, the buck stops with you. I will always stand up for my team, but I will also take responsibility for everything they do. That is what leadership is.”
How has he taken responsibility?
It is clear that the Prime Minister has no intention of facing up to his mistakes. It is clear now that he is not a leader and that he has no intention of doing the honourable thing.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
I congratulate the right hon. Lady on securing this debate, and indeed on eviscerating the Prime Minister in her speech. Does she not believe that the sorry souls on the Government Benches should have to put their money with their mouth is, and that there should be a vote of no confidence in this Prime Minister in due course?
Mrs Badenoch
The right hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. I think he is right, because I do not believe the Prime Minister has the intention of doing the honourable thing himself, even though that is the standard to which he held everyone else.
The decision as to whether the Prime Minister will ultimately take responsibility for his actions is now up to Labour MPs. We heard many powerful statements from the Government Members yesterday. Labour MPs know that the Prime Minister has let the country down, let Parliament down and let the Labour party down. It is clear to everyone except the Prime Minister himself that he has failed on his own terms. It is clear to the public that he is failing at the job, it is clear to civil servants that he is throwing them under the bus, and it is clear to Members across the House that he is not fit to lead. This cannot go on. This House deserves better. The country deserves better. The Prime Minister is not fit for office. The first duty of any Prime Minister is to keep this country safe. This Prime Minister has put the country’s national security at risk, and he must take responsibility. It is time for him to go.
Mrs Badenoch
I start by thanking Members from across the House for speaking in today’s debate. We heard many powerful speeches, and I am particularly grateful to the many speakers from the Conservative Benches, including my right hon. Friends the Members for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) and for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) and my hon. Friends the Members for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) and for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam). I found myself nodding along to the speech made by the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon)—I think that is the first time that has ever happened. We heard very good speeches from the hon. Members for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns), for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood), for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) and for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom) and the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister). Members from all parts of the House have made powerful statements—Members of all parties who know that this story does not add up. We have also heard some statements supporting the Prime Minister, which can only be described as brave.
As I said when I opened the debate, I do feel for the Minister sent here today on the Prime Minister’s behalf. He is the latest person to have to carry the can for the Prime Minister’s mistakes. He could never have given this House the answers it deserved to hear about what is, at its core, a failure of the Prime Minister’s judgment, a failure of the Prime Minister to follow process, and a shocking failure of the Prime Minister to take responsibility for his own mistakes—not just apologise, but take responsibility.
The Minister could not answer the question of why the Prime Minister decided to appoint Peter Mandelson to our most important diplomatic role in full knowledge, based on the due diligence, that Mandelson was a security risk, despite many Members asking it. He could not answer the question of why the Prime Minister chose to ignore the Cabinet Secretary and appoint Peter Mandelson before he received vetting. That was clearly not the process at the time, despite what the Minister has said from the Dispatch Box. He has said that the Government are changing the process, but the advice in November 2024 was to carry out the security vetting, so what process are they changing? Is it one that the Minister is just making up?
The Minister could not answer the question of why the Prime Minister put the Foreign Office under “constant pressure” to approve the appointment. He could not answer the question of why No. 10 was “dismissive” of the entire vetting process. He could not answer the question of why No. 10 also asked for the disgraced Matthew Doyle to be made an ambassador and hid this from the Foreign Secretary, and he could not answer the question of why the Prime Minister sacked Olly Robbins if he was following a process that, as he claims, was in place already—it does not make any sense. He could not answer, because only one man can, and that man is not here today. I do not know whether the Prime Minister thinks he is above answering these questions—we will try again tomorrow. I do not know whether he still somehow thinks that he did nothing wrong, but I will tell the House what I do know. The Prime Minister has put the country’s national security at risk. He is not fit for office, and he must take responsibility. It is time for him to go.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the Government’s accountability to the House in connection to the appointment of Peter Mandelson as Ambassador to the United States of America.
Richard Burgon
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. First, I apologise for not having been able to give you advance notice of this point of order. I asked whether the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister could answer a question that I have been trying repeatedly to get an answer to, and I would like your advice on how I can get that answer. The question is whether Morgan McSweeney had security clearance at the time that he was involved in the Mandelson appointment. Could we have an answer to that question, either now or in writing? I would be grateful if you could advise me.
Security Vetting
Kemi Badenoch Excerpts(3 days, 22 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
Middle East
Kemi Badenoch Excerpts(1 week, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement, and I would like to pay tribute to our brave servicemen and women serving in the middle east right now.
The Prime Minister is right that Britain did not start this war, but whether we like it or not, we are impacted by it, and this is likely to get worse. The cost of borrowing has jumped, and petrol prices are climbing. Inflation is rising, and living standards are falling. It is time to take decisive action in our national interest. Britain must focus on what is in our power to protect British citizens today. First, we must rapidly solve the energy crisis that this war has caused in our country. Secondly, we must make sure that Britain is ready to defend herself in this new age.
A nuclear-armed Iran is an existential threat to the UK. We should be in no doubt whose side we are on in this war: our allies in the middle east and the United States. I welcome the Prime Minister meeting some of those allies, and I welcome his support for diplomatic efforts and military planning to restore freedom of navigation in the region, but we will need to go further than just talking. He says that Britain stands ready to play our part, but we can all see that we were not ready for this situation.
Here is what we need to do now. First, we must take rapid action to increase our energy security and keep bills down, not just until July but longer than that—permanently. Britain is particularly vulnerable to energy price shocks because we are killing domestic oil and gas production in the North sea. Labour’s policy of more expensive energy and de-industrialisation at this time of crisis is dangerous and irresponsible. It is also harming the defence industry. We must start drilling our own oil and gas in the North sea, grant licences for drilling in the Jackdaw and Rosebank fields, and restore British production before it is too late. The Prime Minister says that this will not impact international prices, but this is about more than international prices. This is about the domestic supply, especially of gas, all of which is used in this country. Supply matters.
Furthermore, the Government must cancel the proposed rise in fuel duty. Hiking taxes on motorists for the first time in 15 years, while prices are surging, is a disgraceful decision. If Britain is to be a stronger country, it needs a stronger economy—not one that is being hammered by the highest energy prices in the developed world. Will the Prime Minister grant those oil and gas licences and scrap the rise in fuel duty? I know that he will say that it is the Energy Secretary’s job to do that, but the Energy Secretary is not the Prime Minister. He is, so he can instruct the Energy Secretary to grant those licences.
