Sir Keir Starmer has directed the Foreign Office to clarify the circumstances under which Lord Peter Mandelson was approved as the UK ambassador to the US, following revelations that the department had overridden a security vetting process.
The Prime Minister was reportedly unaware that the former Labour figure had been granted developed vetting against the advice of UK Security Vetting until recently, prompting immediate inquiries into the situation by government officials.
Downing Street sources have indicated that the Prime Minister is deeply angered by the situation. This development comes after reports from The Guardian suggested that security officials had initially rejected clearance for Lord Mandelson, but the Foreign Office intervened to override the decision after his appointment had been announced.
Sir Keir Starmer has maintained that the appointment process followed due diligence and that Lord Mandelson had been cleared for the role by independent security services. However, it was reported that the peer did not receive approval following the confidential process conducted by the Cabinet Office’s UK Security Vetting last January.
A government spokesperson disclosed that the decision to grant developed vetting to Peter Mandelson against the recommendation of UK Security Vetting was made by FCDO officials. Following the Prime Minister’s briefing on the matter, efforts are underway to investigate the circumstances surrounding the vetting process.
There are speculations that a statement may be issued to MPs regarding this issue, although No 10 has not confirmed this. Additionally, Sir Olly Robbins, the top civil servant at the Foreign Office, has been summoned to testify before Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee next week to provide clarification on the events.
Dame Emily Thornberry, a senior Labour MP and chair of the committee, has raised questions regarding the decision-making process, suggesting that further details are needed to understand the situation fully. She highlighted the wording of a letter received from Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper, emphasizing the need for transparency on the vetting process.
Calls for Sir Keir to step down have emerged from various political figures, with Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch criticizing Starmer for claiming ignorance of Mandelson’s failed security vetting. Meanwhile, Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey criticized the Prime Minister for not disclosing the information to Parliament promptly.
Lord Mandelson, a political appointee with controversial ties, was removed from his Washington post in September following revelations about his association with Jeffrey Epstein. Questions about Sir Keir’s judgment have intensified, especially regarding his decision to appoint Mandelson despite ongoing concerns about his connections.
The vetting process for Lord Mandelson involved both public domain checks by the Cabinet Office and a confidential security assessment. The Foreign Office’s intervention to grant him clearance despite initial denials has raised eyebrows, with more details on the appointment yet to be revealed.
Sir Keir reiterated his stance on Mandelson’s security clearance in February, criticizing the vetting process for failing to address concerns about the former Labour official’s credibility. Additionally, when Sir Keir’s chief of staff resigned, he acknowledged responsibility for the flawed decision and called for reforms in the vetting procedure.
Amidst the controversy, trade union representatives at UKSV expressed disappointment in Downing Street’s handling of the situation, emphasizing the need for accountability in decision-making processes involving civil servants.
