English transcript

When we knew this, I asked him at that dispatch

box, he gave Mandelson his full confidence at

that dispatch box, not once, but twice. He only

sacked him after pressure from us. I am asking

the Prime Minister something very specific,

not about the generalities of the full extent,

can the Prime Minister tell us, did the official

security vetting he received mention Mandelson's

ongoing relationship with the paedophile Jeffrey

Epstein?

So clear. Prime Minister. Yes it did. As a res...

As a result, various questions were put to him.

I intend to disclose to this House all of the...

the national security, prejudice to international

relations on one side, I want to make sure this...

I want to make sure this House sees the full

documentation so it will see for itself the

extent to which, the extent to which time and

time again Mandelson completely misrepresented

the extent of his relationship with Epstein

and lied throughout the process including in

response to the due diligence. Kemi Badenoch.

Mr Speaker, I think it is shocking what the

Prime Minister has just said. How can he stand

up there saying that he knew but he just asked

Peter Mandelson if the security vetting was

true or false?

This is a man who had been sacked from cabinet

twice already for unethical behaviour. That

is absolutely shocking. And that is why later

today my party will call on the government to

release all documents relating to Mandelson's

appointment, not just the ones the Prime Minister

wants us to see. Because this government is

trying to sabotage that release with an amendment

to let him choose what we see. The man who appointed

Mandelson in the first place. Labour MPs now

have to decide if they want to be accessories

to his cover-up. Can the Prime Minister guarantee

that he won't remove the whip if they refuse

to vote for his whitewash amendment?

Prime Minister. Mr Speaker, the first exemption

is in relation to anything that could compromise

national security. That is not a... that is

not a small matter and many members on the benches

opposite will know precisely why that needs

to be in the exemption. When we were drafting

humble addresses, when we were sitting over

there, we always made sure that exemption was

in because we knew how important it was to the

then government. I don't think I've seen a humble

address without that in, um, because it... it...

and just to be clear, to vote to release something

that would prejudice national security is wrong

in principle. The second exemption is in relation

to things that would prejudice international

relations. There will be discussions about security

and intelligence and trade which are highly

sensitive to the two countries involved and

to third countries. Well they have to ask themselves

whether they want to vote to prejudice our national

security. I don't think they... I don't think

in fairness that they do. But can I reassure

the House, Mr Speaker, let me reassure the House,

the process for deciding what falls into those

categories will not be a political process.

It will be led by the Cabinet Secretary supported

by government legal teams. So they will be looking

at the question of prejudice, they will be making

that decision. The only additional thing I just

want to put before the House because there was

a discussion this morning with the Metropolitan

Police, is that we are in discussions with them

about any material that they're concerned will

prejudice their investigation. We're at an early

stage... we're at an early stage of that discussion,

but I didn't want to have the House not know

that that discussion is going on.