April 2026

Parliamentary appearance by Steve Yemm

Parliamentary appearance by John Cooper

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.

Yes, I can give that assurance. We will.

This Government will take swift action. That is precisely why the Home Secretary commissioned Lord Macdonald to look at the issues that the hon. Member has raised. She will have heard the responses I have given about proscription.

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.

The Prime Minister has spoken about process, the reviews, and trying to put that which went wrong right. That is to be supported, but he is asking the House and the country to believe that notwithstanding a front-page media splash saying that Peter Mandelson had failed the vetting process, there was nobody in No. 10 or in any Government Department who even thought to say, “Is there any truth in this? Could I have a briefing on that? We need to knock this story down.” If nobody asked, that is the

At the risk of stating the obvious, the Prime Minister has based his defence today and over this whole sorry saga on his claim that he was not told that Mandelson failed security vetting. In fact, he said 11 times in his statement that he was not told. How many times and on which specific dates did he himself directly ask for that information?

I hope that schools in South Dorset and—crucially—the Minister will have read the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport’s “Game On” report, which was published today. It makes the case for increased physical activity in schools and the positive impact it has on a pupil’s ability to learn. However, recent reports suggest that the Government are proposing funding cuts for physical education, so will the Minister please give a very clear commitment today that there will be no reduction in fu

That is why I have asked for a review to be carried out in relation to material that could have caused any national security issues.

In the interests of transparency, Madam Deputy Speaker, my glasses are reading glasses, but they also happen to be sunglasses. I will try not to put them on, but my eyes are beginning to go. I do not want to pretend to the House that I am trying to be cool if I put on my glasses; it is just so that I can read the words in front of me. I want to start by thanking all hon. Members who have spoken in this short but very interesting debate on a wide variety of issues. In particular, I thank my hon.

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement, and I thank him even more for his apology about the appointment of Peter Madndelson. Speaking in the Chamber today, I want to once again commit to the record the words of Virginia Giuffre, which are particularly relevant to Peter Mandelson: “Don't be fooled by those in Epstein's circle who say they didn't know what Epstein was doing. Anyone who spent any significant amount of time with Epstein saw him touching girls in ways you wouldn’t want a creepy

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 do agree with my hon. Friend, and I thank her for making sure that the victims are central to this, as they should be.

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 think that needs to be subject to the review, and that is among the reasons why I put the review in place.

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 first knew last Tuesday, as I have 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.