Sir Keir Starmer has directed the Foreign Office to provide clarification on how 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 prominent Labour figure had obtained developed vetting against the recommendations of UK Security Vetting until recently, prompting immediate inquiries into the circumstances of the decision. The Foreign Office has assured that they are actively working to address this inquiry.
Sources from Downing Street have indicated that the Prime Minister is deeply displeased by the situation. The issue arose after reports from The Guardian revealed that security officials had initially rejected clearance for Lord Mandelson, but the Foreign Office intervened to overrule the decision after he had been announced as Britain’s top diplomat in the US.
Sir Keir has maintained that due process was followed in Lord Mandelson’s appointment, despite allegations of misleading information regarding his connections with Jeffrey Epstein. While the security services had reportedly granted him clearance independently, the Cabinet Office’s UK Security Vetting process in January last year did not approve him, as per The Guardian’s report.
A spokesperson for the Government stated that the decision to grant developed vetting to Peter Mandelson against security vetting advice was made by Foreign, Commonwealth, and Development Office (FCDO) officials. Following the Prime Minister’s awareness of the situation, he instructed officials to delve into the reasons behind the decision and update the House of Commons accordingly.
There are speculations that a statement might be given to MPs on Monday 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 appear before Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee to elucidate the events surrounding Lord Mandelson’s clearance.
Dame Emily Thornberry, a senior Labour MP and chairwoman of the committee, has raised questions about the decision-making process and the influence behind it. She highlighted the nuanced language in a letter from Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper regarding the vetting process, suggesting that the full story has not been disclosed.
Calls for Sir Keir to resign have emerged from the Green Party and Reform UK, while Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch criticized Starmer’s alleged lack of awareness regarding Mandelson’s security vetting status. Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey emphasized the importance of transparency in such matters.
Lord Mandelson, a political appointee rather than a career diplomat, was removed from his role in Washington last year due to further revelations about his association with Epstein. The decision to appoint him despite ongoing concerns about his ties to Epstein has sparked controversies and raised doubts about Sir Keir’s judgment.
The vetting process involved public domain checks and confidential security vetting, with information shared only in a binary outcome. The Foreign Office’s intervention to grant Lord Mandelson clearance despite initial rejection has raised eyebrows, with more documents related to his appointment yet to be disclosed.
Sir Keir’s stance on the security vetting issue has faced scrutiny, especially after his former chief of staff took responsibility for advising on the appointment decision. The trade union representing vetting officers at UKSV expressed disappointment over Downing Street’s handling of the situation, emphasizing the need for accountability in decision-making processes.