Two of Keir Starmer’s top aides knew about the latest Peter Mandelson scandal for weeks, it emerged on Friday night.
Amid fresh accusations that Sir Keir has lost control of his Government, it was revealed the country’s top civil servant, Dame Antonia Romeo, and the Cabinet Office’s Cat Little found out last month that Mandelson was given the green light as US ambassador against the advice of security officials.
The embattled Prime Minister insisted he was unaware until Tuesday that the New Labour grandee had been appointed to Washington last year despite failing his vetting.
He said he was ‘absolutely furious’ that the Foreign Office had not told him it had overruled the vetting, and sacked its most senior figure, Sir Olly Robbins.
Allies of the ousted mandarin insisted he was simply following the rules by keeping highly sensitive background checks on Mandelson a secret, and there was ‘no basis’ for him to lose his job.
On Friday night it was revealed that others in Downing Street knew well before the Prime Minister, questioning his grip on the ever-evolving scandal that has now raged for more than seven months.
The Guardian reported that Ms Little, the Cabinet Office’s Permanent Secretary who is overseeing the publication of files demanded by MPs, was handed a damning document at the end of March.
Written in early 2025 by UK Security Vetting officials, it identified highly sensitive concerns about Mandelson and concluded he should not be given the clearance needed for the job.
She told Cabinet Secretary Dame Antonia, who was little more than a month into the job, and they discussed the potential risks of sharing the information. The Cabinet Office then got legal advice on whether it could prejudice the Metropolitan Police’s criminal investigation into Mandelson and also asked the Foreign Office why it had granted him developed vetting clearance against advice.
It was suggested up to a dozen officials and lawyers were aware of the vetting failure, but not the PM, who repeatedly insisted everything was done by the book.
The pair finally approached Sir Keir on Tuesday with details of the revelation that plunged his premiership into fresh crisis.
However, there were further questions for No 10 after it was told by The Mail on Sunday as far back as September that Mandelson had failed his security clearance test, only for the suggestion to be denied.
Senior Tory MP Alex Burghart said: ‘This is yet more evidence that Keir Starmer’s Government is a shambles.
‘If it’s really true Starmer didn’t know about Mandelson’s vetting failures when senior officials had the truth, it confirms the PM is in office but not in power.
‘Either everyone is lying, or this is the most shambolic government in history – or both. It’s time for Starmer to go.’
Tory leader Kemi Badenoch added: ‘That this is a national disgrace, the buck stops with him and the only decent response is to resign.’
Sir Keir ignored a question about whether he would resign, but faces a perilous week.
He must give his account of the saga to the Commons on Monday, while Sir Olly has been summoned before MPs on the foreign affairs committee the following day.
In another blow, polling by YouGov found that only 16 per cent of Britons believe the PM has been honest about how the disastrous ambassadorship decision was made, while 53 per cent said otherwise.
In Paris for a summit on the Iran crisis, Sir Keir said: ‘That I wasn’t told that Peter Mandelson had failed security vetting when he was appointed is staggering. That I wasn’t told that he had failed security vetting when I was telling Parliament that due process had been followed is unforgivable.
‘Not only was I not told, no minister was told, and I’m absolutely furious about that.’
A spokesman said No 10 had ‘repeatedly’ asked the Foreign Office about the facts of the case but was never told that red flags had been raised about Mandelson.
Ministers said they were even unaware the Foreign Office had the power to overrule security recommendations.
A friend of Sir Olly insisted the mandarin had abided by the rules.
Ciaran Martin, a former chief executive of the National Cyber Security Centre, told the BBC: ‘I simply cannot comprehend the basis of this decision.
‘There is no abuse of process. There’s no failure of process. Not only is there no duty to disclose the details of a vetting case, there is a duty not to disclose them.’
A Cabinet Office spokesman said: ‘As part of the Government’s commitment to comply fully with the Humble Address, the Permanent Secretary at the Cabinet Office requested the vetting summary document.
‘Once she received this document, the Cabinet Office immediately undertook a series of expedited checks in order to be in a sound position to share the document, or the fact of it.
‘As soon as these checks were conducted, the Prime Minister was informed.’
