Starmer faces grilling from MPs over Mandelson scandal

In a Commons statement, Mr Starmer will be faced with allegations he misled parliament after telling MPs the proper process had been followed in appointing Mr Mandelson to the post of ambassador to the US, insisting he had been kept in the dark about the peer being red-flagged by security experts.

Mr Starmer effectively fired the British Foreign Office's top official Olly Robbins last week after it emerged Mr Mandelson had been given developed vetting (DV) status despite failing checks carried out by the agency responsible for assessing security clearances.

Whitehall veteran Mr Robbins is expected to give his own account to MPs tomorrow at the Foreign Affairs Committee.

The scandal has fuelled calls for Mr Starmer to resign, both from opposition parties but also from his critics within the Labour movement who already fear an electoral bloodbath for the party in May's contests in English councils and the Scottish and Welsh parliaments.

The Prime Minister's defence will be to blame officials for not telling him or the then foreign secretary David Lammy that UK Security Vetting (UKSV) had not cleared Mr Mandelson.

A statement issued by No 10 last night said that although civil servants rather than ministers make decisions on vetting and clearance, there was nothing in the law to prevent ministers being told.

While there are "legal obligations" under data protection rules, "no law prevents civil servants - while continuing to protect such sensitive personal information - from sensibly flagging UK Security Vetting recommendations or high level risks and mitigations".

Mr Starmer told the Mirror he would make it "crystal clear" to MPs that he had been kept in the dark and it was "unforgivable" that the Foreign Office failed to tell him after he had offered public assurances that proper process had been followed.

The Prime Minister said: "The fact that I wasn't told that Peter Mandelson had failed his security vetting when he was appointed is astonishing.

"The fact that I wasn't told when I said to parliament that due process had been followed is unforgivable, and that's why I intend to set out in parliament on Monday the facts behind that, so there's full transparency in relation to it.

"But am I furious that I wasn't told?

Yes, I am.

Am I furious that other ministers weren't told?

Yes, I am.

I should have been told, and I wasn't told."
Starmer either 'lying or incompetent' - Badenoch
The Prime Minister will face accusations he misled parliament - potentially a resignation matter - Tory leader Kemi Badenoch has claimed Mr Starmer is "either lying or he's incompetent".

Asked if he would apologise to MPs, the Prime Minister said: "I'm going to set out in terms what happened.

"But I shall be making it absolutely crystal clear, as I have done a number of times, and I don't think anybody is disputing this, that I was not told that Peter Mandelson had failed his security vetting, and I should have been told."
He will say the information should have been provided to both him and MPs a long time ago.

Instead, the Prime Minister was only informed about the vetting issue on Tuesday evening after the information was uncovered as part of the process of gathering files related to Mr Mandelson's appointment to comply with an order by MPs to release all relevant documents.

Allies of the Prime Minister insisted that today was the first opportunity he has had to set out the full facts to parliament, despite appearing in the Commons on Wednesday for his regular question time session.

Listen back: Starmer to address Commons as pressure mounts over Mandelson scandal
We need your consent to load this rte-player content We use rte-player to manage extra content that can set cookies on your device and collect data about your activity.

Please review their details and accept them to load the content.

Manage Preferences
British Technology Secretary Liz Kendall told the BBC: "I think one thing we've learned from this whole torrid episode is the need to get the facts absolutely clear and right.

That's really important."
In a letter to the Prime Minister, Ms Badenoch said: "As an experienced barrister you will know the importance of telling the truth, but you will also know that many people think you have been at best recklessly negligent and at worst dishonest about this whole affair.

"You have failed to answer very simple questions about what you did and what you knew.

This is contemptuous of parliament, discourteous to the House, and against the fundamental requirement set out in your own ministerial code."
Mr Mandelson was sacked last year, just nine months into the Washington DC posting, after further details of his association with the paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein emerged.

Ms Badenoch said: "This has been a tawdry and shaming affair for you and your party, and for this country.

"Not only have you damaged our relationship with the United States and insulted the victims of the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, but you have also undermined our national security by giving the highest diplomatic post to an individual that the security services found to be of 'high concern'."