Starmer-Mandelson latest: PM in peril and top civil servant sacked over Labour peer’s vetting scandal

The Independent’s political journalist Athena Stavrou reports:

Nigel Farage has accused the prime minister of using a top civil servant as a “sacrificial lamb” in an attempt to save his own position.

The Foreign Office’s top civil servant Sir Olly Robbins was effectively sacked after the revelation that officials took the rare step of overruling the recommendation from UK Security Vetting to clear Lord Peter Mandelson.

But the Reform UK leader suggested “there is no way” Sir Olly would have overruled security service advice alone, describing him as “one of the most professional civil servants in this country”.

“They are all over the place on this, it is totally unbelievable and Robbins, he’s the sacrificial lamb in an attempt to try and save the prime minister, and it just isn’t good enough,” Mr Farage told LBC.

He called for a “full-scale investigation” into the matter, and added the government’s explanation is: “Just not credible, not believable in any way at all. I am in absolutely no doubt in my mind that this prime minister misled the House of Commons and lied to the country outside of the House of Commons.”

Kemi Badenoch has said everyone involved in the Mandelson scandal is now except for Starmer, as she calls for him to resign.

In a post on social media, the Tory leader wrote: “Keir Starmer has now sacked everyone involved in Mandelson’s appointment – Chris Wormald, Morgan McSweeney, Olly Robbins.

“But Starmer was ultimately the one who approved it. He’s got no one left to sack. It’s time for him to take responsibility. He should go.”

The Independent’s political journalist Athena Stavrou reports:

Kemi Badenoch has accused the prime minister of continuous lying over the decision to appoint Lord Peter Mandelson as US ambassador.

The Conservative Party leader said Sir Keir Starmer’s story “does not stack up” as she accused him of “taking us for fools”.

She argued it is “completely preposterous” that the prime minister had not been told that Lord Mandelson’s clearance had not been advised by security service.

“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,” she told LBC.

“It can’t all be true. That’s why I know that he is lying.”

Nigel Farage said Olly Robbins, the Foreign Office’s top civil servant, was the “sacrificial lamb in an attempt to try and save the Prime Minister”.

He told LBC: “None of this adds up, the idea they weren’t told about the vetting.

“Remember, in the House of Commons, Starmer actually said that the vetting had told him about the ongoing relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, then outside of the House, in Hastings, he gave a speech in which he said that Mandelson had cleared security vetting.

“They are all over the place on this, it is totally unbelievable and Robbins, he’s the sacrificial lamb in an attempt to try and save the Prime Minister, and it just isn’t good enough.”

Keir Starmer was right to say Peter Mandelson had cleared security vetting procedures when he had been asked previously, Darren Jones has said.

“The Prime Minister was right… because the security and vetting process had been conducted and the Foreign Office granted what’s called developed vetting status to allow for Peter Mandelson’s appointment, so he had been through the process and he had been cleared by the Foreign Office to start the role, so the prime minister was right about that,” he told BBC.

“What the prime minister was not told until Tuesday evening this week was that the Foreign Office’s decision to give that developed vetting status, and to appoint Peter Mandelson as ambassador, was against the recommendations of security and vetting officials.”

The Independent’s political journalist Athena Stavrou reports:

Sir Keir Starmer is “furious” after discovering the Foreign Office overruled security advice on Lord Peter Mandelson over his appointment as US ambassador.

Chief secretary to the prime minister Darren Jones denied the prime minister misled parliament over the former Labour peer’s security clearance, but said he was “furious with the state” over the process.

Mr Jones said Sir Keir discovered the Foreign Office had ignored the security advice recommending Lord Mandelson should not be appointed to the role in Washington.

“It is utterly unacceptable, not just in the individual case of Peter Mandelson and respect of the prime minister’s fury at the Foreign Office for not having taught him this information, but the very fact that their processes were in place that allow for that to happen in the first place,” he told Sky News.

“That’s why in my role in the Cabinet Office, immediately last night, I suspended the rights for these organisations to make these judgments.

“I’ve asked for an urgent review about what decisions these organisations have taken in the past to overrule the recommendations from UK security vetting, and I was due to announce a broader, independent review of the vetting process anyway. And this will now be part of that.”

Keir Starmer was “right” to tell parliament that due process had been followed throughout Lord Peter Mandelson’s appointment as ambassador, “because it had”, Darren Jones said.

The chief secretary told BBC: “The prime minister was right when he told the House that due process had been followed, because it had, but the fact that that process did not require officials to tell the Foreign Secretary or the prime minster that they ignored the advice of security and vetting officials is totally unacceptable.”

Peter Mandelson would have been able to see top secret documents during his time as UK ambassador to the US, the chief secretary to the prime minister has admitted.

Darren Jones told Sky News: “The Foreign Office granted developing vetting status to appoint him as ambassador. That meant that he would be allowed, as a point of principle, to see the documents you would need to see as ambassador.”

He said he could not confirm in an “itemised way” which “individual documents did he see or not see”.