Skip to main content

1-50 of 849 results for subject:USA

Member X
Keir Starmer

Type

House

Session

Year

Department

Member

Starmer, Keir (849)
More

Primary member

Answering member

Legislative stage

Legislation

Subject

More

Publisher


Show detailed: On Off
Results: 10 20 50 100
Sort by: Newest first Oldest first

Before I answer that question, I have just been handed a note saying that I inadvertently said that we did a trade deal with North Korea, rather than South Korea. That would be breaking news and not very good. Before I am referred to the Privileges Committee, can I correct the record in that regard? It was a slip of the tongue, but a pretty unfortunate one.

In relation to my hon. Friend’s question, families and farmers are rightly frustrated about being impacted by a war that the UK did not start. Protecting working people is our priority. Today, we are cutting red diesel costs for farmers by a third, delivering the lowest rate for 20 years. That is alongside a record £11.8 billion for the farming budget and a new national programme to redistribute surplus food. We will make sure that no one in this country goes hungry. I can confirm that the Chancellor will make further announcements tomorrow.

Answered by
Keir Starmer (Labour)
Answering body
Prime Minister
Type
Oral answers to questions
Date
20 May 2026
Reference
786 c542
House
House of Commons

Given what I have had thrown at me in the last two weeks by all the Opposition parties, that is the least of my problems. I know that the right hon. Gentleman likes stunts, but I was surprised that he joined in with the one yesterday. His business spokesman said last week that he was satisfied that I had not misled the House. The right hon. Gentleman’s opening position was that it was inconceivable that officials would give clearance to Mandelson and not tell Ministers that it was against the United Kingdom Security Vetting recommendation. That is what he said, and it did not happen. I expect frivolous accusations from the Leader of the Opposition. Clearly, I was wrong to expect anything better from the man in the wetsuit.

Answered by
Keir Starmer (Labour)
Answering body
Prime Minister
Type
Oral answers to questions
Date
29 April 2026
Reference
784 c892
House
House of Commons

No, it’s because they can see a baseless allegation and political stunt when they see it. The hon. Gentleman is a former GP, so here is the truth: we have recruited 82 more GPs and upgraded his medical centre. Opposition Members want all the benefits, but they never want to pay for them.

Answered by
Keir Starmer (Labour)
Answering body
Prime Minister
Type
Oral answers to questions
Date
29 April 2026
Reference
784 c895
House
House of Commons

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.

Answered by
Keir Starmer (Labour)
Answering body
Prime Minister
Type
Oral answers to questions
Date
22 April 2026
Reference
784 c315
House
House of Commons

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.

Answered by
Keir Starmer (Labour)
Answering body
Prime Minister
Type
Oral answers to questions
Date
22 April 2026
Reference
784 c317
House
House of Commons

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.

Answered by
Keir Starmer (Labour)
Answering body
Prime Minister
Type
Oral answers to questions
Date
22 April 2026
Reference
784 c318
House
House of Commons

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.

Answered by
Keir Starmer (Labour)
Answering body
Prime Minister
Type
Oral answers to questions
Date
22 April 2026
Reference
784 cc316-7
House
House of Commons

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.

Answered by
Keir Starmer (Labour)
Answering body
Prime Minister
Type
Oral answers to questions
Date
22 April 2026
Reference
784 c316
House
House of Commons

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.”

Answered by
Keir Starmer (Labour)
Answering body
Prime Minister
Type
Oral answers to questions
Date
22 April 2026
Reference
784 c315
House
House of Commons

I have set out in terms what I was not told in relation to the process. It is clearly information that I should have been given. A UKSV recommendation with a double red flag should have been brought to my attention; it was a serious error of judgment that it was not. Anyone in my position would have taken exactly the decision that I took in relation to the permanent secretary.

Answered by
Keir Starmer (Labour)
Answering body
Prime Minister
Type
Oral answers to questions
Date
22 April 2026
Reference
784 c321
House
House of Commons

Speaker's statement on Parliamentary rules and courtesies. Ministerial statement on the appointment of Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United States. Zarah Sultana, Member for Coventry South, was named by the Speaker for disregarding the authority of the Chair (Standing Order No. 44). Motion that Zarah Sultana be suspended from...

Lead member
Keir Starmer
Department
Prime Minister
Type
Ministerial statements; Speaker's statements
Notes
Speaker's statement at c23
Date
20 April 2026
Reference
784 cc23-63
House
House of Commons

I have set out the facts to the House this afternoon. I have ordered a review of security vetting by Sir Adrian Fulford, so that if any further changes are needed, we can put them in place.

