Downing Street knew Peter Mandelson had failed security vetting for the US ambassador role seven months ago – when concerns were first raised with No10 by The Independent.
This publication revealed on 11 September last year that MI6 had failed to clear the Labour peer, largely because of concerns over his business links to China.
Those concerns were put to No10, but the then-director of communications, Tim Allen, insisted: “Vetting done by FCDO [Foreign and Commonwealth Office] in normal way”.
Now, Downing Street is attempting to claim that Sir Keir was only made aware of the issue this week when documents detailing his appointment came to light.
The prime minsister has said it was “staggering” and “unforgivable” that he had not been told earlier, adding he was “furious”.
But Tory shadow chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster Alex Burghart has accused Downing Street of lying about the situation now.
He said: “Downing Street was told in September – by no lesser authority than The Independent – that Mandelson had failed his vetting. For the PM to pretend now that he didn’t know beggars belief. This is cover-up after cover-up, lie after lie. We cannot trust this prime minister’s words or his judgement. It is time for him to face the music.”
A Labour MP also told The Independent it “looks like he (Starmer) might be toast”.
The concerns raised by this publication came on the same day Sir Keir sacked Lord Mandelson over his links with the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein.
According to a former senior cabinet minister, any security concerns would have been raised privately between the head of MI6, the foreign secretary and the prime minister as part of normal practice.
But Downing Street now claims that the FCDO’s foreign secretary, Olly Robbins, failed to do that – a decision that led to his sacking last night. Nevertheless, Downing Street was aware in September when the matter was raised by The Independent.
Insisting that he did not know before this week, Sir Keir told reporters on Friday: “That I wasn’t told that Peter Mandelson had failed security vetting when he was appointed is staggering.
“That I wasn’t told that he had failed security vetting when I was telling Parliament that due process had been followed is unforgivable. Not only was I not told, no minister was told, and I’m absolutely furious about that.
“What I intend to do is to go to Parliament on Monday to set out all the relevant facts in true transparency, so Parliament has the full picture.”
Reform UK leader Nigel Farage said “nothing the prime minister has said adds up”, adding: “He has lied to the country and needs to go.”
At the time, Tory leader Kemi Badenoch reacted to The Independent’s story, saying: “These latest revelations point yet again to the terrible judgement of Keir Starmer and why it is imperative that all documents relating to Peter Mandelson’s appointment are released immediately.
“If it is true that Starmer or his chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, overruled the security services, as has been alleged, they need immediately to explain to the public why they did so.”
Shadow foreign secretary Dame Priti Patel, who had similar security briefings from MI5 as home secretary, said: “These are extraordinary revelations. For Keir Starmer and Morgan McSweeney to have appointed Lord Mandelson despite concerns being raised by the security services shows a blatant disregard of all national security considerations and their determination to promote their Labour Party friends.”
However, asked whether No 10 had ignored security concerns flagged by the security services before Lord Mandelson’s appointment, the spokesperson said: “No 10 was not involved in the security vetting process. This is managed at departmental level by the agency responsible and any suggestion that No 10 was involved is untrue.”
In an explanation on X (Twitter), former Tory foreign secretary James Cleverly, who made many diplomatic appointments, insisted that all security and other concerns about Lord Mandelson would have been presented to the foreign secretary and prime minister by officials and the security services.
He wrote: “They would have reminded Lammy that Mandelson had resigned in disgrace twice before. They would have reminded Lammy that Mandelson had a longstanding relationship with Epstein. They would have reminded Lammy that Mandelson had widespread, complicated, and opaque commercial interests.
“I have no doubt that they would have reminded Lammy that he and the PM were importing significant reputational risk if they appointed Mandelson. I have no doubt they would have unambiguously advised Lammy against appointing Mandelson to the post.
“And it is now clear that Lammy and Starmer ignored that advice and appointed him anyway.”
Lisa Smart, the Lib Dem cabinet office spokesperson said: “There is clearly something deeply wrong at Number 10 when reports from journalists of Mandelson failing his vetting didn’t even get through the door. Starmer looks frankly like a lame duck totally out of control of his own Government.
“It’s incredible that he’s saying today that he wasn’t told Mandelson failed vetting. This whole process has been a scandal from start to finish and the Prime Minister has to take responsibility for the many, many mistakes he has now made.”
The Independent has approached Downing Street for further comment.
