MPs jeer as Starmer says it is ‘incredible’ he was not told full story about Mandelson’s vetting
Starmer went on:
double quotation markMany members across the House will find these facts to be incredible.
That generated lots of ironic jeering from opposition MPs.
Starmer went on:
double quotation markI 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.
Share
Key events
12m ago
Starmer’s Mandelson statement to MPs – snap verdict
41m ago
Your Party MP Zarah Sultana suspended from parliament after calling Starmer ‘barefaced liar’
54m ago
Starmer declines invitation to accept he inadvertently misled MPs with previous Mandelson vetting comments
1h ago
Starmer says Robbins’ sacking does not blight his record as having ‘distinguished career’
2h ago
Reform UK MP Lee Anderson ordered to leave Commons chamber after saying Starmer’s ‘been lying’
2h ago
Mandelson given ambassador’s job as reward for helping get Starmer elected MP, John McDonnell claims
2h ago
Starmer rejects claim No 10 did not check Mandelson’s vetting record after report in Independent in September
2h ago
Davey claims Starmer’s statement today shows he has failed to offer change from Johnson era
2h ago
Emily Thornberry suggests Morgan McSweeney so keen to make Mandelson ambassdor he ignored national security concerns
2h ago
Badenoch claims Starmer did not ask questions about Mandelson because ‘he didn’t want to know’
3h ago
Badenoch says Starmer breached ministerial code by not telling MPs on Wednesday last week about Mandelson error
3h ago
MPs jeer as Starmer says it is ‘incredible’ he was not told full story about Mandelson’s vetting
3h ago
Starmer says it is ‘frankly staggering’ that he was not told about Mandelson’s security vetting failure
3h ago
Starmer says it is ‘unforgivable’ officials let foreign secretary say usual vetting procedure was followed
3h ago
Starmer say he would not have appointed Mandelson if he had known the UKSV recommendation
3h ago
Starmer says he does not accept he could not have been told Mandelson failed vetting interview
3h ago
Starmer says it is ‘staggering’ he was not told about Mandelson failing security vetting interview
3h ago
Starmer says he was wrong to appoint Mandelson ambassador to US
3h ago
Speaker warns MPs not to accuse PM of lying during this Commons statement
3h ago
Speaker Lindsay Hoyle tells MPs former parliamentary employee arrested under anti-hacking laws
4h ago
No 10 repeatedly asked for assurances that Mandelson’s vetting carried out properly, Downing Street says
4h ago
Swinney claims Starmer not tackling cost of living crisis because he’s distracted by Mandelson scandal
4h ago
Farage plays down relationship with Trump – as he claims Obama’s migration policies model for Reform UK in some ways
5h ago
Greens join refugee campaigners in condemning Reform UK’s ‘cruel’ plan to deport people already granted asylum
5h ago
Farage says Richard Tice will pay any tax owing, in response to claim he failed to pay £100,000 in corportation tax
6h ago
No 10 signals Starmer accepts he inadvertently misled parliament in what he said about Mandelson vetting
6h ago
How Starmer ignored advice for any politician being made US ambassador to go through security vetting first
6h ago
Olly Robbins to give evidence to MPs tomorrow at 9am about Mandelson, foreign affairs committee says
6h ago
Reform UK’s Scottish leader Malcolm Offord claims latest Holyrood poll shows he’s only alternative to Swinney as next FM
7h ago
Farage claims Starmer ‘lied’ about Mandelson vetting, and says after May election Labour MPs may be in mood to oust him
7h ago
Former MI6 chief says he finds it hard to accept Lammy’s claim he was not told about Mandelson vetting recommendation
7h ago
Reform UK says it would deport hundreds of thousands of people already granted asylum in UK
8h ago
Alexander accuses Badenoch of peddling conspiracy theory about Starmer that is ‘simply not true’
8h ago
Robbins has ‘integrity stitched into his DNA’, says former No 10 foreign policy adviser
8h ago
Badenoch renews calls for Starmer to resign – as she backs away from claim that he definitely lied about Mandelson’s vetting
8h ago
Naming Mandelson as ambassador before vetting was mistake, Alexander says
9h ago
Former cabinet secretary Gus O’Donnell says Olly Robbins was following rules about vetting disclosure
9h ago
