Return to Transcripts main page
Connect the World
U.S.-Iran Talks In Doubt With Time Running Out On Ceasefire; Eight Children Killed In Louisiana Mass Shooting; No Tankers Seen Passing Through Strait Of Hormuz; Soon: United Kingdom Prime Minister To Address Parliament Over Mandelson Scandal; Starmer Speaks To Parliament About Mandelson Scandal; Starmer: Recommendation On Mandelson Should Have Been Before He Took Ambassador Post; Badenoch: If Mandelson Failed Vetting, We Don't Know What Risks Country Exposed To. Aired 10-11a ET
Aired April 20, 2026 - 10:00:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[10:00:35]
BECKY ANDERSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Well, we are looking at live pictures from Louisiana, where police say a gunman has killed eight
children, including seven of his own in this house in the deadliest mass shooting in the United States since 2024.
Welcome to the second hour of the show from our Mideast programming headquarters. I'm Becky Anderson in Abu Dhabi where the time is just after
6:00 in the evening.
Also coming up this hour, contradicting statements just 36 hours before the U.S.-Iran cease fire is due to expire, with Vice President J.D. s Vance
expected to travel to Islamabad for talks on Tuesday, while Iran insists there are no plans for negotiations.
And the British Prime Minister facing political turmoil with the fallout from the Epstein files. We'll have more from London as the prime minister
prepares to face lawmakers.
Well, doubt, mistrust and anger, certainly not the atmosphere one would want going into potential peace talks, but that is exactly what we are
seeing as the U.S. and Iran approach the end of their temporary cease fire, some of the language turning increasingly hostile. U.S. President Donald
Trump has threatened to knock out Iranian power plants and bridges if Tehran doesn't take the deal that is on the table.
Iran, through state media, called U.S. forces who seized an Iranian vessel on Sunday terrorists and threatened to retaliate. Officials there now say
they may not send negotiators to Islamabad at all.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ESMAEIL BAQAEI, IRANIAN FOREIGN MINISTRY SPOKESPERSON (through translator): As of now, as I'm speaking to you, we have no plan for the next round of
negotiations. No decision has been taken in this regard.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANDERSON: Well, Iran's president taking a slightly more moderate tone, urging a quick end to the war so the country can rebuild. The U.S. for its
part, not veering so far from its plans to attend a second round of negotiations in Pakistan. Vice President J.D. Vance currently expected to
depart Washington on Tuesday.
Kevin Liptak is back with us this hour from Washington, along with our Jerusalem Correspondent Jeremy Diamond.
And Kevin, you know, there was quite some optimism going into the weekend about talks this week. So, what went wrong?
KEVIN LIPTAK, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: I think there was a few factors that seem to have gone into this. One was the president's very
bullish stance on social media and in phone calls with reporters, essentially saying that all of the sticking points had been resolved with
Iran that a deal was essentially in hand. That is not how the Iranians viewed it by any means, and that seems to have put them off somewhat.
But secondly, you also have the situation in the Strait of Hormuz, President Trump accusing Iran of violating the cease fire by firing on two
ships, the U.S. saying that it also fired on an Iranian vessel, increasing the tensions and leading some -- to some concerns that these proposed talks
that the president said were on track seem to be falling apart.
Now, that doesn't comport with the view of American officials. They say that these talks are still very much on, albeit happening a little later
this week than President Trump had initially previewed. We understand that the Vice President J.D. Vance will be leaving Washington tomorrow. He's set
to lead this delegation in the talks that will occur on Tuesday evening.
But of course, Tuesday evening is when that cease fire is set to expire, and we don't know yet whether President Trump would extend it if he thinks
that these talks are bearing fruit, or whether he would follow through on these maximalist threats that he's been putting out to target Iranian
civilian infrastructure, bridges, power plants, all of the sites that he has claimed that he would target previously, but then backed off of, but
this time, seems only more willing to go after if the Iranians don't agree to a deal.
At this point, we don't understand exactly what the contours of a proposed framework would look like. We don't understand how the two sides have
reconciled their differences over Iran's nuclear program, over unfreezing Iranian assets, all of the sticking points that caused those marathon talks
last weekend to result in no deal.
[10:05:09]
And so how these talks proceed remains unclear, but at least from the American perspective, they are on track to occur and they view the Iranians
suggesting that they won't show up is essentially posturing. They seem to be of the belief that this will all result in a negotiation in Islamabad,
sometime relatively quickly, but how all of those differences are reconciled still unclear.
