Downing Street Releases Memo Defending Starmer in Mandelson Vetting Scandal

Downing Street Releases Memo Defending Starmer in Mandelson Vetting Scandal

Downing Street has released a document in defence of Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, asserting he was "not aware" that the Foreign Office had granted Peter Mandelson vetting clearance to become US ambassador until a meeting on Tuesday night. The memo, detailing a meeting between the country's most senior civil servants, appears to support the Prime Minister's claim that Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) officials were responsible for clearing Lord Mandelson's appointment without his knowledge.

Prime Minister's Fury Over Vetting Override

On Friday, Sir Keir Starmer stated he was "absolutely furious" and described it as "staggering" that he had not been informed the vetting process was overruled to clear Lord Mandelson for the high-profile Washington posting. The controversy centres on the revelation that Mandelson received Developed Vetting clearance despite a recommendation against it from UK Security Vetting (UKSV).

The Foreign Office's chief civil servant Sir Olly Robbins was dismissed on Thursday night after both the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper lost confidence in him over the scandal. This swift action underscores the seriousness with which the government views the breach of protocol.

—

Memo Details and Contradictory Reports

The "readout" of Tuesday's meeting, published by Downing Street on Friday night, took the form of an email sent by Sir Keir's Principal Private Secretary Dan York-Smith on Wednesday. It stated: "As part of the humble address process, that file had been shared with Cat (Catherine Little). On reviewing the file she had therefore learned that the recommendation from the vetting officer had been that DV (Developed Vetting) should not be granted to Peter Mandelson."

However, the publication of this document by the Government coincided with a Guardian report alleging that two attendees at Tuesday's meeting—Cabinet Secretary Antonia Romeo and Cabinet Office permanent secretary Catherine Little—had known since March about sensitive information linked to Lord Mandelson's vetting. This revelation suggests a potential delay in informing the Prime Minister.

The memo further explained: "There is some discretion for departments to proceed with clearance and the FCDO had exercised it in this case, granting Mandelson vetting clearance. Cat had not seen the audit trail for this decision so we did not yet know on what basis the decision had been taken, contrary to the recommendation. The PM was not aware of any of this before the meeting, including that it was even possible to grant clearance against the advice of UKSV."

Timeline and Parliamentary Context

The Commons voted in favour of a humble address motion to release all files related to Lord Mandelson's appointment on February 4. This suggests Ms Little discovered the latest revelations sometime after this date but before Tuesday's meeting when Sir Keir was finally informed. The timeline raises questions about the efficiency and transparency of information flow within the highest echelons of government.

Cabinet Office's Defence

In response to the allegations, the Cabinet Office denied that its most senior civil servant, Catherine Little, had withheld important information. A Cabinet Office spokesperson stated: "As part of the Government's commitment to comply fully with the Humble Address, the Permanent Secretary at the Cabinet Office requested the vetting summary document. Once she received this document, the Cabinet Office immediately undertook a series of expedited checks in order to be in a sound position to share the document, or the fact of it."

The spokesperson elaborated that these checks included:

• Detailed legal advice on what information could be shared further in the context of the Humble Address, including from the First Treasury Counsel
• Consideration of whether sharing the information would prejudice criminal proceedings
• Seeking information from the Foreign Office about the process they had followed which led to Peter Mandelson being given Developed Vetting clearance against the recommendation of UK Security Vetting

The spokesperson concluded: "As soon as these checks were conducted, the Prime Minister was informed." This defence aims to portray the delay as a necessary procedural step rather than intentional concealment.

Broader Implications

This scandal highlights significant issues within the UK's vetting processes and inter-departmental communication. The fact that a department could override security recommendations without immediate notification to the Prime Minister points to potential weaknesses in oversight mechanisms. As the government continues to navigate this controversy, further scrutiny of civil service protocols and accountability measures is likely to follow.