Tag: 2026

PRESS RELEASE : Prime Minister call with Prime Minister Magyar of Hungary [April 2026]

The press release issued by 10 Downing Street on 17 April 2026.

The Prime Minister spoke to new Prime Minister of Hungary, Péter Magyar, from Paris this afternoon.

The Prime Minister began by offering his congratulations, adding that Prime Minister Magyar’s election victory marked a new chapter for Hungary.

That chapter offered a new opportunity for the UK and Hungary to deepen their relationship across all areas, the Prime Minister added.

The leaders also discussed how both countries could work together to tackle Russian aggression.

On Ukraine, the Prime Minister thanked Prime Minister Magyar for his support to ensure Ukraine could continue to defend itself from Russia’s barbaric attacks.

The leaders looked forward to speaking again soon.

22/04/2026
PRESS RELEASE : Prime Minister call with President Aoun of Lebanon

The press release issued by 10 Downing Street on 17 April 2026.

The Prime Minister called the President of Lebanon, Joseph Aoun, from Paris this afternoon.

The Prime Minister began by expressing his condolences for the loss of life in Lebanon during the recent conflict.

It was important to use the current truce as a gateway to a lasting peace agreement, the Prime Minister added.

Reiterating the UK’s commitment to Lebanon’s security, the Prime Minister said the UK would continue to support the Lebanese Armed Forces to ensure long term stability in the country.

The leaders also welcomed the UK’s humanitarian contribution to Lebanon, including a £20 million package for vital assistance to those displaced in the recent conflict and vulnerable families in hard-to-reach areas.

They both looked forward to speaking again soon.

22/04/2026
PRESS RELEASE : Prime Minister meeting with President Macron of France [April 2026]

The press release issued by 10 Downing Street on 17 April 2026.

The Prime Minister met the President of France, Emmanuel Macron, in Paris this morning, ahead of talks with partners on the Strait of Hormuz.

The leaders began by reflecting on the situation in the Middle East and agreed on the need for a lasting peace to ensure a return to global stability and security in the region.

Turning to the bilateral relationship, both leaders discussed how the UK and France were entering a new era of global collaboration together through the convening of the Coalition of the Willing on Ukraine, and Strait of Hormuz Maritime Freedom of Navigation Initiative.

The Prime Minister also set out his ambition for a closer relationship between the UK and European Union, reflecting the threats and challenges now faced, and the need to build a stronger Europe.

Returning to Ukraine, the leaders underlined the need to continue to ensure the country had the means necessary to drive forward the momentum they had seized on the battlefield.

The leaders also discussed migration. The Prime Minister and President agreed on the need to continue momentum to drive down illegal crossings between France and the UK, and tackle the problem upstream working with international partners.

The leaders looked forward to speaking again during the summit.

22/04/2026
NEWS STORY : UK urges immediate ceasefire in South Sudan crisis

STORY

Britain has called for an immediate cessation of hostilities in South Sudan, warning that continued fighting is worsening an already severe humanitarian crisis and putting more civilians at risk. In a statement to the UN Security Council, UK Deputy Permanent Representative Archie Young said the violence between the main parties to the peace agreement was causing fresh displacement, serious human rights abuses and further destruction in places including Akobo.

The UK said South Sudan’s leaders must meet their obligations under international law, protect civilians and allow humanitarian aid to reach those in need without obstruction. Young also pointed to reported abuses including conflict related sexual violence and the recruitment of children, saying the crisis could only be resolved through an inclusive political process involving all key parties, including the Sudan People’s Liberation Army in Opposition led by First Vice President Riek Machar.

22/04/2026
PRESS RELEASE : The only solution to the current crisis in South Sudan is through the immediate cessation of hostilities – UK statement at the UN Security Council [April 2026]

The press release issued by the Foreign Office on 17 April 2026.

Statement by Ambassador Archie Young, UK Deputy Permanent Representative to the UN, at the UN Security Council meeting on South Sudan.

Thank you, President.