ANDERSON: Jeremy, let me bring you in. Thank you, Kevin.
Lebanon's president says that negotiations with Israel are separate from any wider sort of U.S.-Iran deal. I just wonder how significant that is
that we see Lebanon insisting on these separate talks with Israel at this point.
JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN JERUSALEM CORRESPONDENT: Well, I think in many ways, Becky. It reflects the broader concerns in the region about the possibility
that the U.S.-Iran conflict could once again turn back into a hot war.
And of course, for Lebanon, that is extremely concerning, because it was because of those U.S.-Iran negotiations that Israel was ultimately
pressured by the United States to agreeing to a cease fire in Lebanon.
And of course, Lebanon has also seen the way in which it was initially dragged into this conflict because Hezbollah decided to fire rockets on
Israel in retaliation for Israeli and American strikes inside of Iran.
And so, I think the Lebanese President's message here is intended to try and preserve the diplomacy that is now burgeoning between Israel and
Lebanon, even if this broader conflict between the U.S., Israel and Iran escalates into an all-out war.
And so, we do expect that there will be a next round of negotiations between Israel and Lebanon this coming Thursday, according to an Israeli
official, but the concern from Lebanon is that should the broader negotiations break down, that either Hezbollah will begin firing rockets on
Israel, prompting Israeli retaliation, or that Israel will once again go after Hezbollah.
ANDERSON: Good to have you both. Thank you.
Well, I want to dig into how the decisions that are being made, both in the U.S. and very specifically in Iran, by what feels like sort of fragmented
leadership, may impact the next few days.
Hamidreza Azizi is a visiting fellow at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs. He's been a regular guest on this show
over the past eight weeks or so. He's live for us today from Berlin.
We are then hearing from Tehran, no plans for talks right now. How do we get from tentative diplomacy? But diplomacy, you know, that felt quite
optimistic to this level of breakdown in just a matter of days.
HAMIDREZA AZIZI, VISITING FELLOW, GERMAN INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL AND SECURITY AFFAIRS: Well, the way I see it, the Iranian leadership sees
itself caught between two pressures. On the one hand, we have Donald Trump, who seems to be himself cutting a kind of excavation trap, you know,
believing that a bit more pressure, where at least the threat of more pressure, and, you know, lead Iran towards some sort of a better deal or
compromise, or, as sometimes, you know, American officials have described the capitulation.
So, this has complicated matters on the one hand, and on the other hand, we have a core ideologically oriented, hardline support base of the Islamic
Republic that sees any compromise, and not even that any talk under pressure, under military threat, as a sign of capitulation.
So, managing this is very difficult, and that's the reason why we are hearing all these contradictory statements.
So, this is not only posturing, the way I see it, it's a sign of a real dilemma. So, that's the core of the problem, actually, at the moment.
ANDERSON: And I want -- and I want to play you this clip, and for our viewers, of course, of Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, who is, of course, the
Speaker of the Iranian parliament, one of the most powerful figures in the country, someone with ties to both the military and political establishment
and one of the key interlocutors for the Iranian delegation in Islamabad last week, have a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MOHAMMAD BAGHER GHALIBAF, SPEAKER, IRANIAN PARLIAMENT (through translator): Our dear people, the Strait is under the control of the Islamic Republic.
Do you remember that they wanted to send mine sweepers to clear the mines? Well, we stood firm against them and confronted them. We considered this a
violation of the cease fire, and we said that if you take this action, we will strike. Even went to the stage of a clash and they retreated.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[10:10:04]
ANDERSON: This is clearly for a domestic audience, but just explain the significance of us hearing from Ghalibaf there and the consequences for any
deal. What are you hearing?
AZIZI: Well, the context matters here, as we know, it started with Abbas Araghchi, the Iranian former -- the Iranian foreign minister posting on X
that the Strait was open, and then it was faced with a backlash from the hardliners, even in the state T.V. And that has to do with the kind of
support base, the ideologically oriented one that I mentioned earlier.
So, it went so far as to, you know, kind of leading to speculations about the rift between military and political leadership.
So, that's why Ghalibaf himself had to come to the state T.V. as someone who, as you described, kind of connects these two spheres, a military
background, with political role as the speaker of parliament, to explain to the people that first, there is no rift between the political and the
military leadership of the country.
