Advising Starmer to appoint Mandelson 'wrong' - McSweeney

The former chief of staff to UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer has denied telling officials that Peter Mandelson's "checks should be cleared at all costs" and admitted he was "wrong" to advise Mr Starmer to appoint the him as US ambassador.

Answering questions from the Foreign Affairs Committee, Morgan McSweeney said he did not "ask officials to ignore procedures, request that steps should be skipped, or communicate explicitly or implicitly that checks should be cleared at all costs" during the appointment process for Mr Mandelson.

The Cork man is widely seen as a protégé of Mr Mandelson and resigned in February over his part in the appointment.

Mr Starmer considered a "wide range of views" when he made the decision to appoint Mr Mandelson as ambassador to the US, Mr McSweeney said.

However, he hit out at suggestions by some cabinet ministers they warned against the appointment at the time.

"I have to say, I know that a lot of people now say they told the prime minister they were against it at the time.

"Everything I know about how the prime minister works is he will consult widely, he will take a lot of views on, and if everybody else was opposed to this appointment but me, he would not have made an appointment such as that," he said.

Mr McSweeney added: "He does like to try to build consensus within his team and to get a wide range of views. And he doesn't just listen to one person on it.

"He certainly spoke to other ministers, other senior staff and took his time reaching decisions he reached."

Mr Starmer is facing a critical day as MPs vote on whether there should be a parliamentary inquiry into the Peter Mandelson vetting row.

He has urged Labour backbenchers to "stand together" against the motion to refer him to the Privileges Committee over claims he misled the House of Commons about the way the former US ambassador's appointment was handled.

Mr Mandelson's ambassadorship ended after nine months last September when he was sacked over the extent of his links to paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein.

Starmer allies appeared confident that a mass rebellion was off the cards as he told a packed meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) last night: "When we stick together and fight together we are so much stronger."

He sought to dismiss the commons bid to refer him to the committee which ended Boris Johnson's political career as a "stunt" by political opponents intent on inflicting damage before the May elections.

Mr Starmer told the PLP: "I have responsibility for being totally transparent with you, with Parliament and the British public.

"I take that very seriously as well. But this is not about a lack of transparency.

"This is a political stunt by our opponents who want to bring us down, obscure our message, stop us getting on with our work.

"And the timing tells you everything, nine days before local elections."

He said the Conservatives had put forward "totally baseless" and "absolutely ridiculous" accusations against him and insisted today's motion was "pure politics", adding: "We need to stand together against it."

The Privileges Committee was responsible for Mr Johnson's exit from frontline politics after it investigated him for misleading the commons over the "partygate" breaches of Covid-19 laws in Downing Street.

He quit as an MP in 2023 before the committee published a report recommending his suspension.

Mr Starmer has also faced questions for insisting to MPs that "no pressure existed whatsoever in relation to this case" after former top Foreign Office official Olly Robbins said there had been "constant chasing" from No 10 while checks were taking place for the ambassadorship.

His claims were echoed in written evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee published yesterday evening from another key figure in the security process.

According to a letter from the Foreign Office drafted in consultation with Ian Collard, who was head of security in the department, the official said he "felt pressure to deliver a rapid outcome" to the clearance procedure.

This was in light of "regular contact from No 10 to the FCDO (permanent under-secretary's) office," the letter said, although Mr Collard did not personally speak to Downing Street colleagues and "does not assess that this pressure influenced professional judgment that was reached by himself or his team".

Mr Starmer has been accused of misleading MPs by saying "full due process" was followed in appointing Mr Mandelson, who was given developed vetting status despite failing security checks.

The Foreign Office, under then top civil servant Mr Robbins, cleared him despite red flags raised by experts at the UK Security Vetting (UKSV) agency.

Mr Collard, who briefed Mr Robbins on the vetting findings, also did not see the UKSV file recommending clearance be denied, according to the letter published yesterday.

Instead, he received an oral briefing from officials which led him to believe Mr Mandelson's case was "borderline" and that "the risks could be mitigated," the evidence said.

Downing Street has said the government is already committing to two parliamentary processes - questioning from the Foreign Affairs Committee about Mr Mandelson's vetting and a Commons motion forcing the publication of documents relating to his appointment.