Throughout the Peter Mandelson scandal, Sir Keir Starmer’s constant response has been that he did not know and others did not tell him.
As more and more details of the scandal have emerged, that insistence has been met with incredulity. Meanwhile, as the prime minister stays in post, chief of staff Morgan McSweeney, cabinet secretary Sir Christopher Wormald, director of communications Tim Allan and now Foreign Office permanent secretary Sir Olly Robbins have all left their jobs.
This is why, on Friday, I published an exchange I had with Mr Allan on 11 September. In those messages, I directly asked him about Mandelson failing security vetting for the role of ambassador to the United States.
The story was well sourced from both this country and Washington DC. Almost 50 minutes after receiving my Whatsapp message, I was sent a cursory response from Mr Allan. “Vetting done by FCDO in normal way,” he said.
We ran the story as a front-page lead. It had some follow-up and was raised in Parliament before further gruesome facts about Mandelson – the now former ambassador to the UK – and his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein moved the agenda on.
The reason I published that exchange with Mr Allan was in direct response to the prime minister claiming that he, all of his ministers and Downing Street were unaware of the security failing vetting until last week, when it was reported by The Guardian.
But, as my WhatsApp exchange demonstrates, senior people in Downing Street were aware of the problem at the latest in September – even before The Independent ran the story.
There are several reasons why it is hard to believe the issue had not been raised with the prime minister by Mr Allan – yet this is what we are being told.
People who have been in these situations and know how it works say they do not believe the PM.
Former Downing Street special adviser Robert Midgley said: “I used to work in No 10. When a journalist comes with this sort of information to anyone in Downing Street, despite that response, that information only travels upwards. It’s impossible Starmer did not know about it.”
On Sky News on Sunday morning, former chancellor Nadhim Zahawi told Sir Trevor Phillips: “If David Maddox at The Independent asked this question seven months ago, there is no way, and I have been in the room, that the head of comms for the prime minister wouldn’t have at least had the curiosity to say, ‘Where did this story come from? How did he fail? And why don’t we know about it?’
“There is no way that the cabinet secretary wouldn’t know about this failure. They may not have the details, but [would] at least be told, ‘By the way, we have got a problem, he has been appointed but he has failed developed vetting afterwards.’”
In an interview with The Independent, former foreign secretary Sir James Cleverly said these head of mission positions are “purely in the gift of the foreign secretary… there is no formal process.” It means that deputy prime minister David Lammy, who was foreign secretary at the time, is also under the spotlight.
Meanwhile, an ex-senior civil servant who regularly dealt with crisis issues, told The Independent: “If the Cabinet Office knew seven months beforehand, and they either didn’t tell the PM, or told the PM and he chose to ignore it, then firstly that lets Olly off the hook completely, and secondly it raises some much more fundamental questions about the way the centre is working.”
Coming back to the story, my sources then were stating that the issue was widely known and it was already a scandal being discussed behind the scenes.
All this makes it all the more unbelievable that Starmer was simply unaware.
In February, months after my contact with Mr Allan – Starmer’s handpicked closest communications adviser – the prime minister stood up in the Commons to say there was not a problem with the vetting process.
In the Commons on Monday, Tory leader Kemi Badenoch was the first of many MPs to ask why the prime minister did not act when The Independent ran its front page story, and why it was apparently ignored.
Sir Keir’s answer to Ms Badenoch was, frankly, unsatisfactory. He said: “In relation to reports in the media, Number 10 was repeatedly asked about the outcome of the security clearance and was assured that the entire process was followed.”
In short, he ducked the question.
But the biggest question of all is how a journalist can learn about a vital detail of the prime minister’s most important diplomatic appointment while he remains completely ignorant of it until now.
Sir Keir’s credibility is still on the line – and his explanation in the Commons today will have done little to convince his critics.