And second, we know what we do, and we are not going to compromise on the core issues. We stick to our red lines. So that explains to the extent to
which you know, domestic landscape in Iran matters.
And it's not just about the one man show as sometimes, has described, has been described by Ghalibaf going there, you know, reaching the deal with
J.D. Vance, so it's far more complicated than what appears from the outside election.
ANDERSON: How much autonomy does Ghalibaf have, to your mind at this point, if talks were to move forward? I mean, who is in charge and how and who is
making decisions at this point?
AZIZI: Well, that's a million dollar question, of course, but what I can say is that the system has changed quite a bit after the death of Ali
Khamenei.
So, he used to be the central arbiter in the system, even then, of course, it wasn't a one man show. We had the supreme National Security Council as a
consensus building institution, and then the final decisions on almost in almost all strategic matters would be -- would need to go through
Khamenei's approval.
But now, given the wartime circumstances, and also given the very fact that we don't even know whether Mojtaba Khamenei in full health and capable, the
system has shifted towards a more consensual kind of and bargaining oriented system.
So, Ghalibaf is one among the few others would be like Mohammad Zolghadr, so that the current Secretary of the supreme National Security Council.
Ahmad Vahidi, the Acting Chief Commander of the guards. So, these are the ones on top. And then the civilian administration under position acts
mostly as the implementer and not the decision maker here.
ANDERSON: You've posted, and I quote here, I'm struck by how many people still draw a distinction between political and military leadership in the
context of the Islamic Republic, the idea that Abbas, or actually the foreign minister, would make such a significant announcement you were
speaking about the announcement that the Strait of Hormuz will be quite, "Completely open." Without the green light from the military leadership, is
simply misguided.
So, that does beg the question, what is the -- what is the U.S. to sort of read into, what is going on behind the scenes and at this point, where do
you believe we are headed?
AZIZI: Well, first of all, it has to do exactly with what I just described as the face of the Iranian diplomacy, of course, as the formal interlocutor
saying something. It doesn't mean that, you know, he is making any different decision, or, you know, doing something in contradiction with the
core decision making body that I -- that I described.
But what it indicates is that there's a there seems to be a miscalculation, misunderstanding, better to say on the U.S. side about these dynamics. So
what I can tell is that it's really difficult to imagine that even if Iran sends a delegation to Islamabad for talks, there's going to be any, you
know, real progress toward the deal, as long as the naval blockade is in -- is in place for the simple reason that I described earlier, so it needs
steps from both sides.
[10:15:00]
So, that is the way that it is right now presented in Iran. It doesn't mean that they are in a very comfortable position. As I said, they need to walk
a tightrope in balancing all those domestic and external pressures, but this would be the only way like your mutual steps, the only way for the
tightrope in balancing all those domestic and external pressures. But this, this would be the only way like your mutual steps, the only way for the
diplomacy to move forward.
ANDERSON: Yes, it's always good to have you. Thank you very much indeed.
These are critical times. Of course, we are less than 36 hours away from what we were told was a temporary truce -- a temporary 10-day truce that
would expire around about, sort of, you know, 5:00-6:00 in the morning, UAE time. That's where I am at the morning at the moment, and it is now 6:00 in
the evening on Monday. It would expire Wednesday morning. It was late at night, of course, on the Tuesday when Donald Trump announced that 10-day
cease fire. So, we'll see what happens in the hours ahead.
CNN is reporting new details on Egypt's diplomatic efforts. A regional source tells us that Egypt, in coordination with Pakistan, is still trying
to bring the United States and Iran back to the negotiating table. Egypt has seen some diplomatic success in previous crises, and that is included
in the story online. You can find that on CNN's digital platforms, including the live blog that is, of course, updated frequently with all the
latest developments.
All right, I want to turn to a difficult story now out of the United States, one that can only be described as disturbing. A community in
Shreveport in Louisiana is in mourning after eight children were killed in what is the deadliest U.S. mass shooting since 2024. The three boys and
five girls were aged between three and 11. The shooting happened early Sunday, and police have identified the gunman is Shamar Elkins. He was the
father of seven of those children killed. CNN's Isabel Rosales reports from Shreveport for you.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ISABEL ROSALES, CNN CORRESPONDENT: It is an awful, awful crime that has left this community of Shreveport disgusted, shaken, struggling to
understand how something like this could happen in the first place.