Secondly, to be ready, Britain must be able to defend herself, and that means we must be ready for these situations before they happen. France and Greece—[Interruption.] I do not know why Labour Members are laughing. I am surprised, because last time I checked, France and Greece sent ships to protect our bases in Cyprus while our destroyer was stuck in Portsmouth. It was a national embarrassment—on Labour’s shoulders—and it should never happen again.
We need no further evidence that we are living in a more dangerous world than a decade ago. I am sure Labour MPs will try to think of a way to make this my fault. [Interruption.] Yes, I know, it is preposterous, the historical illiteracy on the Labour Benches, but let me remind them that Governments of all colours—including those guys on the Liberal Democrat Benches—spent the peace dividend from 1989, when the Berlin wall fell, until the Ukraine war. When that war came, the Conservative Government responded rapidly and unequivocally. We did not have anything stuck in Portsmouth when Ukraine was invaded. We trained tens of thousands of Ukrainian soldiers and equipped them with our missiles.
We increased defence spending every year after the Ukraine war started, but the world has since become even more dangerous. Every serious person, especially in the military, agrees that Britain must now find a way to spend 3% of GDP on defence by the end of this Parliament. After the election, many of the plans for spending were paused for Labour’s strategic defence review. Nine months after its publication, there is still no defence investment plan that explains how we will fund this. The defence readiness Bill is also nowhere to be seen. The question is not whether we need to increase defence spending, but what tough choices we must make to do so. That is what is missing from the Government’s plan. They have a plan for welfare spending until 2031, but no plans for defence spending.
I say to the Prime Minister: let us put party interests aside—[Interruption.] I am glad that Labour MPs are laughing. I want the public to hear Labour MPs laughing when we say, “Let’s put party interests aside,” so please, keep laughing—go on. I say to the Prime Minister: let us find the money to rearm, let us identify the spending cuts, and if we reach agreement on a joint plan, we can all support those measures in Parliament. Conservatives have already found savings to fund more than £20 billion extra in defence spending. I am willing to work with him to go further.
I am sure the Prime Minister, in his response, will be tempted to misrepresent my position and pretend that I demanded he join in the initial strikes. [Interruption.] Yes—Labour MPs cannot resist the temptation, but he and I both know that is not true, so let us get serious. It is time for us to act decisively in our national interest. Let us show our allies what we bring to the table. Let us show our enemies that we are able and ready to defend ourselves. That requires a defence investment plan, so when exactly will that plan be published, and what action is the Prime Minister taking to find the money to pay for it?
The Prime Minister
I notice that the right hon. Lady’s opening sentence has changed. She used to say, “We didn’t start the war, but like it or not, we’re in it, and we should be in it.” That was her position. Now she says—well, they cannot make their mind up. They supported the war without thinking through the consequences, and now they are pretending they did not support the war and were against it all along. She challenged my position, and she did the mother of all U-turns on the most important decision the Leader of the Opposition ever has to take.
I thank the right hon. Lady for her support for the planning that we are doing with other countries. It is important. It has a number of components: the political and diplomatic component; the logistics of getting the vessels through, on which we are working with the sector; and, of course, the military component. We have been working on that for two or three weeks, and now, with President Macron, we are bringing together the summit later this week.
Yes, we all want to get energy bills down, and oil and gas will be part of the mix for many years, but it is because we are on the international market that our bills have gone up. That is the problem. The strait of Hormuz is a choke point for oil and gas getting to the international market. That has pushed the price up, and that is being reflected in every household. That is why the only way to take control of our energy bills is to go faster on energy independence.
The Leader of the Opposition used to make that argument. In 2022 she said that
“it’s investment in nuclear and renewables that will reduce our dependence on fossil fuels”
and keep costs down. She changes her mind on everything. That was her argument; now, just like she pretends she was not in favour of getting involved in the war, she pretends she was not in favour of keeping costs down.
The Leader of the Opposition says that we must be ready. That is coming from a party that hollowed out our armed services. On the Conservatives’ watch, frigates and destroyers were reduced by 25%. Minehunting ships were reduced by 50% on their watch. Yet she lectures us about being ready, having hollowed out our armed forces and hollowed out our capabilities. We are investing £300 million more in shipbuilding, and we have 13 ships on order. That is the difference between the two parties. I hope that she, and they, will forgive me, but after 14 years of their breaking everything under their watch, I am going to resist the offer of joint planning from the party that crashed the economy, hollowed out our armed forces and trashed our public services. Thanks, but no thanks.
Oral Answers to Questions
Kemi Badenoch Excerpts(4 weeks, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
I asked the Prime Minister six questions last week and he did not answer a single one. He has a duty to this House to answer the question. Let us see if he can do better this week. I will start with a simple one. Will the Prime Minister approve the licences for the Rosebank and Jackdaw gasfields in the North sea?
The Prime Minister
Under statute, that is a matter for the Secretary of State, as the right hon. Lady knows. The same arrangements were in place under the last Government. Licences were granted, and they were then struck down because of the defects in the process of the last Government. But oil and gas are coming out of the North sea 24/7. They will be part of the energy mix for many years to come. We fully support all existing oil and gas fields throughout their lifespans, and in November we made changes to extend that to allow neighbouring fields to be exploited.
However, we need to take control of our energy prices. The only way to do that is through renewables. The Conservatives used to make that argument. One of their senior figures in 2022 said that it is
“investment in nuclear and renewables that will reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and keep down consumer costs.”
Who was that senior figure? The Leader of the Opposition.
Mr Speaker
Order. This is not the day to be thrown out, with a two-week break coming.
Mrs Badenoch
We can have renewables and oil and gas. The Prime Minister says it is a matter for the Secretary of State—I thought that he was the Prime Minister. He loves to hide behind legal process every single time. I wonder what a Director of Public—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Yasin, you do not want to test my patience, I am sure.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister loves to hide behind legal process. I wonder what a Director of Public Prosecutions would make of the defence, “Sorry, I can’t produce my WhatsApps—my phone has been stolen.” The Jackdaw gasfield could be up and running before winter. All that gas would be used here in the UK to heat 1.6 million homes. That is enough to power Norfolk, Suffolk and Essex put together. Will the Prime Minister approve the licences, or is the Energy Secretary running the Government?
The Prime Minister
Legislation has been passed. It is absolutely clear that the quasi-judicial duty under the legislation rests with the Secretary of State. I really think that if she is going to put this challenge to me, she needs to read the legislation. It is the legislation that the Conservatives applied for 14 years. It is exactly the legislation that they used to put the licences in place which were then struck down because the process was defective.