I congratulate SRSG Gbeho on her appointment and thank her and USG Fletcher for their briefings and clear steps. I also pay tribute to her predecessor, the late Fink Haysom, for his extraordinary contribution to the United Nations and the cause of peace.

In the context of this fragile and deteriorating situation, I will make three points.

First, calling for the protection of civilians; second, on the importance of an inclusive political dialogue; and third, on the critical role of the UN peacekeeping mission.

As we have heard very clearly from the briefers today, the continued fighting between the two main parties to the peace agreement is displacing civilians and compounding an already acute humanitarian crisis.

The Secretary-General’s reporting highlights serious human rights violations and abuses, including conflict‑related sexual violence and the recruitment of children.

In Akobo civilians have been killed, hundreds of thousands displaced and infrastructure destroyed, exacerbating the suffering of the South Sudanese people. We call on South Sudan’s leaders to comply with their obligations under international law, including the protection of civilians and to allow unhindered humanitarian access to reach those in need.

Second, the United Kingdom recognises that the only solution to the current crisis in South Sudan is through the immediate cessation of hostilities and a return to inclusive dialogue with all stakeholders, including the Sudan People’s Liberation Army in Opposition, led by First Vice President Riek Machar.

We welcome the appointment of AU Special Envoy President Kikwete and the close cooperation between the UN, AU, IGAD and other stakeholders including the Troika to support a resolution to the current crisis.

We strongly urge the transitional government and other parties to fully engage with these efforts and heed the appeals from the international community to return to the political process.

Third, we underscore and praise the vital role played by the UN peacekeeping mission in South Sudan. It is regrettable that the South Sudanese authorities have continued to obstruct the mission’s ability to deliver its mandate in full.

This prevents the mission delivering necessary tasks including the protection of civilians and supporting humanitarian assistance in volatile and hard-to-reach areas. We call on the transitional government to cooperate fully with UNMISS.

As this Council considers the mandate for the mission, we will need to ensure it is credible, deliverable and responsive to conditions on the ground.

Thank you.

22/04/2026
PRESS RELEASE : Dame Helen Ghosh named as preferred Chair for the Office for Environmental Protection [April 2026]

The press release issued by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on 17 April 2026.

Dame Helen Ghosh has been named as the preferred candidate to succeed Dame Glenys Stacey as Chair of the Office for Environmental Protection,.

Dame Helen has been selected by the Environment Secretary Emma Reynolds and by Andrew Muir, Minister for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (DAERA) following a rigorous process conducted in accordance with the Governance Code on Public Appointments.

Emma Reynolds has invited both the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee and the Environmental Audit Committee to hold a joint pre-appointment hearing and to report on the suitability of Dame Helen for the post.

Pre-appointment scrutiny is an important part of the appointment process for some of the most significant public appointments made by Ministers. It is designed to provide an added level of scrutiny, to verify that the recruitment meets the principles set out in the Governance Code on Public Appointments.

Pre-appointment hearings are held in public and allow a Select Committee to take evidence from a Minister’s preferred candidate before they are appointed. The Select Committee will then publish a report setting out their views on the candidate’s suitability for the post. Ministers consider the Committee’s views before deciding whether to proceed with the appointment.

All appointments are made on merit and political activity plays no part in the selection process. However, in accordance with the original Nolan recommendations, there is a requirement for appointees’ political activity, if any declared, to be made public. Dame Helen has not declared any significant political activity in the past five years.

Subject to the outcome of the pre-appointment hearing and the final decision of the Environment Secretary and Minister Muir, Dame Helen is expected to take up the post on 1 June 2026.

Biographical details of Dame Helen Ghosh:

As the Master of Balliol College in Oxford University from 2018 to 2026, Dame Helen Ghosh held various senior roles in the governance of the University as well as taking on the role of Chair of the Conference of Colleges. She previously spent six years as Director General of the National Trust and has held several senior roles in the Civil Service, including as Director General at HMRC, and as Permanent Secretary at both Defra and the Home Office. Dame Helen also has a wealth of experience as a non-executive, including seven years as a Trustee on the Board of Action for Conservation.