Now, this mass shooting spanned across three different homes, including this great home right behind me. This is the home where those eight
children were shot and killed, seven of them siblings shot and killed by their own father. The eighth child was a cousin to them.
As the sun has come up, I've seen parents lovingly ushering their children out the door with backpacks or rushing to get to school. These children had
their lives stolen from them. They will never again get the opportunity to see their classmates get an education, nothing.
Shreveport police say that Shawn Elkins first began his deadly shooting by targeting his wife and the mother of his children. Then he went to this
home right here, where he shot the children, and there was a third home involved. He also car jacked a driver and led police on a chase across a
neighboring parish, where ultimately police officers shot and killed him.
Now those eight children the ages again that you mentioned, 3 years old to 11 years old, all of them siblings, except for one, two adult women,
including the gunman's wife, have been critically wounded. They're fighting for their lives in the hospital. One teen was also injured.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ANDERSON: That was Isabel Rosales from the scene there in Shreveport in Louisiana. We'll be right back with more news after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[10:21:00]
ANDERSON: Well, a wild ride for oil prices over the past few days, they are on the up again. Today, the cease fire between the U.S. and Iran set to run
out tomorrow, and hopes for a peace deal between Washington and Tehran suffering a blow after the U.S. Navy seized an Iranian cargo ship on
Sunday, the Iranians vow. Have vowed to retaliate.
I want to bring in CNN's David Goldman. He's live from New York. These markets, David, have been open for what sort of 45 minutes, also today, so
50 minutes, and they certainly hadn't had an impact on depressing the opening of the stock markets, at least, which are all down just slightly,
not significantly, but oil prices swinging sharply after the U.S. sees that Iranian vessel.
What's striking is that despite all of this, the markets do seem relatively sanguine at this point. Are they just -- are they pricing in a deal, a
quick deal at this point, or are investors, frankly, misinterpreting or underestimating the risks here?
DAVID GOLDMAN, CNN BUSINESS SENIOR REPORTER: They are definitely pricing in a deal. I mean, otherwise, we would have seen a comeback like we had just
the other day.
I mean, we were down 10 percent at one point on Friday, I think they closed down around eight percent, now we're back only around five percent, oil
prices are just not coming back all the way, and that is because no one knows what to make of this cease fire deal, whether or not this is actually
going to go through and whether Iran is actually going to start allowing Straits, crucially, allowing ships to go through the Strait.
The big question right now is, how serious was that on Friday, and whether it was serious or not. I think makes all of this, you know, a crucial
question going forward.
Now, stocks, on the other hand, they haven't cared about any of this for quite some time. They've moved on. They're thinking about earnings. They're
thinking about A.I. and that's why we're having this big move where, you know, we had record high after record high last week, we're down just, you
know, a 10th of a percent, the Dow is basically flat right now. That's what's going on in the market, is that there's a shift in focus and stocks
and they just -- if you're a trader, you don't want to be left holding the bag.
ANDERSON: Yes, Main Street will be focused on an entirely different story, reopening cease fire, these sort of words you would associate with some
relief at the pump, but we're not seeing that in the U.S. Realistically, how long before any of this really feeds through to consumers, do you
think?
GOLDMAN: It depends on who you ask, right? So, Energy Secretary Chris Wright said we won't see $3.00 gas until next year. Now, Scott Bessent, the
Treasury Secretary, said last week that we could start to see some of that in the summer, and now we have President Trump saying, well, Wright was
wrong, and we are actually going to start to see gas in the threes soon.
Now, it depends on what you mean by $3.00 gas, because if you're talking about, as Bessent said, a gas price with the number three in front of it,
well, millions of Americans are already experiencing that because the average price is $4.04 that means that many people are paying less than
$4.00 and many people are paying more than $4.00 certainly on the west coast.
So, to answer your question, when are we going to see it? Well, a lot needs to happen before we get to that point.
First of all, you need to have the lower price of oil actually make its way through the system. All of that production that's been offline needs to go
online. They need to start loading tankers. Those tankers need to be able to pass through the Strait of Hormuz and get to their destination. And then
they need to put that through a refinery. Needs to be refined, go to a warehouse, and then into tankers and into gas stations.
[10:25:19]
And those gas stations need to be able to lower the price, and many of them aren't willing to do that right away. It's going to be quite some time
before we see $3.00 gas, unfortunately.
