Sir Keir Starmer is facing mounting pressure after claims he was allegedly aware of security concerns surrounding Peter Mandelson before his controversial appointment as US ambassador.
The Prime Minister is expected to tell the Commons it was “unforgivable” that he was not informed that Lord Mandelson had failed developed vetting clearance. However, senior Whitehall sources have suggested Sir Keir had already been briefed on “red flags” linked to the Labour grandee’s ties to China and Russia before the formal process concluded, GB News reported.
The UK Security Vetting agency is understood to have recommended rejecting clearance, citing potential risks. That advice was later overruled by Olly Robbins, the former head of the Foreign Office, who judged the concerns to be manageable.
Sir Olly was dismissed last week after losing the confidence of both Sir Keir and Yvette Cooper, as details of the decision-making process emerged.
Downing Street has insisted there was no legal barrier preventing ministers from being informed of the failed vetting, rejecting Sir Olly’s claim that the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 restricted disclosure.
A No 10 spokesman said it would have been entirely reasonable for the Prime Minister to have been told, intensifying questions over why the information was withheld.
Sir Olly is set to appear before the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, where he is expected to argue that the risks associated with Lord Mandelson had already been “priced in”, and that the Prime Minister was determined to push ahead with the appointment.
Further controversy has arisen over reports that Lord Mandelson was later granted “strap three” clearance—the highest level of classified access—despite failing the initial vetting process. The clearance allows access to highly sensitive intelligence, often relating to hostile states including Russia and China, and is typically granted only on a strict need-to-know basis.
The fast-tracking of such clearance, reportedly due to the importance of Washington’s role, has added to the scrutiny of the Government’s handling of the case.
Ahead of his Commons appearance, Sir Keir has vowed to make it “crystal clear” that he was kept in the dark—though critics argue the emerging details raise serious questions about what he knew, and when.
The Prime Minister 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.
“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.”
Tory leader Kemi Badenoch wrote in a letter to Starmer on Sunday: “As an experienced barrister, you will know the importance of telling the truth, but you will also know that many people think you have been at best recklessly negligent and at worst dishonest about this whole affair.
“You have failed to answer very simple questions about what you did and what you knew.
“This is contemptuous of Parliament, discourteous to the House, and against the fundamental requirement set out in your own Ministerial Code.”
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’.”
Leave a Comment