22/04/2026
Ed Davey – 2026 Speech on Security Vetting

The speech made by Ed Davey, the Leader of the Liberal Democrats, in the House of Commons on 20 April 2026.

It is 2022 all over again. Back then, when the Prime Minister was in opposition, and when it was Boris Johnson who was accused of misleading Parliament and scapegoating senior officials, the then Leader of the Opposition could not have been clearer; he said:

“The public need to know that not all politicians are the same—that not all politicians put themselves above their country—and that honesty, integrity and accountability matter.”—[Official Report, 25 May 2022; Vol. 715, c. 298.]

He promised “change”. He promised to

“break this cycle and stop the chaos.”

He promised a Government with

“more focus on long-term strategy, not the short-term distractions that can animate Westminster.”

I am afraid that the fact that he has even had to make a statement today shows how badly he has failed—how badly he has let down the millions of people across our country who are so desperate for change.

The Prime Minister blames his officials. He says that he had “no idea”. He gives every impression of a Prime Minister in office, but not in power. The facts remain, even by his own account, that the Prime Minister appointed Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United States even after he had been warned about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. The Prime Minister announced the appointment before Mandelson had been vetted, despite the clear risk to national security of putting someone unsuitable in that role. One of his top officials, just three weeks into the job, clearly believed that the Prime Minister wanted Mandelson to be appointed regardless of what the vetting process turned up. The Prime Minister has relied on the vetting process to defend his decisions, so why did he ask so few questions personally about the vetting process?

We all know the truth: the Prime Minister knew that appointing Mandelson was an enormous risk, but he decided that it was a risk worth taking—a catastrophic error of judgment. Now that has blown up in his face, the only decent thing to do is take responsibility. Back in 2022, the Prime Minister rightly accused Boris Johnson of expecting others to take the blame while he clung on. That was not acceptable then, and it is not acceptable now. I hope that the Prime Minister can at least tell the House this. We will be listening very carefully to his answer. Was he given advice by Simon Case, the then Cabinet Secretary, that the necessary security clearances should be acquired before he confirmed his choice for US ambassador? Did the Prime Minister follow that advice—yes or no?

After years of chaos under the Conservatives, we needed a Government focused on the interests of the people—the cost of living crisis, the health and care crisis, and our national security. We needed a Government with honesty, integrity and accountability. Will the Prime Minister finally accept that the only way that he can help to deliver that is by resigning?

The Prime Minister

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 came to light last Tuesday, I asked for the facts to be established, so that I could update Parliament.

The right hon. Gentleman asks me about the announcement before developed vetting. He has heard the evidence that I have given to the House from the former Cabinet Secretary and from the former permanent secretary. In relation to the advice from Simon Case, when I asked the former Cabinet Secretary to review the process after September 2025, he specifically addressed whether the process had been followed by referencing the Simon Case letter, and assured me that the process was the right process to have followed. In answer to his question, that was specifically looked at by Sir Chris Wormald in the review that was conducted in September last year.

21/04/2026
Emily Thornberry – 2026 Speech on Security Vetting

The speech made by Emily Thornberry, the Labour MP for Islington South and Finsbury, in the House of Commons on 20 April 2026.

The truth is that my Committee did ask. We asked on the record, and we got a partial truth that could hardly be the whole truth. We are on record as asking the very questions that hecklers on the Opposition Benches say should have been asked. The answers are there, on the record; people can see what we got when we did ask.

A month before Mandelson’s appointment was announced, the then Cabinet Secretary advised that the necessary security clearance should be acquired before a political appointment was confirmed. That does not seem to have been the usual practice. I am glad that it has changed, because the process was clearly abused. Someone—probably Peter Mandelson himself—leaked his appointment as US ambassador to the press, which effectively bounced the Government into confirming it. When the confirmation of his appointment came forward, neither the offer letter to Peter Mandelson nor the Government’s press release made it clear that the appointment was subject to vetting. Does it not look as though, for certain members of the Prime Minister’s team, getting Peter Mandelson the job was a priority that overrode everything else, and security considerations were very much second order?

