Starmer says it ‘beggars belief’ he wasn’t told about Mandelson vetting failure as he faces Commons – UK politics live
MPs jeer as Starmer says it is ‘incredible’ he was not told full story about Mandelson’s vetting
Starmer went on:
Many members across the House will find these facts to be incredible.
That generated lots of ironic jeering from opposition MPs.
Starmer went on:
I can only say they [the MPs jeering] right. It beggars belief that throughout the whole timeline of events, officials in the Foreign Office saw fit to withhold this information from the most senior ministers in our system, in 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’s how most public servants think it should work either.
I work with hundreds of civil servants, thousands 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, in the Middle East and all around the world.
This is not about them, but yet it is surely beyond doubt that the recommendation from UKSV that Peter Mandelson should be denied development and 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.
Key events
Badenoch said the Mandelson appointment was a matter of national security.
We still do not know exactly why Peter Mandelson failed that vetting. We do not know what risks our country was exposed to, and 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 a single official told him that what he was saying wasn’t true.
Badenoch says Starmer breached ministerial code by not telling MPs on Wednesday last week about Mandelson error
Kemi Badenoch started her response to Keir Starmer by claiming that No 10 said earlier that Starmer would admit that he inadvertently misled the Commons. But Starmer did not say that in his statement, she said.
I will 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.
MPs jeer as Starmer says it is ‘incredible’ he was not told full story about Mandelson’s vetting
Starmer went on:
Many members across the House will find these facts to be incredible.
That generated lots of ironic jeering from opposition MPs.
Starmer went on:
I can only say they [the MPs jeering] right. It beggars belief that throughout the whole timeline of events, officials in the Foreign Office saw fit to withhold this information from the most senior ministers in our system, in 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’s how most public servants think it should work either.
I work with hundreds of civil servants, thousands 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, in the Middle East and all around the world.
This is not about them, but yet it is surely beyond doubt that the recommendation from UKSV that Peter Mandelson should be denied development and 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.
Starmer says it is ‘frankly staggering’ that he was not told about Mandelson’s security vetting failure
Starmer again says it is staggering that ministers were not told what happened.
As I 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 25th.
I do not accept that the then cabinet secretary could not have been told in September 2025, when he carried out his review into the process.
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 not told even when I ordered a review of the UKSV process is frankly staggering.
Starmer says it is ‘unforgivable’ officials let foreign secretary say usual vetting procedure was followed
Starmer says he sacked Mandelson in September last year after Bloomberg revelations showed that Mandelson had given answers that were “not truthful” to the Cabinet Office’s vetting process (which took place before the UKSV vetting process, and was different).
In September he asked for a review of the process, he says.
It was carried out by Chris Wormald, the cabinet secretary, who told Starmer in a letter that the “appropriate processes were followed in both the appointment and the withdrawal of [Mandelson].”
Starmer says Wormald was not told that Mandelson had failed the UKSV interview.
He goes on:
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 develop 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.
Starmer says Olly Robbins also told the foreign affairs committe that “Peter Mandelson’s security vetting was conducted to the usual standard set for developed vetting in line with established Cabinet Office policy”.
Starmer says the foreign secretary also signed off on this statement, without being told Mandelson failed the vetting interview.
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 vetting clearance is absolutely unforgivable.
Starmer say he would not have appointed Mandelson if he had known the UKSV recommendation
Starmer says he would not have appointed Mandelson is he had known about the UKSV decision.
So 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 that UKSV’s recommendation was that developed vetting clearance should be denied. I would not have gone ahead with the appointment.
Starmer says he does not accept he could not have been told Mandelson failed vetting interview
Starmer says he accepts that details of the security vetting process should be kept confidential. But he says he does not see why ministers should not be told the conclusions.
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 UK’s recommendations, whilst also maintaining the necessary confidentiality that vetting requires.
Starmer says the security vetting was carried out between 23 and 28 January.
On 28 January UKSV [UK Security Vetting] recommended that developed vetting approval should be denied to Mandelson, he says.
But the following day Foreign Office officials approved the vetting, he says.
(Starmer has not mentioned Olly Robbins by name. He keeps talking about Foreign Office officials.)
Starmer sets out the timetable for the appointment of Mandelson.
Mandelson’s appointment was announced before the security vetting had been carried out.
Starmer says he has now changed the rules to stop that happening again; in future, security vetting will have to take place first.
Starmer says it is ‘staggering’ he was not told about Mandelson failing security vetting interview
Starmer says he found out on Tuesday that the security vetting process had advised against appointing Peter Mandelson.
Ministers had not been told. And even the cabinet secretary, Chris Wormald, was not told.
Starmer says the fact he was not told was “staggering”.
He says he should have been told months ago.
Starmer says he was wrong to appoint Mandelson ambassador to US
Keir Starmer opens his statement by saying he accepts the decision to make Mandelson ambassador to the US was wrong.
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.
Speaker warns MPs not to accuse PM of lying during this Commons statement
Lindsay Hoyle says this is a serious topic. He says he expects questions to focus on the topic in hand. He says MPs cannot accuse each other (he means accuse the PM) of lying. MPs can only do that if they are debating a motiong accusing someone of lying, he says, which they are not able to do today.
This is from Stephen Flynn, the SNP’s leader at Westminster, commenting on one of the proposed questions for Labour MPs in the documented posted on social media by Aubrey Allegretti. (See 3.24pm.)
Labour MPs are now being told to quote an Epstein survivor to help protect the Prime Minister.
The same Prime Minister who knew Mandelson had maintained a friendship with Epstein when he appointed him.
They are shameless.
Aubrey Allegretti from the Times has got hold of the ‘lines to take’ document sent to Labour MPs by their whips ahead of Keir Starmer’s statement, along with suggested interventions. Allegretti says:
Here are the “lines to take” given to Labour MPs for Keir Starmer’s statement.
Going all guns blazing on blaming the Foreign Office
– For a 63 week wait between Mandelson being granted DV status to the PM being told by about the UKSV recommendation
– “An appalling and inexplicable lack of judgement”
– Quoting an Epstein abuse victim to attack Mandelson
And this is from Quentin Letts, the Mail’s parliamentary sketchwriter.
Peers’ gallery in Commons already rammed. Starmer not up for another 15 mins.
This from the Sun’s Jack Elsom.
Keir Starmer has just arrived in the Commons, smiling through Portcullis House as he heads to the chamber for his Mandelson statement. Have to say he looked pretty jolly!
