Sir Keir Starmer
MP for Holborn and St Pancras · Labour · United Kingdom
“That meeting with President Zelensky happened the day after he was evicted from the Oval Office. He left alone. He got on a plane. We got him to come to London, and I asked him to come to Downing Street straightaway. I walked out to meet him. I gave him a hug, and then I showed him what was in the street.”
“You have been instrumental in defending the safety of every Member of this House, Mr Speaker. I believe we must do more to defend our democracy, and have tasked officials across Government with identifying the best mechanisms for taking this work forward so that it can move as quickly as possible.”
“Well, Reform intends to spend the summer arguing with a bin. My advice to everyone is: put your vote in the Bin! [ Laughter. ] I am delighted that today we are joined in the Gallery by some of the people I have met across the country in opposition and in power.”
“She knows that this is robust, and it has to be robust—that is the way politics is done—but the kindnesses that sit behind it privately are often just as powerful, if not more powerful, and I thank her for that. I also stood at the Opposition Dispatch Box, for four years as Leader of the Opposition.”
“I join the right hon. Lady in her tribute to Ann Widdecombe. I know that the hurt is keenly felt across all her friends and family, but it is particularly keenly felt by political colleagues in the Conservative party—her party for many years—and in Reform as well.”
“I thank my hon. Friend for her question, her support and her friendship for me, Vic and the kids. Whatever the challenge, she has always been there for us, particularly Vic and the kids, and I really thank her for that. This will be my last answer from this Dispatch Box.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,995 lines we hold for Sir Keir Starmer, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 10 of 60.
“I will ensure that the review covers all relevant issues and material, and I will take into account what the right hon. Gentleman has just said.”
“Let me be clear. We have thousands of civil servants who act with integrity and professionalism every day and do the job to the very best of their ability. As I understand it, what Sir Olly is saying is that he believed that he could not give me this information—that he was prohibited from doing so. I disagree with him; I think he could and should have given me the information. But I do not think that is any reason to suggest that across the civil service, people act for any improper motive.”
“With respect, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman’s analysis. I certainly agree that the information that is provided into the process by the applicant has to be protected; as anybody who has been through the process will know, it is incredibly detailed and intrusive, and it is very important that individuals give full and truthful accounts for all the questions they are asked. That is why that information needs to be protected. I do not accept that that means that the recommendation of UKSV cannot be shared with Ministers, including the Prime Minister. I think there is a distinction between the two; I accept the first, but I utterly reject the second.”
“That is why I have asked for a review of the entire process: so that it can be looked at from start to finish, including the question of whether there should be any circumstances in which the recommendation of UKSV could not be followed.”
“I understood the procedure to be that the appointment was made subject to the security vetting. [ Interruption. ] That is what I was told. The question the hon. Lady raises is the question I raised in September, which is why I asked Sir Chris Wormald to look at the process, and in particular at the advice in the letter from Simon Case, to answer the question of whether the process was followed, and he— [ Interruption. ] Well, he gave me the answer that he thought right, having concluded that process.”
“The process was that UKSV informs the FCDO of its findings and its recommendation, and then there is an escalation process, which is part of the process in the sense that it is for the FCDO, in these particular cases, to make the final decision, which is what it did in this case.”
“No, that is not the case. The judgment call to appoint him was my judgment call. That was an error and I have apologised for it, particularly to the victims of Epstein. The developed vetting process was carried out in the way I have indicated to the House. I should have been told at the time of the recommendation. Had I been told, I would not have made the appointment.”
“I have set out to the House the facts of what happened in this particular case. I am staggered and I find it unbelievable that I was not given the information I should have been given.”
“All the appropriate and necessary developed vetting has taken place in No. 10. Everybody has passed that. [ Interruption. ] They have all passed it.”
“Peter Mandelson was asked various questions on the back of the due diligence exercise and he did not tell the truth in his answers. The decision to appoint him was an error: it was my error, and I have apologised for it.”