The Prime Minister

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 were asked; the Foreign Secretary was advised and asked to sign a statement without being told the relevant information. That is unforgivable. As for the appointment before developed vetting, I have changed that process now, so that it can never happen again; my right hon. Friend the Committee Chair heard me quote the evidence of the former Cabinet Secretary and the former permanent secretary in relation to that.

Let me deal with my right hon. Friend’s third point, which is that somehow Downing Street’s wish to appoint Peter Mandelson overrode security concerns—[Interruption.] No, Mr Speaker, let me be very clear: if I had been told that Peter Mandelson, or anybody else, had failed or not been given clearance on security vetting, I would not have appointed them. A deliberate decision was taken to withhold that material from me. This was not a lack of asking; this was not an oversight—[Interruption.] It was a decision taken not to share that information on repeated occasions.

21/04/2026
Lindsay Hoyle – 2026 Statement on the Arrest of a Parliamentary Worker under the Computer Misuse Act 1990 Act

The statement made by Lindsay Hoyle, the Speaker of the House of Commons, on 20 April 2026.

Before we start today’s business, I want to make a brief statement about a security matter. I have been informed by the police that a former parliamentary employee was arrested last week under the Computer Misuse Act 1990. The police investigation is ongoing. As the House knows, we do not discuss the details of such issues on the Floor of the House—it is an ongoing criminal investigation. I do not intend to take points of order on the matter, and I will update Members when I am in a position to share more information.

21/04/2026
Kemi Badenoch – 2026 Speech on Security Vetting

The speech made by Kemi Badenoch, the Leader of the Opposition, in the House of Commons on 20 April 2026.

I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement. His reputation is at stake, and everyone is watching, so it is finally time for the truth.

Earlier today, 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 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 was “usual” because it was a political appointment, so I remind him, and the rest of the Labour Front Bench 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. We also know 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. 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 official told him that what he was saying was not true. At every turn, with every explanation, the Government story has become murkier and more contradictory. It is time for the truth.

There are too many questions to ask in the allotted time, so I will ask the Prime Minister just six. I have taken the unprecedented step of providing these questions to the Prime Minister in advance, so he has them in front of him. 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 us look at how this happened. The right hon. and learned Gentleman told me at PMQs in September 2025 that

“full due process was followed”—[Official Report, 10 September 2025; Vol. 772, c. 859.]

in this appointment. We now know that in November 2024, Lord Case, the then Cabinet Secretary, told him that this process required security vetting to be done before the appointment. He did not mention any of what Lord Case said in his statement earlier. First, does the Prime Minister accept that when he said on the Floor of the House that “full due process was followed”, that 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?

Thirdly, will the Prime Minister repeat at the Dispatch Box his words from last week: that no one in No. 10 was aware before Tuesday that Mandelson had failed his vetting?

Fourthly, the Prime Minister says he is furious that he was not told the recommendations of the vetting, yet on 16 September, a Foreign Office Minister told Parliament that

“the national security vetting process is rightly independent of Ministers, who are not informed of any findings other than the final outcome.”—[Official Report, 16 September 2025; Vol. 772, c. 1387.]

That was the Government’s stated process, so why is the Prime Minister so furious that it was followed?

Fifthly, on 4 February 2026, the Prime Minister told me from the Dispatch Box that the security vetting that Mandelson had received had revealed his relationship with Epstein. How could the Prime Minister say that if he had not seen the security vetting?

Finally, Sistema is a Russian defence company that is 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?

Everyone makes mistakes. It is how a leader faces up to those mistakes that shows their character. 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 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 those people were fired for a decision that he made.

The right hon. and learned 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, no questions about Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein and no questions about the security risk that 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 did not want to know. He had taken the risk and chosen his man, and Whitehall had to follow.

It is the duty of the Prime Minister to ensure that 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, he said from this Dispatch Box to a previous Prime Minister:

“If he misled Parliament, he must resign.”—[Official Report, 26 January 2022; Vol. 707, c. 994.]

Does he stand by those words, or is there one rule for him and another for everyone else?

20/04/2026