Member
Keir Starmer (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
20 April 2026
Reference
784 c62
House
House of Commons

That was a routine meeting in the course of a visit I was on in the US.

Member
Keir Starmer (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
20 April 2026
Reference
784 c62
House
House of Commons

I remind the hon. Lady that, in the last two weeks, my senior officials have brought this to my attention, which is—[Interruption.] No, before the Guardian. They brought it to my attention on Tuesday evening. That is what led me to ask further questions and make this statement to the...

Member
Keir Starmer (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
20 April 2026
Reference
784 c63
House
House of Commons

I have accepted that I made an error in the appointment, and apologised to the victims, as I must.

Member
Keir Starmer (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
20 April 2026
Reference
784 c63
House
House of Commons

I was asked about the vetting process, and the due diligence is part of the vetting process. Rather than rest on a technicality, I gave the House the information that I had about what I knew from the due diligence. It was clear what the Leader of the Opposition was...

Member
Keir Starmer (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
20 April 2026
Reference
784 c63
House
House of Commons

I have dealt with that issue on a number of occasions.

Member
Keir Starmer (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
20 April 2026
Reference
784 c63
House
House of Commons

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to provide the House with information that I now have about the appointment of Peter Mandelson as our ambassador to the United States.

Before I go into the details, I want to be very clear with this House that while this statement will focus...

Member
Keir Starmer (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
20 April 2026
Reference
784 cc23-6
House
House of Commons

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...

Member
Keir Starmer (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
20 April 2026
Reference
784 cc28-9
House
House of Commons

I thank my right hon. Friend for her question. Her Committee did ask relevant questions, and that is why I have indicated that it was unforgivable that the Foreign Secretary was asked to sign a statement in response to those very questions without being told about the recommendation. The questions...

Member
Keir Starmer (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
20 April 2026
Reference
784 c30
House
House of Commons

I set out in my statement the full facts. In September, when the Bloomberg emails came to light, I asked the then Cabinet Secretary to review the process. He told me that the process was as it should have been, and as soon as the information about the security vetting...

Member
Keir Starmer (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
20 April 2026
Reference
784 c31
House
House of Commons

In relation to the right hon. Lady’s question, let me be clear: I should not have appointed Peter Mandelson. As soon as the further revelations came to light, I did ask the Cabinet Secretary to review the process, so that I could be assured about the process. He wrote to...

Member
Keir Starmer (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
20 April 2026
Reference
784 c32
House
House of Commons

In answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office was repeatedly asked, in the light of inquiries. The same answer came back, because a clear decision had been taken that this information was not going to be disclosed—and it was not disclosed to me, let alone...

Member
Keir Starmer (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
20 April 2026
Reference
784 c32
House
House of Commons

Let me deal with what is at the heart of that question, in relation to an unspoken message to civil servants. I do not accept that. It is simply not good enough, on a question of national security where the recommendation is that clearance be denied, for anyone, particularly senior...

Member
Keir Starmer (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
20 April 2026
Reference
784 c33
House
House of Commons

I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his question. The answer is yes, it would have been provided to the Committee, and as I think he acknowledged, it has now been provided to the Committee. The reason for the delay is that on Tuesday night, I found out...

Member
Keir Starmer (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
20 April 2026
Reference
784 c33
House
House of Commons

That is precisely why I have asked for the entire developed vetting process to be reviewed by Sir Adrian Fulford, and I have made it absolutely clear to this House and to the civil service that my strong view is that the information that was not provided to me could...

Member
Keir Starmer (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
20 April 2026
Reference
784 c34
House
House of Commons

Yes, it was my decision. It was an error of judgment, and that is why I have apologised to the victims of Epstein. I have done that again today, and it is right to do so. In relation to the second point of the hon. Member’s question and any other...

Member
Keir Starmer (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
20 April 2026
Reference
784 c34
House
House of Commons

That is why last week the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister suspended the power of the FCDO to make a recommendation or to take a decision contrary to the recommendation of UKSV.

Member
Keir Starmer (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
20 April 2026
Reference
784 c34
House
House of Commons

The right hon. Member reads out the passage from Mr Case’s advice. The process that was followed was what I understood to be the usual process—in other words, the appointment was subject to security vetting. It is why, when Sir Chris Wormald looked at it in September, he addressed the...