Let us be clear: when Russia invaded Ukraine, energy prices doubled. During the 12-day war, oil prices hit £100 a barrel. In the last four weeks, because we are on the fossil fuel rollercoaster, everybody is being held to ransom. The only way forward is to go further and faster on renewables. The Leader of the Opposition’s approach is to outsource our foreign policy and let the US decide whether we go to war, and to outsource our energy policy to Russia and Iran and let them set the price of energy. I will never do that because it is not in the British national interest.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister is hiding behind so many people. He is the Prime Minister; he can make this decision today. He is so weak that he is the first person to be pushed around by the Energy Secretary.
Let me remind the Prime Minister who is on my side: the unions—yes, they are on my side—including GMB, Tony Blair, RenewableUK—the very people he talks about are saying to drill in the North sea—Centrica, Octopus Energy and even Labour MPs. Let me quote one Labour Member, the hon. Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire (Henry Tufnell):
“Offshoring our carbon emissions might give some a sense of moral superiority”
but it is simply
“impoverishing our own communities”.
We agree, so why does the Prime Minister think that he knows better than everyone else?
The Prime Minister
I am going to have one more go. The legislation, the statute—[Interruption.] The law prescribes the decision maker. The Opposition know that; they should be embarrassed. The Leader of the Opposition is attacking me without having read the legislation. The legislation sets out who the decision maker is: it is the Secretary of State, not the Prime Minister. It has to be the Secretary of State, and it is a quasi-judicial process—exactly the process that they ran for many years.
Oil and gas will be part of the mix for many years to come, but we do need to get on to renewables. We are discussing this because of the war. We need to de-escalate—[Interruption.] Yes, we are. That is why I stuck to my principles not to join the war and to act in collective self-defence. I appreciate that the Leader of the Opposition does not get that. She wanted to jump into the war without regard for the consequences, and now she has done the mother of all U-turns and is stranded without a thought-through position. When she was asked at the weekend whether she approved of the war, she said, “Oh, that’s a difficult one.” It certainly is if you have absolutely no judgment.
Mrs Badenoch
I am going to let the Prime Minister in on a secret: he is the Prime Minister, and he can change the legislation. Hiding behind the Energy Secretary is pathetic. Under the Prime Minister’s Labour Government, we buy half the gas that we use from Norway. Last year, Norway’s Labour Government drilled 49 wells in the North sea. How many did Britain drill? Zero. For the first time since 1964, under this Prime Minister’s Government, Britain drilled no wells. Why is energy security the right policy for Labour in Norway, but the wrong policy for Labour in Britain?
The Prime Minister
So now the right hon. Lady’s attack is, “If you pass a different law, you can take the decision”—the decision she is challenging me today for not taking. It is absolutely ridiculous. All that would do is to slow the process down. Oil and gas is coming out every day. There is a mix of that and renewables, but the most important thing to do to get energy security is to ensure that we de-escalate this war. I know where I stand on this: we are not joining the war. She wanted to join the war, but she did not think through the consequences, and now she does not know where she stands on the most important issue facing this country at this time.
Mrs Badenoch
The Norwegian Prime Minister is doing what is right for his country—if only our Prime Minister would do the same. Stopping all new drilling in the North sea was a reckless promise when he made it before the election; in the middle of a global energy crisis, it is catastrophic. Experts are predicting a £300 rise in bills in July. Approving new licences would show that he is serious about cutting bills. Why will he not do it?
The Prime Minister
Because of the action that we have taken, household bills are coming down by around £100 next month, then they will be capped for three months. That is what we are doing to protect households across the country. Who voted against it? The Tories and Reform, because they just do not get the impact on working people, who we will protect.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister says that bills are coming down; they are higher than they were when he came into office. He talks about what the Government are doing to help with energy bills. Families and businesses will suffer from the spike in energy costs because of his decisions. He could abolish the green taxes on their bills. He could stop the fuel duty rise. We could drill our own gas in the North sea. What is he doing? He is planning another giveaway to people on welfare. Yet again, he is taking money from those who work to give it to those who do not. First, we had the Budget for “Benefits Street”; now, we have the bail-out for “Benefits Street”. Does that not just prove that they have given up on being the Labour party and are now just the welfare party?
Hon. Members
Oral Answers to Questions
Kemi Badenoch Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
The Prime Minister tried to avoid scrutiny on the Mandelson files by releasing the documents immediately after Prime Minister’s questions last week, so let me ask him now: did he personally speak to Peter Mandelson about his relationship with the convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein before appointing him as our ambassador to Washington?
The Prime Minister
Let me start where I must. It was my mistake in making the appointment. I have apologised to the victims of Epstein, and I do so again. The Government are complying with the Humble Address in full, and we are continuing to support the police in their investigation. The matter of process was looked at by the independent adviser on ministerial standards. It is clear that the appointment process was not strong enough, and that is why I have already strengthened it. It was my mistake, and I have apologised for it. The right hon. Lady should follow suit and apologise for her gross error of judgment in calling for the UK to join the war in Iran without thinking through the consequences.
Mrs Badenoch
I know the Prime Minister does not want to talk about the documents that he tried to bury last week. He is going to try to talk about anything else, but he is not going to get away with it. I asked him a question; he did not answer.
We know that the Prime Minister was warned about the risk of appointing Peter Mandelson. This is not about the process. He knew that Mandelson stayed in Epstein’s house after Epstein had been convicted for child prostitution—he knew that. So I will ask him again: did he speak to Peter Mandelson about that before the appointment? Yes or no?
The Prime Minister
I have already made clear that Peter Mandelson was asked questions and gave untruthful replies. The Government are complying with the Humble Address. The process has been set out. The independent adviser looked at it, and he said,
“the relevant process for a political appointee was followed”.
Obviously, this is a question of my judgment, but what about the Leader of the Opposition’s judgment? She wanted to rush into a war with Iran without thinking it through. At the weekend—three weeks in—she said, “Oh, there isn’t a clear plan behind the US strikes in Iran.” That is the question she should have asked at the start. The decision to commit the UK to a war is the biggest decision a Prime Minister can take, and she was completely wrong.
Mrs Badenoch
I did not hear an answer, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister is right: it is about his judgment. He has repeatedly told us that Peter Mandelson lied to him, but he will not tell us if he actually picked up the phone and spoke to Mandelson before appointing him. That does not make any sense. The Prime Minister told us on the record that he “believed the lies” that Mandelson told him, but if he did not speak to him, how can he say that?
The Prime Minister
The process is clear, and it has been looked at by the independent adviser. The Leader of the Opposition asked me about the process and judgment on appointments, but she appointed the shadow Justice Secretary, the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy), who said last night that Muslims praying in public—including the Mayor of London, practising his faith—are not welcome. He described it as an
“act of domination…straight from the Islamist playbook.”
