Auto Amazon Links: No products found. Blocked by captcha.
Senior ministers have asserted that Sir Keir Starmer would have prevented Lord Mandelson’s appointment as the UK ambassador to the United States had he been aware that Mandelson did not pass the required security vetting. The prime minister is currently under intense scrutiny following revelations that Mandelson was appointed despite the existence of security concerns, which Downing Street claims were not shared by the Foreign Office during the vetting process.
Technology Secretary Liz Kendall clarified on the BBC’s Sunday with Laura programme that Starmer was informed Mandelson had received developed vetting clearance. She emphasized, “if he had known that UK Security Vetting hadn’t cleared him, he would not have made that appointment.” The prime minister is expected to face questions from MPs regarding the matter on Monday. Meanwhile, opposition parties have demanded Starmer’s resignation, accusing him of misleading Parliament by stating that due process was followed during the appointment.
Deputy Prime Minister David Lammy, who served as foreign secretary at the time of Mandelson’s selection, also defended Starmer, telling the Guardian he had “absolutely no doubt at all” that the prime minister would not have approved the appointment if he had known about the vetting failure. Lammy explained neither he nor his advisers were informed about the vetting issues, expressing surprise at Sir Olly Robbins’ recent departure—the Foreign Office’s top civil servant—who was removed amid the ongoing controversy. Lammy noted the significant time pressures to have Mandelson in place soon after Donald Trump’s return to office, while Robbins had been in his role only a short time when the vetting report was delivered.
The Foreign Office’s current head, Yvette Cooper, confirmed that Mandelson’s vetting was granted through a “priority clearance” expedited process, assuring that full checks were nonetheless performed. Former senior civil servant Helen MacNamara criticized the government’s handling, saying, “One of the many frustrating things about this is that there’s still no information,” and suggesting an attempt to shift blame onto new processes or individuals. Speculating on why clearance was granted despite known risks, she suggested officials might have considered the risks as manageable and prioritized fulfilling the prime minister’s wishes, with plans to put mitigations in place to manage security concerns.
Criticism has been voiced from various political figures as well. Conservative shadow Cabinet Office minister Alex Burghart placed sole responsibility on the prime minister, while Reform’s Treasury spokesperson Robert Jenrick accused Starmer of being either deceptive or incompetent, stating he was “totally unfit to lead this country.” Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey condemned the prime minister’s actions as a “catastrophic misjudgment” on multiple levels. Dame Emily Thornberry, chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, highlighted fresh doubts cast upon Sir Olly Robbins’ previous testimony to MPs, where the advice to deny Mandelson high-level security clearance was not disclosed.
Sir Olly, who has not yet formally accepted the Foreign Affairs Committee’s invitation to give further evidence but is reportedly preparing to appear, is understood to have been restricted by the confidential nature of the vetting process from informing Downing Street promptly. On Saturday, Cooper informed the committee she had requested a review to ensure all information previously provided to MPs was “fully accurate.” Those close to Mandelson have described Sir Olly’s removal as “egregious.” Cooper also confirmed that Nick Dyer, a senior government official, had been appointed to lead the Foreign Office’s civil service on an interim basis
Read the full article from The BBC here: Read More
Auto Amazon Links: No products found. Blocked by captcha.