Starmer could have been told about Mandelson’s vetting failure, claims No 10 with release of briefing paper – UK politics live | Politics
important events
Former cabinet secretary Gus O’Donnell said Robbins complied with rules regarding review of statements
Downing Street claims that under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, Foreign Office permanent secretary Olly Robbins could have told Keir Starmer that Peter Mandelson had failed his vetting. (See 9.21am.) briefing document today he says:
Prerogative powers originate from the crown but can be exercised by ministers and can be exercised by civil servants (and only if) when delegated or otherwise delegated by ministers or decided by law. In the context of review and permitting, this means that civil servants run the process and make decisions about whether to grant the permit. In accordance with data protection law, there are legal obligations to conduct review processes to ensure that sensitive personal information is appropriately protected and managed.
However, no law prevents civil servants from reasonably flagging UK Security Review recommendations or high levels of risk and mitigating measures – while still protecting such sensitive personal information. This allows Ministers to make informed decisions, including appointments or the accounting of government business in parliament.
But in an article published today in the Times, Gus O’DonnellThe former cabinet secretary defended Robbins’ decision not to share this information with Starmer on the grounds that he (Robbins) had used his authority as the final decision-maker to decide whether review approval should be given. O’Donnell says:
A government often accused of focusing too much on law, legality and process does not appear to have convinced many skeptics that they have a clear understanding of their review laws and processes. The explanations for how ministers are informed of the apparent exclusion of ministers from the national security investigation process against officials, as clearly set out in the legislation, have been, to put it charitably, confusing so far.
Moreover, the prime minister may think that excluding ministers is of little benefit to him in this situation. But if so, he needs to change the system. Instead, he seems to have made a very quick decision to dismiss someone for applying what on the surface appears to be a completely standard, reasonable and completely clear interpretation of the law and rules.
Douglas Alexander says he thinks Starmer should remain PM until next election but ‘no certainty’
Douglas AlexanderThe Scottish secretary heard the government’s voice this morning. Along with Pat McFadden and Darren Jones, he is one of those extremely “safe hands” ministers who can be relied upon to do the media tour when the government is in a really tough spot.
His claim was that the appointment of Mandelson as US ambassador was a mistake, that Keir Starmer had already admitted it and apologized for it, but that he was not lying because he had not been told that Mandelson had failed his vetting. Alexander said Starmer needed to be told. he said Sky News:
I think most people watching this program would think that if there was material information, the UK investigative agencies had concerns and made a recommendation that would be properly and reasonably flagged to relevant ministers about what was a highly intrusive review process.
Asked whether he expected Starmer to lead Labor at the next election, Alexander said:
I expect that, yes… I think he will do so.
There’s no certainty, but of course I think he will lead, and I think he should, because frankly he made the right decision on the biggest call in this parliament, which was to keep us out of someone else’s war.
Alexander also had an unusual way of saying Starmer had made a mistake.
As a Scottish Presbyterian, I believe neither in the infallibility of the papacy nor in the infallibility of the prime minister.
With the release of the briefing document, Starmer could have been informed about Mandelson’s review failure, according to No 10
Good morning. There are occasions when a prime minister wakes up knowing that his performance in the House of Commons that day will determine whether he keeps his job; but these are very, very rare. The best example in modern times is Margaret Thatcher, who told staff on the day of the Westland debate that she would still be in office that evening. Boris Johnson has had many difficult encounters with MPs, but the most difficult, and most consequential to his reputation, was the encounter before the privileges committee over allegations he lied about Partygate, and this came after he resigned as Prime Minister. For James Callaghan, the confidence debate in 1979 was a crucial moment in his premiership, but that vote was not determined by what he said.
There seems little chance that what happened in the House of Commons today will put an end to Keir Starmer. Since last week’s revelations in the Guardian that Peter Mandelson had failed his vetting for his appointment as US ambassador, Labor MPs have not called for his resignation, despite Starmer repeatedly saying he had been cleared. It seems unlikely that this situation will change until 18:00 this evening. But many or most of them were already of the opinion that he was not the right person to lead the next general election, and the events of the last few days have strengthened this view.
Here’s what the Guardian’s political editor wrote: Pippa Crerar, setting up what happened today.
In a separate analysis, Pippa writes: “[Labour MPs] We know that the people have lost faith in the political system for years. Every twist in the Mandelson scandal accelerates this. “So when another opportunity arises to change leadership, they can take it.”
Last week, Starmer sacked Foreign Office permanent secretary Olly Robbins for failing to tell him that Mandelson had failed his vetting. (But technically he “passed” because, as head of the State Department, Robbins had the final say and was able to override the security chief’s advice.) Robbins will give evidence to MPs tomorrow, but we know from what his friends have said that he does not believe he has the right to give the Prime Minister the details of what is a top-secret process. The more important point in his defense, which allies were more reluctant to make public, was that, given that Starmer had already announced that Mandelson had the job, even though everyone in Westminster knew that Mandelson was a scandal magnet, Robbins’s job was to carry out the Prime Minister’s wishes, not to obstruct a decision and a prior risk assessment.
Last night, before the Prime Minister’s statement to MPs today, Downing Street received the unusual publication statement briefing paper About the rules regarding the disclosure of review information. He says:
The Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 (CRAG) does not prevent civil servants from informing ministers of UK Security Review recommendations. Inspection and permitting decisions are made by civil servants, CRAG said. But no law prevents civil servants from reasonably flagging vetting recommendations in the UK, while accurately safeguarding detailed sensitive vetting information to allow ministers to make decisions about appointments or explain matters to parliament.
Today we will focus mostly on the Mandelson scandal, but there is still a war that is not fully resolved and the most important series of elections before the next general election is less than three weeks away. Here is the agenda of the day.
11am: Reform UK leader Nigel Farage and home affairs spokesman Zia Yusuf held a press conference about the party’s plan to deport thousands of people granted asylum in the UK.
11.30: A lobby briefing is being held in Downing Street.
After 15.30: Keir Starmer is making a statement to MPs regarding allegations that he misled the House of Commons and the public regarding the review process carried out during the appointment of Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the USA.
If you would like to contact me, please send a message below the line or send a message on social media during comments open hours (between 10:00 – 15:00). I can’t read all messages BTL, but if you type “Andrew” in a message addressed to me, I’m more likely to see it because I’m looking for posts containing that word.
If you want to flag something urgently, it’s best to use social media. You can reach me on Bluesky at @andrewsparrowgdn.bsky.social. The Guardian has stopped posting from their official account on
I find it very helpful for readers to point out errors, even minor typos. No mistake is too small to be corrected. I also find your questions very interesting. I can’t promise to respond to them all, but I will try to respond as much as I can, either on BTL or sometimes on the blog.
