Today [Monday 20th April 2026] Kemi Badenoch MP, Leader of the Conservative Party, responded to the Prime Minister’s Statement on the appointment of Peter Mandelson as Britain’s Ambassador to the United States. In her response, Kemi said:
'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 despatch 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 Mandelson 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 Mandelson to be our ambassador to the United States.
We know that Mandelson had a close relationship with a convicted paedophile.
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 is usual for this because it was a political appointment. So I will remind him and the rest of the frontbench who are heckling, that Peter Mandelson 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 Mandelson 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.
Let me turn to what we do not know.
We still do not know exactly why Peter Mandelson 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 was blatantly incorrect and not a single advisor or official told him that what he was saying wasn’t true.
At every turn with every explanation the government’s story has become murkier and more contradictory.
It is time for the truth.
There are too many questions in the allotted time Mr Speaker. So I am 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 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 Rt Hon Gentleman told me at PMQs in September 2025 that full due process was followed in this appointment.
We now know that in November 2024, Lord Case, the then Cabinet Secretary told him this process required security vetting to be done before the appointment.
He does not mention any of what Lord Case said in his statement earlier.
So first question. Does the PM accept that when he said on the floor of the House that full due process was followed, this was not true?
Secondly, on 11 September last year, journalists asked his Director of Communications if it was true that Mandelson had failed security vetting. These allegations were on the front page of a national newspaper and yet No 10 did not deny the story. Why?
Three. Will the Prime Minister repeat from the despatch box his words last week that no one in No 10 was aware before Tuesday that Mandelson had failed his vetting?
The Prime Minister says he’s furious that he wasn’t told the recommendations of the vetting. Yet on 16th 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. Why is the Prime Minister so furious that it was followed?
On 4th February 2026 the Prime Minister. Fifth question Mr Speaker. On 4th February 2026 the Prime Minister told me from the Despatch Box, that the security vetting he had received had revealed Mandelson's relationship with Epstein. How could he say that if he had not seen the security vetting?
And finally Mr Speaker, Sistema is a Russian defence 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’s how you face up to those mistakes that shows the character of a leader.
Instead of taking responsibility for the decision 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 organisation 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 these people fired for a decision he made.
The Rt Hon Gentleman’s defence 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 Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein.
He asked no questions about the security risk Mandelson posed.
Apparently, he didn’t even speak to Peter Mandelson 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. Whitehall 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 am only holding the Prime Minister to the same standard to which he held others.
On 26 January 2022 the Rt Hon Gentlemen said to a previous Prime Minister at this despatch 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?'
