Starmer would have blocked Mandelson over vetting failure, ministers say

Senior ministers have stated that Sir Keir Starmer would have blocked Lord Mandelson’s appointment as UK ambassador to the United States had he been aware that Mandelson failed security vetting. The controversy erupted after it was revealed that Mandelson was appointed despite concerns flagged during the vetting process, which were not fully disclosed to the prime minister. Technology Secretary Liz Kendall confirmed that Starmer was initially told Mandelson had received developed vetting clearance, but would have withdrawn the appointment if he had known otherwise. Starmer is expected to face parliamentary scrutiny over the matter amid calls from opposition parties for his resignation, accusing him of misleading Parliament about the vetting procedures. The vetting failure has raised questions about the handling of the appointment within the Foreign Office, particularly under the tenure of Sir Olly Robbins, the department’s most senior civil servant who was recently dismissed amid the fallout. Deputy Prime Minister David Lammy, who was foreign secretary at the time, expressed surprise at the vetting issues and noted that neither he nor his advisers were informed of the clearance problems. Lammy also highlighted the time pressures faced by the Foreign Office to finalize Mandelson’s appointment shortly after the return of the Trump administration. His successor, Yvette Cooper, acknowledged that Mandelson’s vetting was fast-tracked as a “priority clearance” but maintained that full checks were still conducted. Sir Keir Starmer described it as “staggering” that he was not informed sooner about Mandelson’s vetting failure, which only came to light after the appointment had been made. Former senior civil servant Helen MacNamara criticized the government’s response, suggesting that officials have been attempting to shift blame onto processes and individuals rather than addressing the root causes. She speculated that the Foreign Office may have accepted the risks associated with Mandelson’s appointment as manageable, reflecting a broader issue of risk assessment and accountability within the civil service. The incident has intensified scrutiny of government vetting procedures and raised concerns about transparency and oversight in high-profile diplomatic appointments. It also underscores the political sensitivity surrounding Mandelson, a controversial figure with a complex legacy in British politics, and the challenges faced by the current administration in managing such appointments amid heightened public and parliamentary scrutiny.