Keir Starmer was jeered by MPs today as he mounted a brazen defence of his Peter Mandelson debacle.
The PM faced catcalls and derisive laughter in the Commons, as he tried to explain why the New Labour architect was made US ambassador against the recommendation of security vetting officials.
Sir Keir started his statement by acknowledging he made the ‘wrong’ judgment in choosing Mandelson for the job. ‘I should not have appointed Peter Mandelson,’ he said.
But the premier went on to complain that information about the security process was kept from him, saying a ‘deliberate decision’ was taken and the situation ‘beggared belief’.
‘If I had known before he took up his post… I would not have gone ahead with the appointment,’ he said.
The PM ousted Foreign Office chief Olly Robbins last week, insisting it was ‘unforgivable’ he was not told about the advice.
Sir Olly is now believed to be consulting lawyers, with allies adamant the mandarin did nothing wrong by going ahead with the posting.
Sir Keir was roundly mocked in the chamber as he said the facts he had laid out were ‘incredible’. He also avoided saying explicitly that he had misled the House.
Kemi Badenoch shot back that Sir Keir had thrown another aide ‘under the bus’ after failing to ask questions and establish the facts for himself.
And the Labour chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Emily Thornberry, swiped that it seemed for some members of the PM’s team ‘getting Peter Mandelson the job was a priority that overrode everything else’.
In other dramatic developments today:
- Scottish Secretary Douglas Alexander has acknowledged there are doubts about the premier’s future;
- The Foreign Affairs Committee has confirmed that Sir Olly will appear before it at 9am tomorrow, in what could be another pivotal moment for Sir Keir;
- Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper has cut short a trip to Japan to return to the UK as the turmoil rages;
- Critics have pointed to an email from then-Cabinet Secretary Simon Case to Sir Keir in November 2024 suggesting that there should be a ‘plan’ to get security clearance for whomever was chosen as US ambassador.
The latest turmoil has renewed speculation about Sir Keir’s future, with the PM having barely survived a coup attempt in February.
Addressing the Commons, Sir Keir said: ‘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 he took up his post, the UKSV (UK Security Vetting) recommendation was that developed vetting clearance should be denied. I would not have gone ahead with the appointment.’
Sir Keir said former Cabinet Secretary Chris Wormald was not told about UK Security Vetting’s (UKSV) recommendation when he reviewed Mandelson’s appointment process last September.
Sir Keir said: ‘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.
‘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.’
Asked on Sky News this morning whether Sir Keir will lead Labour into the next election, due in 2029, Mr Alexander said: ‘I expect so, yes… I think he will.’
He added: ‘There are no certainties but but of course I think he will lead and I think he should because, frankly, on the biggest call in this parliament he’s exercised the right judgment, which is to keep us out of someone else’s war.’
Mr Alexander said ‘rightfully and reasonably’ there were ‘important questions that need to be answered today’.
‘Keir Starmer is going to set out all the facts, the right place for those questions to be answered are at the despatch box of the House of Commons,’ he said.
Labour’s leader in Scotland, Anas Sarwar, has already declared he has no confidence in Sir Keir and would rather he was replaced.
Lord Mandelson was sacked last year, just nine months into the Washington DC posting, after further details of his ties to paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein emerged.
It is not clear why vetting officials advised against his appointment, and allies insisted he was not aware of the recommendation until last week.
Despite the advice, he is believed to have been granted the highest ‘Strap 3’ level of security clearance.
In a message to Sir Keir in November 2024, Mr Case set out what would happen if he went for a political candidate.
‘If this is the route that you wish to take you should give us the name of the person you would like to appoint and we will develop a plan for them to acquire the necessary security clearances and do due diligence on any potential Conflicts of Interest or other issues of which you should be aware before confirming your choice,’ he wrote.
‘A letter is then needed from the Foreign Secretary to the PUS to FCDO formalising the decision to make a political appointment.’
In a significant escalation last night, the Government released what appeared to be internal legal advice suggesting there was no barrier to Sir Olly flagging the vetting conclusions.
Downing Street stressed that external appointments to the civil service were normally made ‘subject to obtaining security clearance’.
The PM’s spokesman hinted that Sir Keir will admit he misled Parliament over Mandelson’s vetting situation, but only inadvertently.
The premier repeatedly stated that ‘due process’ had been followed, and told a press conference that Mandelson had passed vetting.
‘He is clear this information should have been provided to him and Parliament,’ the spokesman said.
A statement issued by No10 last night said that although civil servants rather than ministers make decisions on vetting and clearance, there was nothing in the law to prevent ministers being told.
‘There is nothing in the guidance which prevented information being shared in this scenario, in a proportionate and necessary way and subject to the appropriate procedural steps,’ the statement on the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act said.
While there are ‘legal obligations’ under data protection rules, ‘no law prevents civil servants – while continuing to protect such sensitive personal information – from sensibly flagging UK Security Vetting recommendations or high level risks and mitigations’.
UKSV’s privacy notice sets out there are ‘limited circumstances in which relevant vetting information can be shared’ if ‘a security risk has been identified’.
Sir Keir told the Mirror he would make it ‘crystal clear’ to MPs that he had been kept in the dark and it was ‘unforgivable’ that the Foreign Office failed to tell him after he had offered public assurances that proper process had been followed.
The PM said: ‘The fact that I wasn’t told that Peter Mandelson had failed his security vetting when he was appointed is astonishing. The fact that I wasn’t told when I said to Parliament that due process had been followed is unforgivable, and that’s why I intend to set out in Parliament on Monday the facts behind that, so there’s full transparency in relation to it.
Do YOU think Keir Starmer can survive this latest political row?
‘But am I furious that I wasn’t told? Yes, I am. Am I furious that other ministers weren’t told? Yes, I am. I should have been told, and I wasn’t told.’
But Tory leader Kemi Badenoch has said Sir Keir is ‘either lying or he’s incompetent’.
Mrs Badenoch said: ‘This has been a tawdry and shaming affair for you and your party, and for this country.
‘Not only have you damaged our relationship with the United States and insulted the victims of the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, but you have also undermined our national security by giving the highest diplomatic post to an individual that the security services found to be of ‘high concern’.’