ANDERSON: Yes, fascinating times you've got to have a stomach of steel for these markets at this point. And if you are, you know, needing gas prices
to be lower, you're going to need to bide some time, I think. Thank you, David, always a pleasure. We're going to take a very quick break back after
this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ANDERSON: Welcome back. You're watching CONNECT THE WORLD with me Becky Anderson. Here are headlines this hour. U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance is
expected to travel to Pakistan on Tuesday or a possible second round of peace talks with Iran. That is, according to sources familiar with the
plan. Here as President Donald Trump earlier said he is sending his top negotiating team there. Iran says talks are not currently on the table
after the U.S. seized an Iranian flag vessel trying to reach a blockaded Iranian port.
While these Strait of Hormuz is virtually empty of traffic for a third consecutive day, Iran did a U turn at the weekend, putting up much
effectively closing the keyboard away after saying it would be completely reopened, Tehran said that was because U.S. was continuing to blockade
Iranian ports.
Eight children have been killed in Shreveport, Louisiana, in the worst us mass shooting since 2024 police have identified the gunman as the father of
seven of the children killed. The massacre happened early Sunday. Two women were also shot and critically wounded. One of them was the shooter's wife.
Well, in the next few minutes, the British Prime Minister will face parliament in a fight, frankly, for his political survival. Keir Starmer
insists he was not aware that the man he appointed to see British ambassador to the United States had failed his security vetting and was
pushed through by the Foreign Office regardless. That man was Peter Mandelson, whose close ties to Jeffrey Epstein were later revealed in files
released by the U.S. Justice Department. Mandelson was dismissed in September as the scandal erupted, but there is growing anger about why it
was allowed to happen in the first place.
Claire Sebastian is in London. And Claire, we know the prime minister will address lawmakers. That is just form.
[10:30:03]
What is he expected to say?
CLARE SEBASTIAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Becky, when the prime minister takes the floor in the next couple of minutes in House of Commons just
behind me, we know that his position will be, as you say, that he did not know, up until last week, that Peter Mandelson had failed his security
vetting, and that the foreign office had essentially overruled that decision and allowed his appointment to go ahead.
And if he had known that, he would not have appointed him in the first place. That's what the prime minister has said. That's what multiple
Cabinet ministers who are out speaking about this over the weekend have said.
But the central question for today is that look, he has stood on the floor of the House of Commons in the past, most recently in early February, and
said that due process was followed, that the security vetting procedure was followed. And the question for lawmakers is, did he mislead them?
The prime minister's spokesman saying today that he did not have the full information that he did not knowingly mislead them, and is going to provide
an update and a timeline of events around Peter Mandelson. So, that's the procedural issue. He is going to be providing an update, giving new
information on this vetting process to lawmakers.
But obviously, as you pointed out, this raises, again, the same political questions that we have seen before, around the prime minister's judgment,
why did he appoint Peter Mandelson to arguably the most consequential diplomatic posting for the United Kingdom to the United States, when,
obviously, he already knew, he has said this before, at least, to some extent, about his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein, that clearly would have
prompted a risk.
And this, the whole thing around the vetting process, merely re-ups these questions around his judgment, because, of course, we now know that he was
appointed. His appointment was officially announced before the vetting process was completed.
So, this is the start of a critical week, Becky, for the prime minister. We have his statement and questions on the floor of the House of Commons today
and tomorrow on Tuesday. Olly Robbins, who is the Foreign Office official, the top foreign office civil servant, who has been sacked as a result of
this, will give his side of the story to a parliamentary committee, and I think that will be extremely closely watched.
So, a moment of peril, I would say, for the prime minister less than two years after his landslide victory.
ANDERSON: Yes. And we see him just in the corner of our screens there. This is a full chamber, standing room only, it seems.
While we await the prime minister to stand and address these lawmakers, let's be quite clear here, and you are addressing this, but I want our
viewers to be quite clear.
Peter Mandelson's ties to Epstein are fundamentally what brought this to light. But that is not necessarily, necessarily why he failed the vetting
process.
(CROSSTALK)
SEBASTIAN: Yes.
ANDERSON: What were the concerns and how worried would lawmakers be about those concerns?
SEBASTIAN: Well, look, we don't know exactly why he failed the vetting process. That has not been officially released. There is a process underway
by which the -- which Downing Street is now releasing a whole load of documents related to his appointment, but we have not officially seen a
reason why he failed his vetting.
