Security Vetting Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate
Department: Cabinet Office

Security Vetting

Rachael Maskell Excerpts
Monday 20th April 2026

(1 day, 9 hours ago)

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

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

Rachael Maskell Portrait Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
- View Speech - Hansard - -

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

Keir Starmer Portrait The Prime Minister
- View Speech - Hansard - - - Excerpts

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