All decisions are made in relation to national security vetting. I've appointed Sir Adrian Fulford to lead the review. Separately, I've asked the government security group in the Cabinet Office to look at any security concerns raised during Peter Mandlesson's tenure.
Mr Speaker, I know many members across the House will find these facts to be incredible. This is extraordinary even by Westminster standards. The prime minister now claims he didn't know that a top diplomatic appointment had failed security vetting.
Yet somehow the appointment went ahead anyway. I make it very clear, Mr Speaker, I had not seen the security vetting file. I did not know that UK SP no answers, no accountability, just contradictions piling up by the hour.
Was this incompetence or something far more calculated? Because today in the Commons, he was absolutely torn apart line by line, question by question over what many are now calling a full-blown national security scandal. So, I will remind him and the rest of the Labour front bench who were heckling that Peter Mandlesson was a politician who had been sacked twice from government for lying.
That meant he should have gone through the full security process. And we also know finally, Mr Speaker, that when Peter Manderson 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. Stay with me because what was said in that chamber changes everything. If you care about truth in politics, hit subscribe now because we're breaking down what the mainstream won't.
Mr Speaker, on top of that, the fact that I was not told, even when I ordered a review of the UK SV process, is frankly staggering. And I can tell the House that I've now updated the terms of reference for the review into security vetting to make sure it covers the means by which all decisions are made in relation to national security vetting. I've appointed Sir Adrian Fulford to lead the review.
Separately, I've asked the government security group in the Cabinet Office to look at any security concerns raised during Peter Mandlesson's tenure. Mr Speaker, I know many members across the House will find these facts to be incredible. To that to that to that I can only say they are right.
It beggars belief that throughout the whole timeline of events, officials in the foreign office saw fit to withhold this information from the most senior ministers in our system in government. That is not how the vast majority of people in this country expect politics, government, or accountability to work. And I do not think it's how most public servants think it should work either.
Or the prime minister knew more than he's admitting. And in both scenarios, trust is gone. Pagaforte, [music] would you trust a government that didn't know this or says it didn't?
Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank the prime minister for advanced sight of his statement. His reputation is at stake. Everyone is watching.
It is finally time for the truth. Earlier today, Mr Speaker 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 will 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 Manderson 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 Mandlesson to be our ambassador to the United States. We know that Mandlesson had a close relationship with a convicted pedophile.
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 for this because it was a political appointment.
So I will remind him and the rest of the Labour front bench who were heckling that Peter Mandlesson was a politician who had been sacked twice from government for lying. That meant he should have gone through the full security process. And we also know finally, Mr Speaker, that when Peter Manderson 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. So, let me turn to what we do not know.
We still do not know exactly why Peter Mandlesson failed that vetting. We do not know what risks our country was exposed to. and 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 advisor or a single official told him that what he was saying wasn't true.
At every turn, with every explanation, the government story has become murkier and more contradictory. It is time for the truth. Yeah, there are too many questions to ask in the allotted time, Mr Speaker.
So, I'm now going to ask the prime minister just six questions. And I have taken the unprecedented step of providing these questions to the prime minister in advance. So, he has them in front of him.
And I have asked for these questions 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's look at how this happened. The right honorable gentleman told me at PMQ's in September 2025 that full due process was followed in this appointment. We now know that in November 2024, Lord Casease, the then cabinet secretary, told him this process required security vetting to be done before the appointment.
He did not mention any of what Lord Kase said in his statement earlier. So first question, does the prime minister accept that when he said on the floor of the house that full due process was followed, this was not true? Secondly, on the 11th of September last year, journalists asked his director of communications if it was true that Mandolin had failed security vetting.
These allegations were on the front page of a national newspaper. And yet, number 10 did not deny the story. Why?
Three. Will the prime minister repeat from the dispatch box his words last week that no one in number 10 was aware before Tuesday that Mandlesson had failed his vetting? The prime minister says he's furious that he wasn't told the recommendations of the vetting.
Yet on the 16th of September, a foreign office minister told parliament and I quote, "The national security vetting process is rightly independent of ministers who are not informed of any findings other than the final outcome. " This was the government's stated process. So why is the prime minister so furious that it was followed on the 4th of February 2026?
