Starmer is accused of throwing officials 'under a bus' over Mandelson

Sir Keir Starmer was accused of throwing officials 'under a bus' on Monday night as he tried to dodge the blame for appointing Peter Mandelson.

The Prime Minister hung them out to dry by highlighting how they had missed four opportunities to flag issues with Lord Mandelson's vetting.

He admitted he had been 'wrong' to appoint Lord Mandelson as US ambassador after being warned about his 'particularly close' relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.

But he claimed he would never have pressed ahead with the appointment if he had been told that the UK Security Vetting body had warned against giving the Labour peer clearance to read secret documents.

The recommendation was overruled by the Foreign Office, which gave Mandelson the highest level of security clearance so that he could take up the role in Washington, which had been announced by the PM the previous month.

In a legalistic statement to MPs, Sir Keir claimed he had been 'deliberately' kept in the dark about the decision – and said it was 'staggering' that former Foreign Office chief Sir Olly Robbins had not informed him or other ministers.

But he refused to say why Mandelson had failed security vetting.

Kemi Badenoch accused the PM of throwing Sir Olly 'under a bus'.

The Conservative leader said it was extraordinary that former Director of Public Prosecutions Sir Keir was 'so lacking in curiosity that he chose to ask no questions about the vetting process, no questions about Mandelson's relationship with Epstein and no questions about the security risk that Mandelson posed'.

But the Prime Minister said that he had been kept in the dark about Mandelson's security status.

'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,' he said.

'Let me make a second point – if I had known before he took up his post the UK Security Vetting recommendation was that developed vetting clearance should be denied I would not have gone ahead with the appointment.'

He said Sir Olly had had multiple opportunities to raise the matter but did not, including when the PM was insisting that 'full due process' was followed, when he asked the then Cabinet Secretary Sir Chris Wormald to investigate the appointment and when he launched a review of vetting procedures.

'I do not accept that I could not have been told about the recommendation before Peter Mandelson took up his post,' he said.

Sir Keir was drowned out by a wave of jeers and laughter as he said: 'I know many MPs across the House will find these facts to be incredible.'

When the noise subsided, he continued: 'To that I can only say that they are 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 of government.'

Despite his protestations of innocence, the PM faced a wave of criticism and tough questions from MPs on all sides.

John McDonnell, Labour's former shadow chancellor, said the appointment was a reward for Mandelson's help in putting Sir Keir in No 10.

'The unspoken message to civil servants was, 'What Mandelson wants Mandelson gets',' he said.

The SNP's Stephen Flynn said Sir Keir had been aware of Mandelson's friendship with Jeffrey Epstein when he appointed him. 

He added: 'The Prime Minister blames all this – all of it – on the judgment of others. But I am interested in his judgment. Does he believe himself to be gullible, incompetent, or both?'

Sir Keir insisted he had 'laid out the relevant facts' and was 'furious' about being kept in the dark.

However, Reform's Robert Jenrick asked: 'Why does he only get angry when he is trying to save his own skin?'

Mrs Badenoch noted that Sir Keir had repeatedly urged Boris Johnson to resign for misleading the Commons over the Partygate scandal in 2020 and 2021 – and suggested he should do the same, adding: 'Or is there one rule for him and another for everyone else?'

But Sir Keir later claimed he had not misled MPs, despite telling them that his previous version of events was wrong. 'I did not mislead the House of Commons,' he said. 'I accept information that I should have had... should have been before the House. But I did not mislead the House.'

He said he had ordered a fresh review into whether there had been any security breaches during Mandelson's seven–month tenure in Washington.

He also said ministers would no longer announce appointments before candidates had been security vetted, and the power of departments to overrule vetting advice had been suspended.

Sir Keir admitted that Cabinet Secretary Dame Antonia Romeo and Cabinet Office chief Cat Little had learned of the circumstances in which Mandelson was granted security clearance a fortnight ago. But he said they had rightly waited to get legal advice before informing him.

The PM insisted he had only learned the facts on Tuesday and had sacked Sir Olly on Thursday after the details were reported by the Guardian.

Mrs Badenoch said Sir Keir had a duty under the Ministerial Code to correct the record in the Commons at the 'earliest opportunity', and asked why it took six days for him to appear before MPs.

But the PM said he had wanted to establish all the facts before reporting to the Commons.

Dame Emily Thornberry, Labour chairman of the Commons foreign affairs committee, said that 'someone – probably Peter Mandelson himself – leaked his appointment as US ambassador to the Press, which effectively bounced the Government into confirming it'.

She suggested No 10's enthusiasm for the disgraced peer had blinded people to the risks, adding: 'Does it not look as though, for certain members of the Prime Minister's team, getting Peter Mandelson the job was a priority that overrode everything else, and security considerations were very much second order?'

Meanwhile, Parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) was told documents about Mandelson's vetting 'didn't exist', its chairman said on Monday night. The ISC is looking at potentially sensitive documents related to Mandelson's appointment as ambassador, while the Government publishes less sensitive documents.

Lord Beamish said: 'In February of this year, we asked the Cabinet Office to prioritise all the documentation relating to the appointment of Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United States.

'When we received that information, there was no documentation concerning his vetting. We raised this with the Cabinet Office, only to be told that it didn't exist. The Guardian on Thursday last week indicated that the document did exist. We've now received that and will be considering it this week.'