Douglas Alexander says he thinks Starmer should stay as PM until next election, but ‘there are no certainties’
9h ago
Starmer could have been told about Mandelson’s vetting failure, claims No 10 with release of briefing paper
Show key events only
Please turn on JavaScript to use this feature
Starmer’s Mandelson statement to MPs – snap verdict
Andrew Sparrow
It wasn’t much of a win, but as Keir Starmer has heads back to Downing Street he will probably count that as a sort of success. Labour MPs did not turn on him; there was no one on his side calling for his resignation, and those who did speak out were mostly from the Corbynite left (whose views are discounted by No 10 anyway), and who were more keen to aim their fire at Morgan McSweeney and Peter Mandelson. If Kemi Badenoch thought there was more mileage in this, she could have tabled a no confidence motion on this which would have to be debated tomorrow, but she didn’t. She can be brutal in the Commons, but her speech today did not cause the PM any difficulties. Last week she was saying he was clearly lying. If he is, then he is doing it quite well, because neither she, nor any other MP, made a convincing job this afternoon of establishing that he has not been telling the truth about what he was told about by the Foreign Office about the Mandelson vetting process.
On the narrow process point – it is really plausible that No 10 did not know, and could not find out, that Peter Mandelson failed his security vetting interview?– Starmer may even have won some people around this afternoon. He sounded believable.
But, in other respects, the process point (as well the issue about whether he inadvertently misled parliament) is irrelevant. Starmer’s problem is that he decided to approve the appointment of Mandelson in the first place, when it was already clear that there was ample evidence that his business record and his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein made him suspect. That, presumably, is why Olly Robbins decided to facilitate the appointment by using his discretion over overrule the vetting recommendation.
It seems the argument of some in Downing Street might have been the Mandelson should get the job not despite being the sleazy former best friend of a paedophile, but precisely because he was this sort of character. They weren’t appointing him ambassador to the Vatican. There seems to have been the assumption that this was the sort of interlocutor Donald Trump (another ex-Epstein best friend) might like. You can understand why Starmer won’t put it like that in public.
Whatever the reason, it turned out to be a colossal misjudgment. Starmer may have seen off Kemi Badenoch, Ed Davey and all the others this afternoon, but this controversy has only added to the long list of reasons Labour MPs have for wanting him out before the next election and nothing he said this afternoon changes that.
That is all from me now. Aneesa Ahmed is taking over.
Share
The statement is now over. Keir Starmer was taking questions for almost two and a half hours.
Share
Your Party MP Zarah Sultana suspended from parliament after calling Starmer ‘barefaced liar’
The Your Party MP Zarah Sultana has also been thrown out of the Commons. She called Starmer a “barefaced liar” and refused to withdraw when Lindsay Hoyle, the speaker, asked her to withdraw.
But, unlike with Lee Anderson (see 4.45pm), Hoyle had to “name” Sultana. She did not leave the chamber when he asked her to. Instead, after he “named” here, a motion was passed suspending her from participation in the proceedings. That means she is out for five days, and will also lose pay as a result.
Hoyle only named her reluctantly, after he refused her request to leave without being named. Suspensions like this are relatively rare.
Before she was interrupted, Sultana said:
double quotation markWe all know that the prime minister appointed Mandelson because he owes his job to him. He appointed him, he defended him and now he claims to know nothing. He is gaslighting the nation. So let’s call this out for what it is. The prime minister is a barefaced liar.
Share
Starmer declines invitation to accept he inadvertently misled MPs with previous Mandelson vetting comments
Starmer told MPs that he did not mislead the Commons when he said that due process was followed.
