Tag: Keir Starmer

The comments made by Keir Starmer, the Prime Minister, on 13 May 2026.

The British people expect the Government to get on with the job of changing our country for the better.

Cutting the cost of living, bringing down hospital waiting lists and keeping our country safe in an increasingly dangerous world.

Britain stands at a pivotal moment: to press ahead with a plan to build a stronger, fairer country or turn back to the chaos and instability of the past.

My government will deliver on the promise of change for the British people.

The statement made by Keir Starmer, the Prime Minister, on 7 May 2026.

As we mark eighty-one years since VE Day, we give thanks to the men and women of our armed forces, who triumphed over tyranny to secure victory and safety for our country.

The courage and selflessness displayed by our World War II veterans is interwoven into our national fabric. We will never forget the immense sacrifices that were made by so many and we will continue to protect the peace that they fought for. 

Their bravery lives in the stories that have been passed down through generations, and in those who serve our armed forces tirelessly today to keep our nation secure.

I thank them for their dedication and service.

The comments made by Keir Starmer, the Prime Minister, on 8 May 2026.

The results are tough, they are very tough, and there’s no sugarcoating it.

We have lost brilliant Labour representatives across the country, these are people who put so much into their communities, so much into our party.

And that hurts, and it should hurt, and I take responsibility.

When voters send a message like this we must reflect and we must respond.

I think the vast majority of people do understand that we face huge challenges as a country.

We’ve had a series of economic shocks in recent years and there’s a very difficult international situation at present, they know that.

But they still want their lives to improve, they still want to see the change that we promised, they know the status quo is letting them down and they’re frustrated, they don’t feel the changes.

The comments made by Keir Starmer, the Prime Minister, on 5 May 2026.

Thank you all for being here. We have a lot of work to do so it’s very important we gather here to do that work.

Thank you Louis. That was incredibly powerful, and honest, and courageous. I think it’s really important we heard you speak, in your words, saying how you feel, and what it feels like to be Jewish in Britain right now.

And if recent events haven’t given us pause for thought, that really should.

About the responsibility each one of us has to face this challenge head on. And about what’s at the stake in the conversations we have today.

Last October, at Heaton Park, a deadly terrorist attack shocked the nation.

Similarly, last week’s terrorist attack in Golders Green was utterly appalling. But they were not isolated incidents.

It is part of a pattern of rising antisemitism that has left our Jewish communities feeling frightened, angry, and asking whether this country, their home, is safe for them.  

These disgusting attacks are being made against British Jews. But, make no mistake, this crisis – it is a crisis for all of us. It is a test of our values. Values that aren’t guaranteed, they are earned. Every single day. Through our actions.

So, it is not enough to simply say we stand with Jewish communities. Of course we do, but we have to show with action. And that responsibility lies with each and every one of us.

Because it is our fight too. It is about the kind of country that we all want to be.

And that’s what today is about. Because only by working together can we eradicate antisemitism from every corner of society.

I have seen this poison up close. I have seen the damage it does when it takes hold. And I know what it demands to root it out – a coordinated approach, an unwavering resolve and zero tolerance for failure. And that is what we must do today. My government is using the full force of the state to that end. We have begun, as we must, with immediate protection.

In recent months, as antisemitic incidents have risen, we have acted decisively to strengthen the safety of Jewish communities. And last week, we announced an additional £25 million in funding. 

That money is being used to increase police patrols, enhance security at synagogues, schools and community centres, and place specialist and plain-clothes officers in communities to prevent serious harm before it occurs.

That is the right thing to do. But what a sad thing to read out that list of acts to you – protecting synagogues, schools and community centres. I repeat those words.

Because of course, we cannot accept a future where communities feel safer only behind higher walls. Security is essential – but it is not enough. We must also deal with the forces that drive this hatred in the first place.

So, we are confronting them directly. One of the lines of inquiry is whether a foreign state has been behind some of these incidents. We are investigating of course all possibilities. And we are clear that these actions will have consequences if that proves to be the case.

Our message to Iran, or to any other country that might seek to foment violence, hatred or division in society, is that it will not be tolerated. That is why we are fast tracking legislation to tackle these malign threats.

And we are clear eyed about the fact that antisemitism does not have one source alone. Islamist, far-left and far-right extremism all target Jewish communities.

That is why this Government has put in place the first coordinated national plan to strengthen cohesion and confront extremism in all of its forms.

This is not about tinkering around the edges. Our plan is a complete step change in how we protect communities: moving beyond piecemeal responses to a sustained, nationwide effort – one that ensures that people across the United Kingdom can live freely and without fear.

We are strengthening our ability to disrupt extremism – stopping those who spread hatred from entering the country and giving the Charity Commission stronger powers to act against organisations that enable it. 

We are holding technology companies to account, requiring them to remove illegal extremist content or face serious penalties. And we have introduced stronger powers to deal with protests, ensuring intimidation is not tolerated on our streets.

And when these vile acts are committed, we are bolstering the response of our justice system – working to speed up sentencing for offences so that consequences are swift and the deterrent is clear. 