It is utterly appalling. If he were in my team, he would be gone. The Leader of the Opposition should denounce his comments, and she should sack him.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister wants to talk about Justice Secretaries. His Justice Secretary is abolishing jury trials; my shadow Justice Secretary is defending British values. I know who I would rather have sitting on the Front Bench next to me, and it is not the Justice Secretary.
This is important: the Prime Minister wants to talk about anything except what I am asking him. Three times I have asked him whether he spoke to Peter Mandelson; three times, he has refused to answer. We can only assume that he did not speak to Peter Mandelson. From the documents published, we know that he left the questioning about Mandelson’s relationship with a convicted paedophile to two of Mandelson’s closest friends, one of whom was also friends with a convicted paedophile. Asking those questions should have been his job. Why did he fail to do his duty?
The Prime Minister
The Leader of the Opposition’s position is that the shadow Justice Secretary is defending British values when he says Muslims praying together in Trafalgar Square are not welcome. Even Tommy Robinson—I can hardly believe that I am saying this—has said today that if the shadow Justice Secretary had made those hateful comments two years ago, the Conservative party would have kicked him out. Tommy Robinson is not some sort of moral signpost; he was pointing out how much her party has changed—it is more inclined to his views—and he is right about that. The fact that the shadow Justice Secretary is sitting on her Front Bench shows that she is too weak and has absolutely no judgment.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister wants to talk about my leadership. I am shocked. His former deputy has just fired the starting gun on the race to replace him. I will tell him one thing: she and I both agree that this weak man should be replaced by a strong woman. [Interruption.] But I am not finished, Mr Speaker—I have too much to say to him.
There is still a lot to ask about the Mandelson files. The Prime Minister knew that Mandelson had kept up a relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. The documents released also show that he had been warned about appointing Mandelson. He claims he was lied to. Mandelson had twice been fired for dishonesty, so why did the Prime Minister believe Peter Mandelson over the vetting documents?
The Prime Minister
The Leader of the Opposition asked about leadership. When I see religious events in Trafalgar Square—when I see Hindus celebrating Diwali, when I see Jews celebrating ChanukahLive!, when I see Christians performing the passion of Christ, or Muslims praying—that shows the great strength of our diverse city and country. I have never heard her party call out anything other than the Muslim events; it is only when Muslims are praying. The only conclusion is that the Tory party has a problem with Muslims. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. May I just say that I am not responsible for the answers? I just have to say that.
Mrs Badenoch
It is a shame that the Prime Minister is not responsible for the answers either. He wants us to believe that he is a serious leader, but he does not do the work. He outsources the decisions and when things go wrong he blames the vetting, he blames the chief of staff, he blames the Cabinet Secretary—he blames anyone but himself. This Prime Minister appointed Peter Mandelson, but did not bother to ask the questions. If he cannot be straight with the House on something as simple as this, why should we believe a word he says about anything?
The Prime Minister
The Leader of the Opposition talks about doing the work. Three weeks ago she said we should rush into war. She did not do the work; she did not think through the consequences. Committing our military to a war without thinking through the consequences is the gravest mistake for a Leader of the Opposition. She comes back a week later and says, “Oops! I got that one wrong.” She is utterly irrelevant and she has no judgment. This is the Leader of the Opposition who said that I should have empty-chaired the most important NATO summit in years, this is the Leader of the Opposition who said that Greenland is a second-order issue, and this is the Leader of the Opposition who would have jumped into a war with Iran without stopping to think.
On top of that, this week, we have the failure to condemn and sack—[Interruption.]
Oral Answers to Questions
Kemi Badenoch Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
Why does the Prime Minister think now is the right time to increase the cost of petrol?
The Prime Minister
We are not increasing the cost of petrol. We are absolutely clear in taking the measures that are necessary to deal with the impact of the conflict in Iran. We are dealing with that with other allies. We are taking the necessary action, but the best thing that we can do is to work with others to de-escalate the situation.
As I said to the House last week, I took the decision that we should not join the initial US-Israeli offensive against Iran. The Leader of the Opposition attacked me for that decision relentlessly. She said that the UK should have joined the US and Israel in the initial offensive strikes. Yesterday, in the wake of the economic consequences, the Leader of the Opposition totally abandoned her position. She told the BBC:
“I never said we should join”.
She told the BBC:
“I haven’t said we should have gone in with the US”.
That is the mother of all U-turns on the single most important decision that a Prime Minister ever has to take: whether to commit the United Kingdom to war or not.
Mrs Badenoch
The mother of all U-turns is the Prime Minister saying that the Government are not increasing fuel duty. That is news to us, because last week the Chancellor stood up and said that fuel duty was going to increase in September. The Prime Minister told us at the start of the year that the cost of living was his No. 1 priority. Can he explain how a rise in fuel duty helps with the cost of living?
The Prime Minister
Fuel duty is frozen. It is going to remain frozen until September, and we will keep the situation under review in the light of what is happening in Iran. But the most important issue is de-escalating the situation.
I come back to the Leader of the Opposition’s position, because this is one of the most important decisions that a Prime Minister or Leader of the Opposition ever has to take: whether to commit your country to war. The day after the initial US-Israeli strikes started, her shadow Foreign Secretary said that the US-Israeli initial attacks were absolutely right and that
“it’s a position my party supports.”
She asked why I have “not actually worked with” America
“to be much more proactive”.
Last Wednesday, the Leader of the Opposition said:
“we are in this war whether they like it or not. What is the Prime Minister waiting for?”—[Official Report, 4 March 2026; Vol. 781, c. 803.]
Then yesterday she says, “I never said”—[Interruption.] I know the Conservatives don’t want to hear it. [Interruption.] I wouldn’t want to hear it if I were them. After all that, she says—
The Prime Minister
After nine days of saying, “Join the war, join the war, join the war”, yesterday the Leader of the Opposition says:
“I never said we should join”,
and
“I haven’t said we should have gone in with the US”.
I will tell you what has happened, Mr Speaker: she and the Reform leader have been spooked, because they realise they have jumped into supporting a war without thinking through the consequences, and now she is furiously trying to back-pedal.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister seems to be answering last week’s questions. This week I am asking about fuel duty. He has said that he wants to help—[Interruption.] He has said that he wants to help with the cost of living. My constituents live in a rural area. They rely on their cars to get to the shops, take their kids to school or see their elderly parents, and they tell me that the rising cost of petrol is the single biggest cost affecting family finances. Does the Prime Minister not understand how important cars are to people in rural areas, or does he just not care?
