Kemi Badenoch has said Keir Starmer misled the House (Image: Getty)
Kemi Badenoch has declared it is “now absolutely clear” that Keir Starmer misled the House of Commons over the Peter Mandelson scandal. Foreign Office chief Sir Olly Robbins revealed how Downing Street applied “constant pressure” to clear Lord Mandelson’s appointment as ambassador to the United States.
Sir Olly told the foreign affairs committee that Number 10 repeatedly asked “has this been delivered yet?”, adding: “[There was] never any interest, as far as I recall, in whether, but only an interest in when.” And Sir Olly even revealed there was a “dismissive approach” to vetting from No 10.
Mrs Badenoch declared: “The evidence from Olly Robbins is devastating to Keir Starmer.
“It is clear that No10 not only made the appointment before vetting was completed, but that Mandelson was already acting as the Ambassador before the vetting – even seeing highly classified documents.
“With this, and the ‘constant pressure’ No10 applied to the appointment and their ‘dismissive attitude’ to vetting Mandelson, it is now absolutely clear that ‘full due process’ was not followed.
“Keir Starmer has misled the House.”
Former Foreign Secretary Sir James Cleverly added: “Sir Olly Robbins is ending Sir Keir Starmer’s career. Calmly, quietly, in a very professional manner, ending Starmer’s career.
“Sir Olly even revealed that the Cabinet Office felt “there was no need to vet Mandelson”.
During a marathon Commons appearance last night – during which the Labour benches alarmingly emptied behind him – Sir Keir said he had been ‘deliberately’ kept in the dark.
But Sir Olly said: “A position that was taken by the Cabinet Office was there was no need to vet Mandelson.
“He was a member of the House of Lords, he was a Privy Councillor, the risks attending his appointment were well known and had made clear to the Prime Minister before appointment.
“Now in the end the FCDO insisted, put its foot down. I understand that my predecessor had to be very firm in person. But that was a live debate at the time of the announcement and I think it’s important to make that very clear to the committee.”
And the United Kingdom Security Vetting (UKSV) considered Lord Mandelson a “borderline case”, Sir Olly said.
The former senior civil servant told the Foreign Affairs Committee: “I was briefed that UKSV considered Mandelson a borderline case and that they were leaning towards recommending that clearance be denied, but that the Foreign Office’s security department assessed that the risks identified as of highest concern by UKSV could be managed and/or mitigated.
“I was also told that the risks did not relate to Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.
“And I was told that UKSV acknowledged, I don’t know in what way, but acknowledged that the Foreign Office might wish to grant clearance with appropriate risk management.”
The former Foreign Office chief said it was not a “given” that Lord Mandelson would be vetted for his appointment as US ambassador.
He told MPs: “It was not a … I’m afraid I don’t think at the point of his appointment and for days thereafter it was actually a given that he would be vetted.
“If you look at the documents submitted under the humble address there is no stipulation from number 10 that he should be vetted.
“The welcome that was sent to him immediately afterwards doesn’t say welcome to the Foreign Office subject to vetting; the announcement put out on December 20 says that he will be out early in the new year, it does not say subject to vetting.”
He said the contract issued to Lord Mandelson after he was vetted said he must maintain his clearance “but nothing about his appointment actually, as far as I’ve seen in writing, stipulates it”.
Sir Olly continued: “There was then a debate between Cabinet Office, FCDO, about how to make sure that he is sent out to post with the appropriate clearance and that took several days and a position taken from the Cabinet Office was that there was no need to vet Mandelson.
“He was a member of the House of Lords, he was a privy counsellor, the risks attending his appointment were well-known and had been made clear to the Prime Minister before appointment.
“In the end, the FCDO insisted and put its foot down. I understand my predecessor had to be very firm in person but that was a live debate at the point of announcement and I think it’s important to make that clear to the committee.”
Asked if he had told No 10 about the recommendation by UK Security Vetting in Lord Mandelson’s case, the sacked Foreign Office official told MPs on the Foreign Affairs Committee: “No.
“And months and months later, when in the immediate aftermath of Mandelson’s sacking, we were obviously thinking internally about how to respond to legitimate questions this committee and others had about that process.
“My recollection is, in a way, I wasn’t surprised by, the direction from No 10 was we must make clear that these decisions were taken entirely independently of ministers and that they were not consulted other than to be told the outcome.”