“It was insufficient because all it told me was that the recommendation of UKSV was to deny the clearance. What it did not tell me was who then provided the clearance, why they did it and who knew about it. They were questions that the House would obviously want to raise with me, which is why I urgently asked for those facts to be established: so that I could come to the House and provide the full account that I have provided to the House.”
“I do not understand that he had access to STRAP material before he took up his post as ambassador. He did have access after he took up his post, and that is why I have ordered a review of any security concerns that may arise.”
“In a case such as this—in relation to such a sensitive post—I do not think it is right that somebody should be appointed at all if the UKSV recommends that clearance is not given. That would be my position.”
“The situation was that, as part of the work being done on the Humble Address, this information came to light. Senior officials immediately took legal advice on whether it could be disclosed. Having got that legal advice, they immediately disclosed it to me. I think that was the proper process, and I think it has now been disclosed to the Committee—albeit, I think, on the Thursday rather than the Tuesday. That was the process. Just to defend that process, I do think it was right for the senior officials, having got that information, to get legal advice on whether they could disclose it, and who to. As soon as they got that advice, they brought it to my attention.”
“Yes, I do agree with that. That is why this information could and should have been shared with me at the first opportunity—and that was before Peter Mandelson took up his post as ambassador.”
“I am addressing the question about the process in relation to Peter Mandelson. I have set that out in some detail to the House and answered a number of questions.”
“There were two different processes. One was the due diligence process carried out by the Cabinet Office, in which Peter Mandelson was asked questions. Separately, there was the developed vetting process in which the recommendation of UKSV was not shared with me until Tuesday evening.”
“I understood it to be subject to developed vetting, but it was because of the process that, in September 2025, I asked Chris Wormald to do a review for me of the process, and he did that by reference back to the Simon Case letter.”
“Absolutely, my focus and that of the Government is on the fact that we are facing a war on two fronts, with serious consequences for our country, and that we absolutely need to deal with the cost of living, which is the No. 1 issue for all our constituents up and down the country.”
“I do not believe that they did. This was UK security vetting carried out in the way I have described to the House. The issue is that the recommendation was not shared with me. That was a matter here in the United Kingdom.”
“It is not a claim that I was not told; I was not told, and I do not think anybody is disputing that. The clearance was given on 29 January 2025. That information was not provided to me. In September, I did ask specifically about the process. Sir Chris Wormald had made it clear to me that, in carrying out that review, he was not told about the security clearance recommendation that was made. I think on both occasions that information should have been provided, both to me and to the then Cabinet Secretary.”
“I do not accept that the view of anyone about Peter Mandelson provides an explanation for not providing me with the information that the recommendation was not to grant him security clearance. We are talking about a very serious issue on a very sensitive case. I clearly should have been given that information whatever the pressures, which are always there in government every day.”
“My hon. Friend is right to focus on the victims in this. I started this statement by making it clear that this was a judgment error on my part, and the apology that I have made is to the victims, because I know the impact that this will have had on them, who have already suffered so very much.”
“I acted on the information that was provided to me in the due diligence process. The information that was dealt with in the security vetting process was not made available to me—nor can that detail be made available to me. It is the recommendation that should have been made available to me.”
“I did ask Sir Chris Wormald to carry out a review. I worked on the basis that all the relevant information would be shared with him. It was only last week that I found out from Sir Chris that he himself had not been provided with information that he should have been provided with when he was carrying out the review on my behalf.”
“Peter Mandelson was given security clearance, and that was clear to everyone, including myself. [ Interruption. ] He was given clearance; he was cleared. He would not have started the role if he had not been given clearance. As soon as it came to my attention last week that that was against the recommendation of UKSV, I asked for the information that I have now put before the House.”
“No, I did not mislead the House of Commons. I accept that information that I should have had, and that the House should have had, should have been before the House, but I did not mislead the House, and that is why I have set out the account in full.”
“At various points questions were asked, and questions were put to the FCDO. The answer back was the same, because it took the view that it was not information it could share with anyone, including myself.”