But it is also important to recognise that so often this hatred does not begin with violence – it begins with ideas, with misinformation, tropes and conspiracy theories, and with attitudes that, left unchecked, can take root and spread. So, in those spaces where the shoots of antisemitism begin to grow, we are stepping in.

We have commissioned independent reviews into antisemitism in education and health services. Across the NHS, we are rolling out antisemitism training for staff.

And in our schools, colleges and universities, we are investing £7 million to tackle antisemitism, while making sure Holocaust education is taught in all schools.

And, today, we are going further. We already expect universities to set out clear disciplinary consequences for antisemitism, and to enforce them. And so we will hold them to account on that. 

But today, I can announce that we will lift the bar higher: when abuses take place, we are calling on universities to demonstrate action. We will now expect them to publish the scale of the problem on their campuses, as well as the specific steps they have taken to clamp down on it. There will be zero tolerance for inaction.

In our cultural venues and spaces we will also expect more. Where public funding is being used to promote or platform antisemitism, the Arts Council must act, using its powers to suspend, withdraw and claw back funding. 

And, today, we are mandating an independent audit of how allegations are handled. This will be a hard-edged review of where systems are failing and where they need to be strengthened. We will not and cannot accept complacency, delays, or weak enforcement. And where complacency is found, it will be challenged and addressed swiftly.

And we will also address a quieter but no less serious harm: the way rising security costs are forcing Jewish artists and organisations out of public life. That is exclusion – and it is unacceptable. 

We will ensure that the Arts Council and Home Office funding can be used to cover protective security costs, so that participation is not determined by fear.

There is, of course, more work to do – and we won’t stop playing our part. But this is not a task that government do alone.

Every part of society has a responsibility to respond with determination and force. Because there are too many people who don’t see antisemitism for what it is: anti-Jewish hatred, racism, pure and simple.

That is why, today, I am asking you – each and every one of you – to reflect. On what form antisemitism takes in the sectors that you lead. In how it may be allowed to fester and spread. And on the work that you are currently doing to stamp it out.

And then, even more importantly, I am calling on you to act. With urgency. To look clearly at where you are succeeding – and just as clearly at where there is still work to be done. And to commit to the tangible action that Jewish people in this country need to feel safe again.

Because stopping antisemitism is not someone else’s responsibility. It is all of ours. That is the test before us. And only by working together will we meet it.

So, thank you for being here today – we have a lot of work to do – and we’re now going to move through to the Pillared Room to discuss that work further. So please come through and join us in the Pillared Room to continue the work that we have started today.

The comments made by Keir Starmer, the Prime Minister, at Downing Street on 30 April 2026.

Yesterday, Britain’s Jewish community suffered yet another vile terrorist attack. Two men stabbed in broad daylight on the streets of Golders Green because they were Jews. I’ve just come back from Golders Green where I expressed my sadness and solidarity with that community but also my determination to act because the truth is this attack is not a one-off.

There have been a series of attacks including an arson attack in Hendon, an attack on the Jewish Ambulance Service Hatzola, the fireball at Kenton United Synagogue which I visited last week and on top of all this Heaton Park in Manchester last October where two Jewish men were killed in a vile Islamist attack on their synagogue. And so people are scared, scared to show who they are in their community, scared to go to synagogue and practise their religion, scared to go to university as a Jew, to send their children to school as a Jew, to tell their colleagues that they are Jewish, even to use our NHS. Nobody should live like that in Britain but Jews do.

And so yesterday this anxiety that is always there went to another place, to terror frankly. That is the right word. I want to thank the Jewish Security Services who wrestle with this every day and who alongside the police prevented a much greater tragedy yesterday.

I met some of the first responders today and on behalf of the country I thanked them for their bravery. We will strengthen the visible police presence in our Jewish communities. We will increase our investment in those Jewish Security Services. We will introduce much stronger powers to shut down charities that promote antisemitic extremism. We will prevent hate preachers from entering our country, bar them from our campuses, our streets, our communities. Work with our justice system to speed up sentences on antisemitic attacks so there is a stronger deterrence factor as we do with riots.

And we need stronger powers to tackle the malign threat posed by states like Iran because we know for a fact that they want to harm British Jews which is why we will fast-track the necessary legislation. And yet the truth is while we can and we will bring the full power of the state to bear on this, this is about society every bit as much as it is about security. At moments like this we often say this is not Britain, that these attacks are an afront to British values, to British tolerance, British decency but they keep happening. 

And so today instead I will simply say that our values are not a gift handed down generation to generation. They are something we earn each day through action. They come from us.

Antisemitism is an old, old hatred. History shows that the roots are deep and if you turn away it grows back. Yet far too many people in this country diminish it.

They either don’t see it or they don’t want to see it. Take the marches that happen regularly across Britain. Of course we protect freedom of speech and peaceful protests in this country but if you are marching with people wearing pictures of paragliders without calling it out you are venerating the murder of Jews.

