‘Absolutely clear’ – Kemi rages as evidence shows PM ‘misled House’ | Politics | News
Kemi Badenoch says Keir Starmer misled Parliament (Image: Getty)
Kemi Badenoch has declared it is “now absolutely clear” that Keir Starmer misled the House of Commons about the Peter Mandelson scandal. Foreign Office chief Sir Olly Robbins has revealed how Downing Street applied “constant pressure” to block Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador.
Sir Olly told the foreign affairs committee that No 10 repeatedly asked: “Has this been delivered yet?” He said he asked and added: “[There was] As far as I remember, I was never interested in if it would happen, only when.” Sir Olly even revealed there was a “condescending approach” to No 10’s review.
Ms Badenoch said: “Olly Robbins’ evidence is devastating for Keir Starmer.
“Not only did Number 10 make the appointment before the investigation was completed, but it is clear that Mandelson had already been acting as Ambassador before the investigation, and had even seen highly classified documents.
“However, with No10’s ‘constant pressure’ on the appointment and their ‘condescending attitude’ towards the investigation of Mandelson, it is now absolutely clear that ‘full due process’ was not followed.
“Keir Starmer misled Parliament.”
Former Foreign Secretary Sir James Cleverly added: “Sir Olly Robbins is ending Sir Keir Starmer’s career. “Calmly, quietly, most professionally, he is ending Starmer’s career.
“Sir Olly even revealed that the Cabinet Office thought there was “no need to examine Mandelson.”
At last night’s marathon in the House of Commons – as Labor benches emptied alarmingly behind him – Sir Keir said he was “deliberately” kept in the dark.
But Sir Olly said: “A view taken by the Cabinet Office was that there was no need for Mandelson to be examined.
“He was a member of the House of Lords, a Privy Councilor, and the risks involved in his appointment were well known and made clear to the Prime Minister before his appointment.
“In the end the FCDO persisted and put his foot down. I understand that my predecessor personally had to be very firm. But this was a lively debate at the time the announcement was made and I think it’s important to make that very clear to the committee.”
Sir Olly said the UK Security Review (UKSV) considered Lord Mandelson a “borderline case”.
The former senior civil servant told the Foreign Affairs Committee: “I have been informed that UKSV regards Mandelson as a borderline case and that they are inclined to recommend that permission be refused, but that the Foreign Office security department has assessed that the risks identified by UKSV as of highest concern can be managed and/or reduced.
“I was also told that the risks were not related to Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.
“I’m told UKSV has accepted this, I don’t know in what way, but it has accepted that the Foreign Office may want to allow it with appropriate risk management.”
The former Foreign Office chief said it was “not certain” Lord Mandelson would be considered for appointment as US ambassador.
He told MPs: “It’s… I’m afraid I don’t think it’s certain that he will be scrutinized at the moment of his appointment and for days afterwards.
“When you look at the documents submitted to the humble address, there is no requirement at number 10 that it should be examined.
“The welcome message sent to him immediately afterwards does not say that he is welcome to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, subject to review; in the announcement made on December 20, it is said that it will be released early in the new year, it is not written as subject to review.”
He said the contract given to Lord Mandelson after he was vetted stated that he should continue his leave, “but nothing about his appointment, as far as I have seen in writing, stipulates this”.
Sir Olly continued: “There was then a discussion within the Cabinet Office (FCDO) about how to ensure that he was deployed on appropriate leave and this lasted for a number of days and the view was taken from the Cabinet Office that there was no need to vet Mandelson.
“He was a member of the House of Lords, a private advisor, and the risks involved in his appointment were well known and made clear to the Prime Minister before his appointment.
“In the end, the FCDO persisted and put his foot down. I understand that my predecessor had to be very decisive personally, but this was a lively debate at the time of the announcement and I think it’s important to make that clear to the committee.”
Asked whether he had told No 10 about the UK Security Review’s recommendation in the Lord Mandelson case, the sacked Foreign Office official told MPs on the Foreign Affairs Committee: “No.
“And months and months later, in the immediate aftermath of Mandelson’s impeachment, we were clearly thinking about how we could respond to legitimate questions from this committee and others about this process.
“My recollection is that, in a sense, the instruction from No 10 was that we should make it clear that these decisions were made completely independently of ministers and that they were not consulted other than to be told the outcome.”