But, of course, this again, as I say, brings back those issues of judgment. There were known issues, his appointment was announced, and only afterwards
was the vetting completed. And in those documents that are gradually being released by Downing Street, it is clear that a top civil servant did say
that part of the procedure, if he was to make a political appointment.
And by the way, Peter Mandelson was a political appointment, not as it is usually the case when ambassadors are appointed in this country, is that
they are drawn from the ranks of the Foreign Office and the civil service. They are usually career diplomats.
This was different. It was already going to be under greater scrutiny, and he was advised to go through the vetting process before appointing him.
That didn't happen. He was appointed in December. The vetting process was completed in January, according to those revelations last week.
So, that is where we are. But as for why he failed the vetting, that has not been made public yet, Becky.
ANDERSON: Yes, OK.
The Speaker of the House is just addressing lawmakers. I have to assume that Keir Starmer is about to address the floor. And if he does, I'll stop
you.
But let me just try and squeeze in this last question. Keir Starmer has faced calls to step down before. He has remained defiant. Should we expect
that to be the case again, especially, given that he has support from key ministers? Correct? Here he comes. Hold that thought.
KEIR STARMER, PRIME MINISTER, UNITED KINGDOM: The House with information that I now have about the appointment of Peter Mandelson as our ambassador
to the United States.
But Mr. Speaker, before I go into the details, I want to be very clear with this House that while this statement will focus on the process surrounding
Peter Mandelson vetting an appointment, at the heart of this, there is also a judgment I made, but was wrong. I should not have appointed Peter
Mandelson. I take responsibility for that decision, and I apologize again to the victims of the pedophile Jeffrey Epstein who were clearly failed by
my decision.
[10:35:08]
Mr. Speaker, last Tuesday, evening, the 14th of April, I found out for the first time that on the 29th of January, 2025, before Peter Mandelson took
up his position as ambassador, the Foreign Office officials granted him developed vetting clearance against the specific recommendation of the
United Kingdom Security Vetting that developed vetting clearance should be denied.
Not only that, the Foreign Office officials who made that decision did not pass this information to me, to the foreign secretary, to her predecessor,
the deputy prime minister, to any other minister, or even to the former Cabinet secretary, Sir Chris Wormald. I found this staggering.
And therefore, last Tuesday, I immediately instructed officials in Downing Street and the Cabinet Office to urgently establish the facts on my
authority. I wanted to know who made the decision, on what basis, who knew. And Mr. Speaker, I wanted that information for the precise and explicit
purpose of updating this House, because this is information I should have had a long time ago, and it is information that this House should have had
a long time ago.
It is information that I and the House had the right to know. I will now set out a full timeline of the events in the Peter Mandelson process,
including from the fact-finding exercise I instructed last Tuesday.
Before doing so, I want to remind and reassure the house that the government will comply fully with the humble address motion of the 4th of
February.
Mr. Speaker, in December 2024 I was in the process of appointing a new ambassador for Washington. A due diligence exercise was conducted by the
Cabinet Office into Peter Mandelson's suitability, including questions put to him by my staff in Number 10. Peter Mandelson answered those questions
on the 10th December, and I received final advice on the due diligence process on the 11th.
I made the decision to appoint him on the 18 December. The appointment was announced on the 20th, and the security vetting process began on the 23rd
of December, 2024.
Mr. Speaker, I want to make clear to the House that for a direct ministerial appointment, it was usual for security vetting to happen after
the appointment, but before starting in post. That was the process in place at the time, Mr. Speaker, this was confirmed by the former Cabinet
secretary, Sir Chris Wormald at the Foreign Affairs Select Committee on the 3rd of November 2025, when he gave evidence.
Sir. Chris made clear, and I am quoting him now, 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.
At the same hearing of the same Select Committee, the former permanent secretary to the Foreign Office, sir Olly Robbins said, and I quote again,
Peter Mandelson did not hold national security vetting when he was appointed, but he went on, as is normally the case with external
appointments to my department and the wider civil service, the appointment was made subject to obtaining security clearance.
Mr. Speaker, after I sat, Peter Mandelson, I changed that process so that now an appointment cannot be announced until after security vetting is
passed.
Mr. Speaker, the security vetting was carried out by U.K. Security Vetting, UKSV, between the 23rd of December, 2024 and 28th January, 2025.