The Prime Minister
We are working across all Departments and with allies to deal with the impact of the conflict in Iran, as the House would expect. If I had asked the Leader of the Opposition last week, her position would have been, “We support the initial strikes and we want to join the war.” This week, she says, “We don’t want to join the war.” I am sorry, but that is a screeching U-turn. Mr Speaker, in this job, you do not get a second shot at making the right call on taking your country to war. If she were Prime Minister, we would be in the war, and she would be coming back to Parliament a week later to say, “Oh, sorry. I got that one wrong.”
Mr Speaker
Order. Order! I am sorry I am interrupting you, but unfortunately we have to stick to Prime Minister’s questions, not Leader of the Opposition’s questions.
Mrs Badenoch
The right hon. and learned Gentleman said, “If she were Prime Minister”, but if I were Prime Minister, HMS Dragon would have left a week ago. The only time—[Hon. Members: “More!”] The only time, he has taken decisive action was stopping Andy Burnham standing in the by-election.
Let us talk about what the people out there are worried about. I heard from a builder who has 115 employees using 75 vans. With the jobs tax, sky-high energy bills and now a hike in petrol prices, that builder is having sleepless nights. How does the Prime Minister justify a rise in fuel duty to that small business owner and millions more like him up and down the country?
The Prime Minister
There has not been a rise. Fuel duty is frozen. It is frozen until September.
The Leader of the Opposition mentions HMS Dragon. First, can I start by thanking those in the Royal Navy who are serving on HMS Dragon? Secondly, what has been happening is that it has carefully been loaded with the anti-strike ammunition and capability that it needs, and the Navy and civilians have been working 22-hour shifts. But in relation to those who are taking the action to defend us, what does she say? They are just hanging about—just hanging about. That is how she described our pilots in the region. Let me tell her what they have been doing: flying sorties in seven of the 10 countries in the region day and night, taking out incoming strikes and protecting the lives of others, while risking their own. If she had any decency, she would get up and apologise.
Mrs Badenoch
Mr Speaker—[Interruption.] Hang on. I think they should wait for it. I have never criticised our armed forces. I have criticised the Prime Minister. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Swallow, you’re going out. I’ve had enough—week in, week out. Either leave now or I will name you.
Mrs Badenoch
I have never criticised our armed forces; I am criticising the Prime Minister and his decisions. Let me remind the House of his record on the armed forces. This is the same man who worked with Phil Shiner, a traitor to this country who made up evidence to put our soldiers in prison for crimes they did not commit. That is his record, so I will not take any lectures from him. By the way, military families in this country are also worried about petrol prices, and he has nothing to say on that.
There is another group of people who have been hammered by this Government: farmers. I spent all last year telling the Prime Minister that his family farm tax was killing British farming. Now, those farmers are being punished with higher fuel prices. Does the Prime Minister think that is fair?
The Prime Minister
No apology to our pilots who are risking their lives. And I am not going to take lectures from someone who says we should join the war and a week later says, “Can I change my mind? I got that wrong.” That is deeply embarrassing. But she is not the only one. Last week, the leader of Reform said we should be
“part of this with the US and the Israelis…We have to get rid of the regime.”
He said:
“We should do all we can to support the operation. I make that perfectly, perfectly clear.”
Until yesterday—screeching U-turn—when he said we should not
“get ourselves involved in another foreign war.”
Two parties packed with failed Tories, led by leaders who are not fit to be Prime Minister.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister does not want to talk about fuel duty, because he has absolutely no answers. The Conservatives are on the side of farmers. We are also on the side of drivers. We froze duel duty every year from 2011 and, in fact, we cut it in 2022, because we care about the cost of living. Labour thinks drivers are a cash cow and now it is hiking fuel duty for the first time in 15 years. Everyone in this House knows the pattern: first, he will march his Back Benchers up the hill, then they will be forced to defend fuel duty rises in the local elections, and then there will be another humiliating U-turn. Why does the Prime Minister not just stand up, admit he has got it wrong—again—and scrap the fuel duty hike now?
The Prime Minister
In the last two weeks, I have made two of the most important decisions a Prime Minister can make. The first is that we should not join the war in Iran. The second is that we should protect British lives and the British national interest. The Leader of the Opposition decided that we should join the war against Iran and a week later that we should not join the war against Iran, and to insult our armed forces. She has utterly disqualified herself from ever becoming Prime Minister. Thankfully, she never will.
Middle East
Kemi Badenoch Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement and for the security briefing I received earlier.
This is a defining moment for the people of Iran, the wider middle east and the world order. I know that hundreds of thousands of British people still in the region, many sheltering from drone attacks, are fearful about making it home. I agree with the Prime Minister that everyone in the region should follow FCDO advice and register their presence with a British embassy. Can the Prime Minister confirm whether he is making contingency plans for a potential evacuation of UK citizens and what stage the operational planning is at?
Let me also pay tribute to our brave service personnel stationed in British bases in the region. I know that this will be an anxious time for them and their families. They all have our support.
We stand in solidarity with our allies, including Bahrain, the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, who, along with others, have been on the receiving end of unprovoked aggression. On Saturday, our allies the United States and Israel took targeted action against the Iranian regime, a regime which for decades has been brutally repressing its own citizens, whose leader had the blood of hundreds of thousands of Iranians on his hands and of countless others around the world killed by Iranian proxies. This regime is the world’s foremost sponsor of international terrorism. It seeks to annihilate the world’s only Jewish state. It has said so repeatedly, and we should take despots at their word. It is a regime whose apparatchiks chant, “Death to Britain”. It has attacked British nationals and conducted multiple plots on British soil, as the head of MI5 has warned. It is manufacturing drones en masse for Russia—drones which are raining down on innocent Ukrainians. And it continues to try to develop nuclear weapons in flagrant violation of international agreement—nuclear weapons which, if obtained, would be an existential threat for this country.
The outcome of Ayatollah Khamenei’s death will, we hope, be a safer middle east and a safer world, with the future of Iran back in the hands of the Iranian people, but that outcome is not yet guaranteed. On Saturday, our allies in Canada and Australia immediately backed the action taken by America against this despotic regime in Tehran. I have made it very clear that the Conservative party also stands behind America taking this necessary action against state-sponsored terror. But over the weekend, statements from the Government and the Prime Minister provided no such clarity. It was only last night that the Prime Minister finally told us that the Government would allow our allies the use of our own air bases. Despite it being obvious that UK interests were under imminent threat, it took Iranian missiles hitting allies in the Gulf before he finally made a decision. And even after that, the Foreign Secretary said this morning that the Government have put limits on the actions of our allies operating from our bases. Unbelievably, in his statement today, the Prime Minister still cannot say whether he backs the strikes or not.
