Downing Street faces fresh turmoil as revelations emerge that Foreign Office vetting chiefs recommended Lord Peter Mandelson should be denied security clearance for his role as US ambassador to Washington
The Prime Minister is bracing for another turbulent week as the controversy surrounding the vetting process for Lord Peter Mandelson’s appointment as ambassador to Washington rumbles on. Sir Keir Starmer will attempt to divert attention when he delivers a speech on tackling shoplifting on today.
However, he is under increasing scrutiny over the revelations concerning the peer’s vetting procedure and Sir Keir’s management of it, including his decision to dismiss Foreign Office head Sir Olly Robbins.
On Tuesday, the Foreign Affairs Committee is set to hear from Sir Keir’s former chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, who is widely seen as a protégé of Lord Mandelson. He stepped down in February due to his involvement in securing the prestigious role for the peer.
The committee will also receive testimony from Sir Olly’s predecessor, Sir Philip Barton, and written evidence from Foreign Office official Ian Collard, who Sir Olly claimed briefed him on the vetting results that deemed Lord Mandelson a borderline case and suggested clearance should be refused.
The Prime Minister stated last week that any allegations he misled Parliament had been laid to rest by Sir Olly’s evidence.
However, the Tories have demanded that Sir Keir appear before Parliament’s Privileges Committee, the same body that investigated Boris Johnson over the Covid-19 partygate scandal, with suggestions that a vote on whether to refer the Prime Minister for such an inquiry could take place on Tuesday.
The decision to permit a vote rests with Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle.
Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, Darren Jones, on Sunday accused the Tories of “using tactics” in the run-up to local elections on May 7.
Labour ex-Cabinet ministers Alan Johnson and David Blunkett issued a joint statement branding the move a “nakedly political stunt with no substance” ahead of the polls.
They argued that a referral to the watchdog would be squandering public funds and that comparisons with Mr Johnson are “absurd”.
“When Parliament referred that matter to the Privileges Committee, a police investigation had directly disproved his categoric statements that he knew nothing about the breach of lockdown rules including parties in Downing Street, and therefore he had a case to answer for knowingly misleading the House of Commons,” they stated.
For the latest breaking news and stories from across the globe from the Daily Star, sign up for our newsletters.