Member
Keir Starmer (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
20 April 2026
Reference
784 c35
House
House of Commons

I do not agree with the hon. Member’s point about vetting in relation to political appointments, but I do agree that the due diligence for direct ministerial appointments should be the same as for any other appointments. It clearly was not, and that is why in September I ordered that...

Member
Keir Starmer (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
20 April 2026
Reference
784 c35
House
House of Commons

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. [Laughter.] I have laid out the relevant facts. It is absolutely clear that nobody is suggesting that this information was made available to me. It clearly was not made available. It should have been made available, and I would not have...

Member
Keir Starmer (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
20 April 2026
Reference
784 c35
House
House of Commons

That is precisely why I have asked for a review of the security vetting to be carried out. I have no reason to believe that to be the case, but I want to be assured about the security vetting process, and that is why I have asked Sir Adrian Fulford...

Member
Keir Starmer (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
20 April 2026
Reference
784 c36
House
House of Commons

In September it became clear to me that in relation to the due diligence that had been carried out by the Cabinet Office, Peter Mandelson had been asked questions by my staff and given answers which were not truthful. That was exposed by the Bloomberg emails. At that point, I...

Member
Keir Starmer (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
20 April 2026
Reference
784 c36
House
House of Commons

May I address that head-on? What happened was that the information came to the attention of senior civil servants who were, in fact, doing the compliance work on the Humble Address. When they saw the information about developed vetting they took legal advice straight away, asking whether it was legal...

Member
Keir Starmer (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
20 April 2026
Reference
784 c36
House
House of Commons

I assure the hon. Lady that I have ordered a review of any national security issues arising in relation to what I found out last Tuesday. I will obviously update the House when that review is complete.

Member
Keir Starmer (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
20 April 2026
Reference
784 c37
House
House of Commons

I am sure that Margaret Hodge will do a very good job in that role, as she has done in so many other roles previously.

Member
Keir Starmer (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
20 April 2026
Reference
784 c37
House
House of Commons

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

Member
Keir Starmer (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
20 April 2026
Reference
784 c37
House
House of Commons

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...

Member
Keir Starmer (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
20 April 2026
Reference
784 c38
House
House of Commons

Let me answer that in relation to Sir Olly, and let me start by saying he has had a distinguished career. I must say that, and I do say that. Still, notwithstanding that, he should have provided this information to me, and he could have provided it to me. He...

Member
Keir Starmer (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
20 April 2026
Reference
784 c38
House
House of Commons

I was dealing with a very serious issue. I asked my team to establish urgently the facts on Tuesday night. I spoke to the former permanent secretary on Thursday night. As a result of the information I had and the exchanges I had, I made it clear that I no...

Member
Keir Starmer (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
20 April 2026
Reference
784 c38
House
House of Commons

I have read that evidence, and it remains my strong view that the recommendation of UKSV could and should have been shared with me, and could and should have been shared with the Foreign Secretary and thus with the Select Committee—and it should have been.

Member
Keir Starmer (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
20 April 2026
Reference
784 c39
House
House of Commons

I say again that Sir Olly Robbins has had a distinguished career, and I have worked with him over a number of years. None the less, he could and should have shared this crucially relevant information with me before Peter Mandelson took up his post, and he should have done...

Member
Keir Starmer (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
20 April 2026
Reference
784 c39
House
House of Commons

We have taken a number of measures in relation to crypto—

Member
Keir Starmer (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
20 April 2026
Reference
784 c40
House
House of Commons

I understand that to be the case. Obviously—[Interruption.] No, I am only saying that it was not my decision to withhold it. I understand, if I have understood Sir Olly’s position correctly, that his argument is that he cannot share it, or he could not share it, with anyone. That...

Member
Keir Starmer (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
20 April 2026
Reference
784 c40
House
House of Commons

In many instances, it is the recommendation of UKSV that is effectively the final decision, so of course it is known. In the Foreign Office, there is the additional part of the process in which the final decision is, in fact, taken by Foreign Office officials rather than the recommendation...

Member
Keir Starmer (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
20 April 2026
Reference
784 c40
House
House of Commons

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.

Member
Keir Starmer (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
20 April 2026
Reference
784 c41
House
House of Commons

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...

Member
Keir Starmer (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
20 April 2026
Reference
784 c41
House
House of Commons

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...

Member
Keir Starmer (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
20 April 2026
Reference
784 c41
House
House of Commons

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.

Member
Keir Starmer (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
20 April 2026
Reference
784 c42
House
House of Commons

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...

Member
Keir Starmer (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
20 April 2026
Reference
784 c42
House
House of Commons