Keir Starmer did not mislead parliament when asked about the vetting of former UK ambassador to the United States Peter Mandelson, a senior minister has stated.
Darren Jones, the chief secretary to the prime minister, rejected suggestions that Starmer should resign over the scandal, telling Sky News that Mandelson’s vetting debacle amounted to a “failing of the state”.
Jones was asked whether Starmer, who is facing calls to resign, should step down as prime minister.
He responded: “No. And I think if you look at what’s going on in the world, not least in relation to the conflicts in the Middle East and what that’s doing for people’s living standards, energy bills, food prices…
MDU warns Chancellor clinical negligence system ‘not fit for purpose’
Northern Ireland RE curriculum is ‘indoctrination’ – Supreme Court
“You need a credible, reliable, strong prime minister to be able to take the country through those difficult challenges.”
Jones maintained that “due process” was followed when Mandelson was appointed as US ambassador.
He said: “The process… was that UK security vetting undertake investigations. They make a recommendation to the employment department, which is the Foreign Office in the case of the ambassador.
“As I have said, the Foreign Office had this, in my view, unacceptable right to ignore this advice. That had been established process for some time. When the Foreign Office granted the approval and therefore the appointment of Peter Mandelson as ambassador due process, as it was, was followed.”
Challenged on this explanation, Jones insisted: “The process was followed… the process which I now understand involved the Foreign Office being allowed to ignore the advice of security vetting agents, that is an unacceptable process, but it was still the process at the time.
“That I changed immediately last night when I was informed of this process being available to the Foreign Office and a small number of other organisations.
“But the process was followed, and therefore the prime minister didn’t mislead the House or anyone else.”
Jones is the first minister to comment publicly after the Guardian revealed on Thursday afternoon that, even though Mandelson failed security vetting, the decision was overturned by the Foreign Office. As a result of this revelation, Starmer fired Olly Robbins, the Foreign Office permanent under-secretary, after he and Yvette Cooper, the foreign secretary, lost confidence in him.
The Liberal Democrats, meanwhile, have called for Starmer to be investigated by the House of Commons privileges committee. This same process was used against Boris Johnson over the Partygate scandal, which ultimately resulted in his resignation as an MP. Johnson was investigated over whether he misled parliament over Covid-19 lockdown gatherings in Downing Street.
The Lib Dems are now calling for a motion to refer the prime minister to the committee.
Ed Davey, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, said: “We need to get to the bottom of exactly what Keir Starmer knew when, and whether he intentionally misled parliament over this appalling scandal. The public deserves the truth, not another cover up.
“If it turns out that Starmer was aware at the time that Mandelson’s security vetting was overruled, that would represent a major abuse of power and a betrayal of the national interest.
“Boris Johnson eventually resigned after misleading parliament. If Starmer has done the same, he must be held to the same standard.”
Kemi Badenoch, the leader of the Conservative Party, has said that Starmer is “lying”.
Badenoch told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “The fact is that the prime minister is telling everyone that he was told on Tuesday. The ministerial code states that when a minister discovers that parliament has been inadvertently misled, they need to correct the record at the first opportunity.
“The first opportunity was Wednesday morning at prime minister’s questions… [He] did not tell the House, that in itself is a breach of the ministerial code.”
Badenoch added: “The fact is all roads lead to a resignation. It doesn’t matter what story the prime minister is telling. At some point, there is deliberate dishonesty whether it’s the cover-up story or the original story.
“One of these is deliberate dishonesty. They can’t all be true, that’s why I know he is lying.”
Politics.co.uk is the UK’s leading digital-only political website. Subscribe to our daily newsletter for all the latest news and analysis.
Discussion about this post