Today, the President of the United States has taken the extraordinary step of rebuking the Prime Minister publicly, saying that he “took far too long” to grant access. We are told that this dither and delay is because of concerns over international law, but I am afraid that that explanation simply does not hold. International law did not prevent our allies from clearly and unequivocally stating whose side they were on—you do not need international law to say whose side you are on. It has not prevented British Governments in the past from supporting strikes that we knew to be right. The shadow Attorney General said:
“If the doctrines of international law prove unable to restrain Iranian terrorism and mass murder, and tie the hands of democracies”
while forcing us
“to stand and watch Iranian atrocities, international law will have failed. It will have become a fundamentally immoral system of law”.
Why is it that under this Prime Minister, international law always seems to be at odds with our national interest? Why is it that we are giving away the Chagos islands and paying £35 billion for the privilege, rather than standing up for our national interest and protecting a crucial military base that, even now, our allies are using? We in this House are elected to stand up for Britain’s national interest. Where the Government do the right thing, the Opposition will always back them. Let me therefore reiterate our offer: if the Government bring forward legislation to fast-track banning the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, we will support them.
What national interest was served by refusing to help our allies for so long, particularly when we so need American support to protect the security of Ukraine and Europe? Are we going to see new UK military capabilities deployed to protect our security partners and our bases, including in Cyprus, as well as British nationals in the region? Will the Prime Minister also ensure that the Chancellor uses the spring statement tomorrow to set Britain on a clear path to spending 3% of GDP on defence? There is no point wanting action to make the world a safer place while being too scared to do anything except stand by and watch others. Our national interest and national security must be front and centre. The Conservative party will always work with our allies to make the world a safer place.
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Lady asks about contingency plans for UK nationals. I can assure her and the House that we are working at speed with our partners in the region to take whatever measures we can to ensure that our people can return as safely and as swiftly as possible, and we will continue to do so. I am happy to update her and the House as we roll out those plans.
Let me be very clear: there were two distinct and separate decisions over the weekend. The first decision was whether the United Kingdom should join the US-Israel offensive against Iran. We took the decision that we should not. The second decision—a separate decision and, actually, a separate request from the US—was whether we should permit the use of bases for the distinct, specific defensive purpose of collective self-defence of our allies and to protect British lives that were put at risk by the actions of Iran on Saturday and Sunday. We took the decision that we should do so.
I am clear in my mind that any UK action must always have a lawful basis. It must also always have a viable and thought-through plan, and it must be in our national interests. The Leader of the Opposition is, I think, saying that she would have joined the initial strikes whether they were lawful or not. I notice that she did not say that the shadow Attorney General said that they would have been lawful, just that the law should be changed. I think she said that the Opposition would have joined the initial strikes without regard to whether they had a plan. She was very critical of us not joining sooner—it is impossible to have that position without arguing that we could and should have joined.
I fundamentally disagree, and I will tell the House why. Where our military personnel take action, putting their lives at risk, it is our duty—my duty—to ensure that the actions have a lawful basis. On Saturday, we deployed UK pilots into the sky in the region, and they have been working there ever since. They deserve to know that their actions are lawful and that there is a viable, thought-through plan. I will not countenance committing our military personnel to action that does not have a lawful basis. That is not a fair thing to do to our serving personnel. No UK Prime Minister has ever committed our personnel to action unless it has a proper, lawful basis.
Oral Answers to Questions
Kemi Badenoch Excerpts(1 month, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
May I associate the Conservative party with the Prime Minister’s comments about Ukraine and Team GB?
Before the Prime Minister and I became MPs, parties of every colour increased the cost of going to university. The system is now at breaking point for graduates. I believe that student loans have become a debt trap. It is time for all of us to do something about it. Will he cut interest rates on student loans?
The Prime Minister
I have to say I was glad to learn that the Leader of the Opposition has finally admitted that the Conservatives scammed the country on this— and that applies to everything that they did in government. We inherited their broken student loans system. We have already introduced maintenance grants, which they scrapped, to improve the situation and we will look at ways to make it fairer. We will do other things within the economy to help students. [Interruption.] What other things, Conservative Members ask? There was some news this morning, at 7 am, that energy bills are coming down by £117 for millions of families and young people struggling. That is guaranteed money off bills in April, driven by the action that this Labour Government have taken. We have promised to cut the cost of living—we are cutting the cost of living.
Mrs Badenoch
I asked the Prime Minister if he would cut interest rates on student loans—no answer. For the record, energy bills are still higher than when he came into office. He keeps talking about the last Government. In case he has not noticed, my party is under new leadership—a lot of people wish his was too, including his own Back Benchers.
Let us talk again about student loans and student fees, even, because to win the Labour leadership, with Labour Together, the Prime Minister promised to abolish tuition fees. In opposition, the Education Secretary said:
“Graduates, you will pay less under a Labour government.”
I wonder what happened to those people? Will the Prime Minister tell us whether graduates are paying more or less under Labour?
The Prime Minister
Many in her party are under new leadership, Mr Speaker—they are sitting on the Reform Bench. The only change the Leader of the Opposition has brought to her party is to make it smaller. She talks about interest rates on loans. Not only have energy prices come down this morning, but since we were last debating across the Dispatch Box, inflation has fallen as well, which has a huge impact on interest rates. It has fallen to 3% and the Bank of England says that it will keep on falling. That is only happening because of the decisions that we made at the Budget, opposed by the Conservatives. They talk about the cost of living: this Government are taking action. Under the Conservatives’ watch, inflation was 11%, which crippled students’ finances as their low rates went up.
Mrs Badenoch
I am amazed that while we are trying to talk about student loans, the Prime Minister has the cheek to talk about my party being smaller. His party is smaller too, including one MP who was arrested for child sex offences. Perhaps before he gets on his high horse, he should ask why his Back Benchers are saying that they are being called “the paedo defenders party”. [Interruption.] I did not say it—
Mr Speaker
Just understand: it is very important that I hear the questions because I may have to make a judgment. I do not need any more shouting.
Mrs Badenoch
I know that Labour Members do not like it, but I have not said anything that is not true, have I? Perhaps they should get off their high horse and stop making stupid jokes.
Why don’t we talk about student loans? Policies that may have been fine for 2012, with low interest rates, are not fine for 2026. The fact is that graduates are paying more, not less. On Monday, the Schools Minister was asked on the BBC why Labour froze the repayment thresholds. She said that the Government have “huge pressures”. Those pressures have been created by the Prime Minister’s taxes and borrowing to pay for more welfare. Why is the Prime Minister taking from students to give to “Benefits Street”?
