Keir Starmer says it is unforgivable he was not told Mandelson failed vetting | UK news

Keir Starmer said it was “inexcusable” he was not told that Peter Mandelson had failed a security clearance before taking on the role of ambassador to Washington.

The Prime Minister said he was “furious” about what happened, stating that he did not know that security officials had initially recommended that Mandelson be denied entry.

Responding to questions later, Starmer’s spokesman directly blamed the Foreign Office, saying Downing Street had “repeatedly” investigated the facts of the case but had not been told.

When asked if this amounted to a “cover-up”, the spokesman did not deny it and said: “The Prime Minister was not informed and he made it clear that it was surprising that he was not informed.”

Speaking for the first time on Friday morning since the Guardian published the story, Starmer said: “It is surprising that I was not told that Peter Mandelson had failed his vetting when he was appointed.

“It is inexcusable that I was not told that he had failed his vetting when I told Parliament that due process was followed. Not only was I not told, but no minister was told and I am absolutely furious about that.”

The prime minister is under pressure to reveal who knew what about Mandelson’s review after the Guardian revealed on Thursday that his former peer had failed checks.

Mandelson was appointed to the post in late 2024 despite concerns from senior members of the government about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, even after the financier was convicted of child trafficking.

He was sacked by Starmer last year after the US Department of Justice released emails showing how close he was to Epstein and that he shared sensitive government information with him while working for Gordon Brown. He denies any wrongdoing.

Sources told the Guardian that security officials initially recommended Mandelson not be given a security clearance for the role, but the suggestion was rejected.

It is not yet known who gave the order to grant the permit. Starmer sacked the Foreign Office’s most senior civil servant, Olly Robbins, on Thursday night.

The Prime Minister will appear before MPs on Monday and make a statement about what happened and what he knows. He said on Friday: “What I plan to do is go to parliament on Monday and set out all the relevant facts with real transparency, so parliament can see the full picture.”

Asked at length about what had happened at the media briefing, Starmer’s spokesman said the prime minister had ordered an urgent investigation and the terms of reference would be announced soon.

“The Prime Minister was informed about this on Tuesday evening,” he said. “He asked the cabinet secretary to set out the facts so that he can update parliament as soon as possible.” That work is “ongoing,” the spokesman said.

He added: “No one at number 10 was informed. No one – officials at number 10 or anyone else – had this information.”

Asked whether No 10 had sought to question the Foreign Office about the review of Mandelson, the spokesman said: “What I can say is that these conversations have occurred many times throughout this process. No 10 has repeatedly asked about the facts of the case and at no point is there any evidence that the UK Security Review has recommended against the review.” [been] It was given to number 10.”

Robbins could give his side of the story early next week and the House of Commons foreign affairs select committee could invite him to testify on Tuesday.

Ciaran Martin, a close friend of Robbins and a former senior civil servant involved in the investigation in the past, told the BBC that Robbins appeared to have been made a scapegoat.

Martin said the investigation was wrongly presented as a simple pass or fail, instead being a “risk assessment” and that it was entirely standard for authorities to decide whether the balance of risk was acceptable.

“The one thing you never do is tell ministers in any way, because otherwise the system of inquiry collapses,” he told BBC Radio 4’s World at One programme.

“If ministers are making senior appointments and you go and say, ‘Look, we’ve investigated the issue.’ [it] It’s their money, it’s their private life,’ etc., then no one bothers to investigate.”

Starmer was accused of misleading parliament after repeatedly assuring MPs that “full due process” had been followed before Mandelson was given the job.

Asked whether Starmer had done so by mistake, his spokesman said: “The Prime Minister considers that he should have informed parliament on Monday on the basis that parliament should have known about it and should know about it now.”

Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch said the row had led to calls for the prime minister to resign. “It is completely irrational for us to believe that public officials would exonerate a political appointee who has failed his vetting,” he said on Friday.