The prime minister fifth question, Mr Speaker, on the 4th of February 2026, the prime minister told me from the dispatch box that the security vetting he had received had reve revealed Mandlesson's relationship with Epstein. How could he say that if he had not seen the security vetting? And finally, Mr Speaker, Systemma is a Russian defense company 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? Mr Speaker, everyone makes mistakes. It is how you face up to those mistakes that shows the character of a leader.
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 the mistakes of any organization 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 of these people fired for a decision he made. The right honorable gentleman's defense 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. He asked no questions about Mandlesson's relationship with Epstein.
He asked no questions about the security risk Mandlesson posed. Apparently, he didn't even speak to Peter Mandlesson before his appointment. It doesn't appear that he asked any questions at all.
Why? Because he didn't want to know. He had taken the risk.
He had chosen his man. Whiteall had to follow. It is the duty of the prime minister to ensure he is telling the truth.
Or does the ministerial code not apply to him? I'm only holding the prime minister to the same standard to which he held others. Yeah.
On the 26th of January, 2022, the right honorable gentleman said to a previous prime minister at this dispatch box, "If he misled the house, he must resign. " Does he stand by those words or is there one rule for him and another for everyone else? Now ask yourself, how does a failed security vetting get ignored at this level?
Watch closely how the opposition frames this. This is not just politics. This is about credibility.
Uh Mr Speaker, let me respond to those points. Firstly, um when I found out uh what had happened on Tuesday evening last, I wanted to have answers to the question who made the decision to uh recommend uh to give clearance on develop vetting um contrary to the advice, why that was done um and who knew about it so I could provide the information to the house. Mr Speaker, that is the exercise that's been conducted since Tuesday evening and today so that I could come here today to give the full account to the house which I've just um set out.
Mr Speaker, she asked me about uh develop vetting uh security clearance after the appointment. I set out that that wasn't me saying that. I read out the evidence uh of the former permanent secretary uh about that and the former cabinet secretary in relation to that and I think the quotes that I've given to the house are clear enough in relation to that.
She also asks um why Peter Mandlesson failed. Mr Speaker, it's important to make a distinction between the information provided to the review and the recommendation. the information uh in the review must be protected and has been protected because otherwise the integrity of the entire system would fall away but the recommendation doesn't need to be protected and should not have been protected.
Uh Mr speaker in relation to uh her questions uh in relation to the answer about full due process that was uh the information that I had that I put before the house and it was confirmed to be by Sir Chris Warmold because in September I asked him to conduct a review of the process to assure me uh that the process was correctly carried out. He did that and wrote to me on the 16th of September giving me that uh his conclusions in relation Mr speaker to uh reports I in the media um number 10 was repeatedly asked about the facts sur uh surrounding Peter Mansson's clearance and was assured that the proper process was um followed uh I in that case Mr Speaker uh in relation to those in number 10 let me uh give um the answer nobody in number 10 was informed about UK SV's recommendation Mr Speaker, just to be clear and for the record, the Cabinet Office Permanent Secretary did receive 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.
That was entirely the right procedure to get the legal advice and then to bring it to my attention at the first opportunity. It was the right uh procedure that was followed by my officials in the last few um weeks. Uh, Mr Speaker, in relation to um why I was furious uh about the process for the very reason, Mr Speaker, I strongly believe I should have been given this information at the very outset.
I strongly believe there were repeated uh times when I should have been told I should have been told uh on appointment I should have been told when Peter Manson 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 set committee.
And I should have been told when I ordered a review of um vetting. Mr Speaker, in relation to um the uh uh point she makes about what I said in February in answer to a question of hers, um I make it very clear, Mr Speaker, I had not seen the security vetting file. I did not know that UK SP the question asked me about vetting.
I knew about the due diligence and that's why I put before the house what I knew about the due diligence um in relation to Epstein. The question asked me about vetting and I had I knew what the due diligence has said and therefore I told the house what the due diligence has said. I didn't tell them uh what security vetting had said because I hadn't seen the file uh in relation um to that.
Uh Mr Speaker, uh, in relation to the particular details in relation to Peter Manderson, I acted uh, on all of the information I had available to me. The simple fact of the matter is I should have had more of information. I didn't have that information.
The House should have had that information. And I've now set it out in full to the House. If you want more breakdowns like this, raw, unfiltered, and not watered down by legacy media, like the video, subscribe to the channel, share this with someone who still trusts the headlines, and drop your opinion below because your voice matters here.