UKSV conducted vetting in the normal way, collecting relevant information, as well as interviewing the applicant, in this case, on two occasions.
Then, on the 28th of January, 2025, UKSV recommended to the Foreign Office that developed vetting clearance should be denied to Peter Mandelson.
[10:40:01]
The following day, on 29th of January, 2025, notwithstanding the UKSV recommendation that developed vetting clearance should be denied, Foreign
Office officials made the decision to grant developed vetting clearance for Peter Mandelson.
To be clear, for many departments, a decision from UKSV is binding. But for the Foreign Office, the final decision on developed vetting clearance is
made by Foreign Office officials, not UKSV
However, once the decision in this case came to light, the Foreign Office's power to make the final decision on developed vetting, clearance was
immediately suspended by my chief secretary last week.
Mr. Speaker, I accept that the sensitive personal information provided by an individual being vetted must be protected from disclosure. If that were
not the case, the integrity of the whole process would be compromised. What I do not accept is that the appointing minister cannot be told of the
recommendation by UKSV.
Indeed, given the seriousness of these issues and the significance of the appointment, I simply do not accept that Foreign Office officials could not
have informed me of UKSV's recommendations, whilst also maintaining the necessary confidentiality that vetting requires.
There is no law that stops civil servants sensibly flagging UKSV recommendations while protecting detailed, sensitive vetting information to
allow ministers to make judgments on appointments or on explaining matters to Parliament.
So, let me be very clear, the recommendation in the Peter Mandelson case could and should have been shared with me before he took up his post. Mr.
Speaker, let me make a second point. If I had known before he took up his post that UKSV recommendation was that developed vetting clearance should
be denied, I would not have gone ahead with the appointment.
Mr. Speaker -- Mr. Speaker, let me now move to September 2025, because events then and subsequently show with even starker clarity the
opportunities missed by Foreign Office officials to make the position clear.
Mr. Speaker, on September 10th, Bloomberg reported fresh details of Mandelson's history with Epstein, and it was then clear to me that Peter
Mandelson's answers to my staff in the due diligence exercise were not truthful, and I sacked him.
I also changed the direct ministerial appointments process so full due diligence is now required a standard. Where risks are identified, an
interview must be taken pre appointment to discuss any risks and conflicts of interest, and a summary of this should be provided to the appointing
minister. I also made clear that public announcements should not now be made until security vetting has been completed.
Mr. Speaker, in light of the revelations in September of last year, I also agreed with the then-Cabinet secretary Sir Chris Wormald, that he would
carry out a review of the appointment process in the Peter Manderson case, including the vetting.
He set out his findings and conclusions in a letter to me on the 16th of September. He advised me in that letter, and again, I quote, the evidence I
have reviewed leads me to conclude that appropriate processes were followed in both the appointment and the withdrawal of the former HMA Washington.
When he was asked about this, Mr. Speaker, last week, the then-Cabinet secretary was clear that when he carried out his review, the Foreign Office
did not tell him about the UKSV recommendation that developed vetting clearance should be denied to Peter Mandelson. I find that astonishing.
As I said, (INAUDIBLE). I do not accept that I could not have been told about the recommendation before Peter Mandelson took up his post. I
absolutely do not accept that the then-Cabinet secretary an official, not a politician, when carrying out his review, could not have been told that
UKSV recommended that Peter Mandelson should be denied developed vetting clearance.
[10:45:06]
It was a vital part of the process that I had asked him to review, clearly, he could have been told, and he should have been told.
Mr. Speaker, on the same day as the then-Cabinet Secretary wrote to me, so, that's the 16th of September, 2025, the foreign secretary and the then-
permanent secretary of the Foreign Office, sir Olly Robbins, provided a signed statement to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. The statement
says, and again, I quote, the vetting process was undertaken by U.K. Security Vetting on behalf of FCDO, and concluded with D.V. clearance being
granted by the FCDO in advance of Lord Mandelson taking up post in February.
It went on to say, and again, I quote, Peter Mandelson, security vetting was conducted to the usual standard set for developed vetting in line with
established Cabinet office policy.
Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear to the House, this was in response to questions which included whether concerns were raised, what the Foreign
Office response was, and whether they were dismissed.
Mr. Speaker, that the foreign secretary was advised on and allowed to sign this statement by Foreign Office officials without being told that UKSV had
recommended Peter Mandelson be denied developed vetting clearance is absolutely unforgivable. This is a senior Cabinet member giving evidence to
Parliament on the very issue in question.