The Prime Minister
What a nerve! Under the Conservative Government, student loan thresholds were frozen for 10 years. They broke the system—they did it with the bloke over there, the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), when they were in coalition together—and we are fixing it.
The right hon. Lady used to say, just a few weeks ago, that she was going to focus on the economy to the exclusion of everything else, so I am doing her a favour by bringing us back to the economy. [Interruption.] Yes, desperate to talk about the economy. We have taken £117 off energy bills, and inflation is going down. The other thing that was confirmed on Friday was that borrowing is coming down, and we have the biggest surplus on record. That means that we have got the economy back under control, and we are fixing the public finances. I know that the party of Liz Truss does not understand any of this, but the Leader of the Opposition should welcome those changes when she next stands up.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister says that the Government are fixing the student loans system. How? He was not even talking about this until I raised it. The fact is that those policies—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. What I said earlier goes for the row of Benches over there as well. I expect a standard of a Chair of a Select Committee, not for them to shout somebody down.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister is only talking about student loans now because I raised them. He says that the Government are fixing the problem, but the fact is that he is not. Why is it that I am willing to ditch old Conservative policies that do not work, but he wants to keep them? He is not going to do anything about it at all. On Monday, the Government voted to increase benefits yet again. The fact is that the Prime Minister is taking money out of the pockets of graduates and giving it to people who are not working. It is not fair.
It is not just that the Prime Minister is saddling graduates with debt. Yesterday, the Bank of England, where the Chancellor used to work—in customer services—said that the Prime Minister’s policies are fuelling youth unemployment. That is not coming from us; that is from the Bank of England. For the first time ever, youth unemployment is now higher here than it is in the EU. While he blames everyone else, our young people cannot get jobs; they are losing hope and even leaving the country. Will the Prime Minister tell us how he plans to deal with that?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Lady says that she is ditching failed Tory policies. That is a very long list—14 years of it—and it starts with the word, “Sorry”. When she says that word, we will take her seriously.
The right hon. Lady talks about the Bank of England. The Bank of England has reduced interest rates six times. We have seen a fall in energy bills. Inflation is coming down. Borrowing is coming down. She has not welcomed any of that. I know that she wanted to talk about the economy—she did not want to talk about anything other than the economy—so perhaps she will welcome the surge in retail sales as well. People are spending more on our high streets because of the action that we took. Wages were boosted for millions of workers—opposed by the Conservatives. Free breakfast clubs—opposed by the Conservatives. Free childcare—opposed by the Conservatives. On every measure that we are taking to improve the economy, what do they do? They oppose it.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister is desperate to talk about the last Government so that he can distract from the mess that he is making now. The fact is that he is the Prime Minister today. This is a man who got legislation in to fix his own pension—just his, no one else’s. He will not sort out student loans for other people. He has no plan to get young people into work. He has no plan to help graduates to get out of the debt trap. [Interruption.] Labour Members can complain as much as they like, but these are facts. There are 411 Labour MPs, and not a single one of them has any imagination. We are the ones doing all the thinking.
The Prime Minister has already made 15 U-turns. Will he make another one next week at the spring statement to fix the student loans system?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Member wants me to talk about this Government. Bills are down £117 under this Government. Inflation is down under this Government. Surplus is up, at a record. Resales—[Interruption.] She will not welcome the economic news, but the business community is welcoming the plan. Business confidence is up. The FTSE is at a record high. The president of the British Chamber of Commerce has said that this is the year our economy could turn around. The right hon. Member’s miserable strategy of talking down the economy is not working because Labour has a plan for Britain.
Mrs Badenoch
The economy will only turn around this year if the Prime Minister stops being the leader. Perhaps his party can do something about that. He wants us to welcome the economic news; I am sorry, but I am not going to welcome the fact that youth unemployment is at its highest ever. I am not going to welcome the fact that unemployment has increased every single month under this Labour Government. He is not doing anything about student loans because he is not governing, and he is not governing because he cannot govern. He is distracted by Labour scandal after Labour scandal. Even today, there is an inquiry into the inquiries Minister! That is all his party has offered since it came in.
The defining moment of this man’s premiership will not be breakfast clubs; it will be the sight of the man he appointed ambassador to Washington just last year getting arrested. No wonder Labour Members are calling themselves all sorts of things. He needs to stop moaning about us, and start fixing his useless Government. Why should the country have to put up with three more years of this?
The Prime Minister
Yet again, the right hon. Member has shown why she is so utterly irrelevant—carping from the sidelines and trying to talk down the economy. [Interruption.]
Oral Answers to Questions
Kemi Badenoch Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
The whole House will be disgusted by the latest revelations about Jeffrey Epstein. All of us want to see his victims get justice, but the political decision to appoint Epstein’s close associate, Peter Mandelson, as Britain’s ambassador to Washington goes to the very heart of this Prime Minister’s judgment. When he made that appointment, was he aware that Mandelson had continued his friendship even after Epstein’s conviction for child prostitution?
The Prime Minister
Let me start where I must: with the victims of Epstein. All our thoughts are with them. Our thoughts are also with all those who lost jobs, savings and livelihoods in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crash. To learn that there was a Cabinet Minister leaking sensitive information at the height of the response to the 2008 crash is beyond infuriating, and I am as angry as the public and any Member of this House.
Mandelson betrayed our country, our Parliament and my party. He lied repeatedly to my team when asked about his relationship with Epstein, before and during his tenure as ambassador. I regret appointing him. If I knew then what I know now, he would never have been anywhere near Government. That is why yesterday the Cabinet Secretary, with my support, took the decision to refer material to the police, and there is now a criminal investigation. I have instructed my team to draft legislation to strip Mandelson of his title, and wider legislation to remove disgraced peers. This morning I have agreed with His Majesty the King that Mandelson should be removed from the list of Privy Counsellors on the grounds that he has brought the reputation of the Privy Council into disrepute.
Mrs Badenoch
I asked the Prime Minister a very specific question. Did he know that Mandelson had continued his friendship with Epstein after the conviction? He says, “If I knew then what I know now”—but he did know. In January 2024, a journalist from the Financial Times informed the Prime Minister that Mandelson had stayed in Epstein’s house even after that conviction for child prostitution. Did the Prime Minister conveniently forget this fact, or did he decide that it was a risk worth taking?