At the No 10 lobby briefing this morning the PM’s spokesperson implied that Starmer would accept he inadvertently misled MPs. (See 1.01pm.) On Friday morning last week Darren Jones, the chief secretary to the PM, said he did not think the PM had misled MPs on this issue. Later, at the morning lobby briefing on Friday, No 10 was not willing to repeat this line. On Friday night Downing Street released minutes of a meeting saying officials discussed “whether ministers, having been provided (incorrectly) with assurances about the process, had inadvertently misled parliament when commenting on the process which had been followed”.
But today, when the Tory John Lamont asked Starmer if he accepted he had “inadvertently misled the House of Commons”, Starmer replied:
double quotation markI did not mislead the House of Commons. I accept that information that I should have had, and information that the house should have had, should have been before the House.
But I did not mislead the House, and that’s why I’ve set out the account in full.
Share
Mark Francois (Con) asks Starmer to confirm that he had asked if Mandelson failed his vetting, and who he asked.
Starmer said he was told that Mandelson was given vetting clearance.
Share
Ellie Chowns (Green) said Starmer should resign.
double quotation markWhat’s really staggering and unforgivable is that [Starmer] appointed Peter Mandelson … knowing about his friendship with the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein. What’s unforgivable is that the prime minister was more concerned with pandering to Donald Trump than with standing with the victims and survivors …
Will he take personal responsibility for his staggering and unforgivable errors of judgment and resign?
Starmer said it was unbelievable that he was not told.
Share
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Lab) says Starmer covered process in his statement. He went on:
double quotation markSurely, Prime Minister, the real issue is why, when Peter Mandelson’s reputation was already known, was he ever considered for such an important role?
Starmer says he accepts the appointment was wrong.
Share
Lisa Smart (Lib Dem) asks Starmer again to explain why he ignored Simon Case’s advice. (See 4.51pm.)
Starmer said that he thought he had followed the advice, because Mandleson’s appointment was subject to vetting being approved. He said when Chris Wormald, the then cabinet secretary, looked at this process in September, he concluded that the process had been followed in line with what Case recommended.
(Starmer’s answer seems to miss the point, implicit in Case’s advice, which was that, once an appointment gets publicly announced, it becomes much harder for political reasons to accept a vetting decision saying the appointment should not go ahead.)
Share
Starmer says Robbins’ sacking does not blight his record as having ‘distinguished career’
Andrew Mitchell, the former Tory cabinet minister, said Robbins was “a fine and experienced civil servant” who should not be made to take the blame.
Starmer said he lost confidence in Robbins because he did not share the vetting information. But, he went on:
double quotation markThat doesn’t mean [Robbins] hasn’t got a distinguished career. He does have a distinguished career.
Share
Oliver Dowden, the former Tory deputy PM, asked Starmer what Olly Robbins told him when Starmer said he should have been told about the vetting decision. Dowden said that senior officials try to deliver on the wishes of ministers. He suggests that Robbins was trying to help Starmer because he knew Starmer wanted the appointment to go ahead.
Starmer said Robbins has had “a distinguished career”. He said that Robbins’ view was that he was not allowed to give this information to the PM.
But Starmer said he does not want to put words into Robbins’ mouth. Robbins will explain his position tomorrow, he said.
Share
Updated at 18.14 CEST
One of Kemi Badenoch’s six questions for Keir Starmer was about Mandelson remaning a director of a Russian defence firm after the invastion of Crimea. See 4.10pm.
She has now answered her own question – posting another extract from the documents released under the humble address mechanism showing that this issue was flagged up to Starmer as a result of the Cabinet Office vetting process (which was different from the UKSV vetting – the main focus of this hearing).
She said:
double quotation markIt’s quite clear from this document the Prime Minister was told this in November 2024.
He didn’t want to answer my question…because HE KNEW.
He was told.
Yet he appointed Mandelson anyway putting our national security at risk.
Memo to PM Photograph: Kemi BadenochShare
Source