“I have set out the procedure in some detail. Information should have been provided to me. It was not provided to me. If it had been provided, I would not have allowed the appointment of Peter Mandelson to proceed in the way that it did.”
“I have accepted the error of judgment on my behalf, but I was not provided with information. Had I been provided with it, I would not have made the appointment.”
“I was aware of what was in the due diligence—I have dealt with that—but I was not aware of the issues that were dealt with in the security vetting, nor the recommendation of UKSV.”
“The first I knew that there had been a recommendation to deny clearance was Tuesday evening of last week. The security clearance had been given by the Foreign Office before Peter Mandelson took up the post. As soon as it came to my attention, I sought the information that I have put before the House today.”
“Yes, I will look at that. I want to assert again that thousands of civil servants act with professionalism and integrity every day. On this occasion, this information should have been brought to my attention. Had it been, the appointment would not have been proceeded with.”
“I was not provided with the information that I should have been provided with. Had I been provided with it, I would not have made the same decision. It was not negligence; it was a deliberate decision not to tell me.”
“I thank my hon. Friend for her campaigning on behalf of those victims and many other victims in relation to abuse and sexual abuse in particular and for her insistence always that we must put the victims first. We are complying with the Humble Address as quickly as possible, and we will comply with it fully.”
“I simply do not accept that there is any good reason why I could not have been provided with the information that was withheld from me. Had it been provided to me, I would not have proceeded with the appointment.”
“Yes, I agree. The absolute focus needs to be on the fact that we are facing a war on two fronts and a cost of living crisis that this Government are gripping.”
“No. What I did was ask for the process to be reviewed, and Sir Chris Wormald carried out that review. What transpired last week was that information was withheld from him in the review, so I asked for the review. I did ask the questions, and he gave me his conclusions, but neither he nor I knew that he too was not told the relevant material in the course of that review.”
“The information was withheld from me and from the Cabinet Secretary, who was conducting a review on my behalf. That became clear yesterday, and I have set out the facts to Parliament.”
“Peter Mandelson was granted developed vetting clearance by the Foreign Office before he took up the post. It was only last Tuesday that I found out that that was against the recommendation of UKSV.”
“Peter Mandelson got DV clearance before he took up his post as ambassador. That clearance was given by the Foreign Office. I found out that that was against the recommendation on Tuesday evening of last week.”
“The decision to grant clearance was made by the FCDO. In September, it became clear to me that the answers to the due diligence that Peter Mandelson had given were not truthful, and that is why I set in place the various reviews that I did and also changed the approach in relation to when developed vetting checks are carried out.”
“The fact of the matter is that Peter Mandelson was given developed vetting clearance before he took up his post as the ambassador, and that was a decision that was taken by the FCDO.”
“A number of inquiries were made, questions were asked of the FCDO, and the answer they gave was the same. They did not disclose to me or anyone in No. 10 that UKSV had advised and recommended against clearance.”
“What happened in January was that developed vetting clearance was given by the Foreign Office. That was the simple fact of the matter. It was only last week that I found out the further circumstances that I have now set out to the House.”
“I have made it clear that my position was that the appointment was subject to developed vetting. I cannot in all conscience remember what exactly has been redacted. [ Interruption. ] The hon. Member is asking me about what was in a redacted note. I understood that the process had been subject to developed vetting. That is why I asked Chris Wormald to look at the process and reference back to Simon Case.”
“Because he did not bring to my attention information that he should have brought to my attention. Had he done so, I would not have made the appointment.”
“As I have made clear, I did know what was in the due diligence report, and I have made that clear to the House a number of times today. I have actually made it clear to the House on previous occasions.”
“I reject the idea that any pressure is a good reason not to disclose to the Prime Minister that UKSV recommended against clearance for a very senior, sensitive appointment. I simply do not accept that that is an adequate reason, whatever the pressure.”
“I have made it clear that I knew what was in the due diligence. I have also made it clear that the FCDO granted security clearance before Peter Mandelson took up his post.”