Mr. Speaker, in light of further revelations about Peter Mandelson in February of this year, I was very concerned about the fact that developed
vetting clearance had been granted to him, not knowing that, in fact, UKSV had recommended denial of developed vetting clearance. I instructed my
officials to carry out a review of the national security vetting process.
As I set out, I do not accept that I could not have been told about UKSV's denial of security vetting before Peter Mandelson took up his post in
January 25. I do not accept that the then Cabinet Secretary could not have been told in September 2025 when he carried out his review into the
process. I do not accept that the foreign secretary could not have been told when making statements to the select committee, again in 2025.
But Mr. Speaker, on top of that, the fact that I was not told even when I ordered a review of the UKSV process is frankly staggering, and I can tell
the House that I have 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 have appointed sir Adrian Fulford to lead the review. Separately, I have asked the government security group in the Cabinet Office to look at any
security concerns raised during Peter Mandelson'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's beggar's 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 is how most public servants think it should
work either.
I work with hundreds of civil servants, thousands, even, all of whom act with the utmost integrity, dedication, and pride to serve this country,
including officials from the Foreign Office, who, as we speak, are doing a phenomenal job representing our national interest in a dangerous world, in
Ukraine, in the Middle East and all around the world.
This is not about them, but yet it is surely beyond doubt that the recommendation from UKSV that Peter Mandelson should be denied development
and clearance was information that could and should have been shared with me on repeated occasions. And therefore, should have been available to this
House and ultimately to the British people.
[10:50:04]
And I commend the statement to the House.
SIR LINDSAY HARVEY HOYLE, SPEAKER, HOUSE OF COMMONS: Kemi Badenoch, leader of the opposition.
KEMI BADENOCH, LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION, UNITED KINGDOM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I thank the prime minister for advance 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 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.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.
BADENOCH: 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 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 U.S.
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 labor
front bench who were 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.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Exactly, exactly. Exactly.
BADENOCH: 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.
So, 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 were blatantly incorrect, and not a single adviser or a single 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 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 PMQs in September 2025, that full due process was followed in this appointment.
We now know that in November 2024, Lord case (PH), the then-Cabinet Secretary, told him this process required security vetting to be done
before the appointment.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.
BADENOCH: He did not mention any of what Lord case 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 Mandelson 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 Mandelson had
failed his vetting.
The prime minister says he is furious that he wasn't told the recommendations of the vetting.
[10:55:00]
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. 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 fourth of February 2026, the prime minister told me from the dispatch 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?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.
BADENOCH: And finally, Mr. Speaker, Sistema 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 Mandelson's relationship with
Epstein. He asked no questions about the security risk Mandelson posed. Apparently, he did not even speak to Peter Mandelson before his
appointment. It does not 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.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.
BADENOCH: 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.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.
BADENOCH: 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?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.
STARMER: Mr. Speaker, let me respond to those points. Firstly, when I found out what had happened on Tuesday evening, last, I wanted to have answers to
the question, who made the decision to recommend to give clearance on developed vetting, contrary to the advice, why that was done, 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 set out.
Mr. Speaker, she asked me about developed vetting security clearance after the appointment. I set out that, that wasn't me saying that. So, I read out
the evidence of the former permanent secretary about that, and the former Cabinet secretary in relation to that.
And I think the quotes that I have given to the House are clear enough, in relation to that. She also asks why Peter Mandelson failed. Mr. Speaker,
it's important to make a distinction between the information provided to the review and the recommendation, the information in the review must be
protected and has been protected, because otherwise the integrity of the entire system would fall away.
But the recommendation does not need to be protected and should not have been protected.
Mr. Speaker, in relation to her questions, in relation to the answer about full due process, that was the information that I had -- that I put before
the House, and it was confirmed to be by Sir Chris Wormald. Because in September, I asked him to conduct a review of the process to assure me that
the process was correctly carried out. He did that and wrote to me on 16th September, giving me that his conclusions.
In relation, Mr. Speaker, to reports in the media, Number 10 was repeatedly asked about the facts surrounding Peter Mandelson's clearance, and was
assured that the proper process was followed in that case.
[11:00:04]
Mr. Speaker, in relation to those in Number 10, let me give the answer. Nobody in Number 10 was informed about UKSV's recommendation.
END