If you stand alongside people who say globalise the intifada, you are calling for terrorism against Jews and people who use that phrase should be prosecuted. It is racism, extremely racism and it has left a minority community in this country scared, intimidated, wondering if they belong. So, I say again this government will do everything in our power to stamp this hatred out.

We will strengthen our security and protect our Jewish community, but I also call on everyone decent in this country to open their eyes to Jewish pain, Jewish suffering and Jewish fear. I call on everyone to come together and fight antisemitism and I call on everyone to fight for the decent, respectful, tolerant Britain that I and millions of people love so that our freedom and our values can still speak loud and true to a community that can no longer take it on faith. Thank you.

The statement made by Keir Starmer, the Prime Minister, in the House of Commons on 20 April 2026.

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 on the process surrounding Peter Mandelson’s vetting and appointment, at the heart of this there is also a judgment I made that was wrong. I should not have appointed Peter Mandelson. I take responsibility for that decision, and I apologise again to the victims of the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, who were clearly failed by my decision.

Last Tuesday evening, 14 April, I found out for the first time that on 29 January 2025, before Peter Mandelson took up his position as ambassador, 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, but the Foreign Office officials who made that decision did not pass this information to me, to the Foreign Secretary, to her predecessor, now the Deputy Prime Minister, to any other Minister, or even to the former Cabinet Secretary, Sir Chris Wormald.

I found this staggering. 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, and who knew. 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 that this House should have had a long time ago. It is information that I and the House had a 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 that 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 4 February.

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 No. 10. Peter Mandelson answered those questions on 10 December, and I received final advice on the due diligence process on 11 December. I made the decision to appoint him on 18 December. The appointment was announced on 20 December. The security vetting process began on 23 December 2024.

I want to make it clear to the House that, for a direct ministerial appointment, it was usual for security vetting to happen after the appointment but before the individual starting in post. That was the process in place at the time. This was confirmed by the former Cabinet Secretary, Sir Chris Wormald, when he gave evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee on 3 November 2025. Sir Chris made it clear that

“when we are making appointments from outside the civil service…the normal thing is for the 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 that Peter Mandelson

“did not hold national security vetting when he was appointed, but, 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.”

After I sacked Peter Mandelson, I changed that process so that an appointment now cannot be announced until after security vetting is passed.

The security vetting was carried out by UK Security Vetting—UKSV—between 23 December 2024 and 28 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 28 January 2025, UKSV recommended to the Foreign Office that developed vetting clearance should be denied to Peter Mandelson. The following day, 29 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.

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 while maintaining the necessary confidentiality that vetting requires.

There is no law that stops civil servants from sensibly flagging UKSV recommendations while protecting detailed, sensitive vetting information, to allow Ministers to make judgments on appointments or on explaining matters to Parliament. 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. Let me make a second point: if I had known before Peter Mandelson took up his post that the UKSV recommendation was that developed vetting clearance should be denied, I would not have gone ahead with the appointment.

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. On 10 September, Bloomberg reported fresh details of Mandelson’s history with Epstein. 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 that full due diligence is now required as standard. Where risks are identified, an interview must be taken pre-appointment to discuss any risks and conflicts of interest. A summary of that should be provided to the appointing Minister. I also made it clear that public announcements should not now be made until security vetting has been completed.

In the light of the revelations in September 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 Madelson case, including the vetting. He set out his findings and conclusions in a letter to me on 16 September. In that letter, he advised me:

“The evidence I have reviewed leads me to conclude that appropriate processes were followed in both the appointment and withdrawal of the former HMA Washington”.

When the then Cabinet Secretary was asked about that last week, he 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 for Peter Mandelson. I find that astonishing. As I set out earlier, 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. 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.

On the same day that the then Cabinet Secretary wrote to me, 16 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 Committee. The statement says:

“The vetting process was undertaken by UK Security Vetting on behalf of the FCDO and concluded with DV clearance being granted by the FCDO in advance of Lord Mandelson taking up post in February.”

It went on to say:

“Peter Mandelson’s security vetting was conducted to the usual standard set for Developed Vetting in line with established Cabinet Office policy”.

Let me be very clear to the House. This was in response to questions that included whether concerns were raised, what the Foreign Office’s response was and whether they were dismissed. 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.

In the 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. But, as I have 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 2025, I do not accept that the then Cabinet Secretary could not have been told in September 2025 when he carried out his review of the process, and I do not accept that the Foreign Secretary could not have been told when making statements to the Select Committee, again in 2025.

On top of that, the fact that I was also not told, even when I ordered a review of the UKSV process, is frankly staggering. 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.

I know that many Members across this House will find these facts to be incredible. To that, I can only say that they are right. It beggars belief that throughout this whole timeline of events, officials in the Foreign Office saw fit to withhold this information from the most senior Ministers in our system of 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, the middle east and all around the world. This is not about them, yet it is surely beyond doubt that the recommendation from UKSV that Peter Mandelson should be denied developed vetting 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. I commend this statement to the House.