The Prime Minister
As the House would expect, we went through a process. There was a due diligence exercise, and then there was security vetting by the security services. What was not known was the sheer depth and the extent of the relationship. Mandelson lied about that to everyone for years. New information was published in September, showing that the relationship was materially different from what we had been led to believe. When the new information came to light, I sacked him, but we did go through a due diligence exercise. The points that are being put to me were dealt with within that exercise.
In response to the Humble Address this afternoon, I intend to make sure that all the material is published. The only exemptions are anything that would prejudice national security—my first duty is obviously to keep this country safe, and when we drafted Humble Addresses in opposition, we always included an exemption for national security—or that would prejudice international relations. You and the House will appreciate, Mr Speaker, that in the course of discussions country to country there are very sensitive issues of security, intelligence and trade that cannot be disclosed without compromising the relationship between the two countries, or a third country.
So that I can be totally open with the House, I should also disclose that the Metropolitan police have been in touch with my office this morning to raise issues about anything that would prejudice their investigations. We are in discussion with them about that, and I hope to be able to update the House, but I do think I should make that clear to the House at this point, because those discussions are ongoing.
Mrs Badenoch
I will come to the Humble Address in a moment, but the Prime Minister cannot blame the process. He did know. It was on Google. If the Conservative research department could find this information out, why couldn’t No. 10?
On 10 September, when we knew this, I asked the Prime Minister about it at the Dispatch Box, and he gave Mandelson his full confidence—not once but twice. He only sacked him after pressure from us. I am asking the Prime Minister something very specific, not about the generalities of the full extent. Can the Prime Minister tell us: did the official security vetting that he received mention Mandelson’s ongoing relationship with the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein?
The Prime Minister
Yes, it did. As a result, various questions were put to him. I intend to disclose to the House—the national security and prejudice to international relations on one side; I want to make sure that the House sees the full documentation so it will see for itself the extent to which, time and time again, Mandelson completely misrepresented the extent of his relationship with Epstein and lied throughout the process, including in response to the due diligence.
Mrs Badenoch
What the Prime Minister has just said is shocking. How can he stand up there saying that he knew, but that he just asked Peter Mandelson if the security vetting was true or false? This was a man who had been sacked from Cabinet twice already for unethical behaviour. That is absolutely shocking.
That is why, later today, my party will call on the Government to release all documents relating to Mandelson’s appointment, not just the ones the Prime Minister wants us to see; this Government are trying to sabotage that release with an amendment to let him choose what we see—the man who appointed Mandelson in the first place. Labour MPs now have to decide if they want to be accessories to his cover-up. Can the Prime Minister guarantee that he will not remove the Whip if they refuse to vote for his whitewash amendment?
The Prime Minister
The first exemption is in relation to anything that could compromise national security. That is not a small matter, and many Members on the Opposition Benches will know precisely why that needs to be an exemption. When we were drafting Humble Addresses in opposition, we always made sure that that exemption was included because we knew how important it was to the then Government. I do not think I have seen a Humble Address without that exemption. Just to be clear, to vote to release something that would prejudice national security is wrong in principle.
The second exemption is in relation to things that would prejudice international relations. There will be discussions about security, intelligence and trade that are highly sensitive to the two countries involved, and to third countries. [Interruption.] Well, the Opposition have to ask themselves whether they want to vote to prejudice our national security. In fairness, I do not think that they do.
Let me reassure the House that the process for deciding what falls into those categories will not be a political process; it will be led by the Cabinet Secretary, supported by Government legal teams. They will be looking at the question of prejudice and they will be making that decision.
The only additional thing I want to put before the House, because there was a discussion this morning with the Metropolitan police, is that we are in discussions with them about any material that they are concerned will prejudice their investigation. We are at an early stage of that discussion, but I did not want the House not to know that that discussion is going on.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister is talking about national security. The national security issue was appointing Mandelson in the first place. What he has said about the Humble Address is a red herring. Let me tell those Labour MPs who were not here in the last Parliament: Humble Addresses already exempt genuine national security issues. This is not about national security; this is about the Prime Minister’s job security. His amendment lets him withhold anything to do with international relations, but this whole appointment is to do with international relations, so if Government Members are voting for it, they are voting for the cover-up. If the Prime Minister is serious about national security concerns, he should ask the Intelligence and Security Committee to decide which documents should be released. Will he commit to doing so here and now?
The Prime Minister
I have set out the process. It will not be a political process. It will be led by the Cabinet Secretary, supported by the Government legal teams. I am pleased that the right hon. Lady, I think, now accepts that at least the first exemption that we have written into the amendment—in relation to prejudicing national security—is the right one.
Given the breadth of what has been asked for, we are doing everything we can to make sure that this information is fully transparent and disclosed, but the right hon. Lady and Opposition Members behind her will understand from their own experience in government the sensitivity of information about security, intelligence and trade relations that is inevitably caught in exchanges of this nature, and it is right that anything that prejudices—not touches on, but prejudices—international relations is protected within the disclosure.
Mrs Badenoch
If that was really the case, the Prime Minister would not mind if the ISC had a look. Let us be clear: he says the involvement of the Cabinet Secretary makes the process non-political, but that does not make it independent. What we want is an independent look. The ISC is independent, whereas the Cabinet Secretary works for him. We know that there will be a cover-up, because this matter implicates the Prime Minister and his chief of staff Morgan McSweeney, a protégé of Peter Mandelson. The Prime Minister chose to inject Mandelson’s poison into the heart of his Government on the advice of Morgan McSweeney. His catastrophic lack of judgment—he is telling us now that he did know—has harmed the special relationship. It has endangered national security—it is not the Humble Address; it is him—compromised our diplomacy, and embarrassed our nation. After all this, does he have the same full confidence in Morgan McSweeney that he had in Peter Mandelson?
The Prime Minister
Morgan McSweeney is an essential part of my team. He helped me change the Labour party and win an election. Of course I have confidence in him.
Whatever is slung across this Dispatch Box, I do not think it is right for the Cabinet Secretary to be denigrated in that way, or to suggest that he would be involved in a cover-up. There is the politics that comes over the Dispatch Boxes, but I honestly do not think it is right to impugn the Cabinet Secretary in that way. I suspect that, in their heart of hearts, many on the Conservative Benches would agree.
I am as angry as anyone about what Mandelson has been up to. The disclosures that have been made this week of him passing on sensitive information at the height of the response to the 2008 financial crash are utterly shocking and appalling. He has betrayed our country. He has lied repeatedly; he is responsible for a litany of deceit, but this moment demands not just anger but action, and that is why we have moved quickly by referring material to the police, publishing legislation so that we can remove titles from disgraced politicians, and stripping Mandelson of his Privy Counsellorship. That is what the public expect, and that is what we will do.