Is Mandelson vetting scandal the final straw for Starmer? – The Latest

0:00This is The Guardian.

0:30compliance. Get it? Join the 15 ,000 companies using Vanta to prove trust. Go to vanta.com.

0:45The notion that senior officials could make a decision of this magnitude and not inform a minister, let alone the prime minister, I think will strike many people as extraordinary. That I wasn't told that Peter Mandelson had failed security vetting when he's appointed is staggering. All of this just raises the question about who is in charge. Is it the people we elect to government, to parliament? Or is it, you know, officialdom, state and national security establishment? I mean, for me, that's the heart of this question. The Guardian has exclusively revealed that Peter Mandelson, the former US ambassador, failed security clearance.

1:23but that was overruled by the Foreign Office and allegedly withheld from the Prime Minister. From the Guardian's Today in Focus, this is The Latest with me, Lucy Hoth. Well, Paul Lewis, our investigations editor, is here, part of the team, the amazing crack squad behind this astonishing scoop that is now on the front page of every single British newspaper. A story about Peter Mandelson, the former US ambassador. It turns out failed security clearance, but that failure was overruled by the Foreign Office. Talk to me, Paul, about the reporting that you've uncovered. OK, well, I mean, I guess the key fact, the one that led late last night to the resignation of the Permanent Secretary in the Foreign Office, the key fact that has proven such a huge controversy for the Prime Minister right now, is that after the point at which Peter Mandelson was announced as Starmer's pick for Washington, He had to undergo a security vetting process.

2:23This is at the end of December 2024, wasn't it? And then he was appointed in... Exactly. So the Prime Minister announces he's going to be ambassador to the US in December 2024. By the following month, this security vetting process is underway. Normally, it's just a formality. I mean, I think this may have been lost in some of the reporting. This is a level of vetting that some low-ranking civil servants have to go through. Now, what we reported was that vetting process, which is done by an agency called UK Security Vetting, it's a division of the Cabinet Office, vetted Mandelson and it had three options.

2:56So it could either give him clearance. Yeah, that was the first. The second was it could give him clearance with mitigation. So to mitigate against some of the perceived risk factors. And the third was to entirely deny him clearance. And the decision was to deny him clearance. the third which is a very rare decision for this agency to make and then that decision was overruled by officials in the foreign office in order for him to take up his post which he did the following month. Which of course he did and that is what's caused this huge political controversy because Downing Street are saying that until this week and until the publication of this Guardian exclusive it was not known that this security vetting had been failed.

3:40Before we come on to that can I just ask what kinds of things they'd be looking into when it comes to security clearance. I mean, it's highly confidential stuff, right? So I know there are limitations on what we know. Yeah. So, I mean, I can talk to you in general terms about what UK security vetting involves. Yeah. And this is what's in the public domain. Okay. So, you know, you go through this process, you, you know, you fill out a questionnaire, you're required to answer sometimes very personal questions about your life, your business relationships, your other relationships with other people around the world, people in your personal life.

4:17It can be quite somewhat intrusive, people who have gone through this process say, but it is highly confidential. And there is also input from the security services who would identify any concerns that they have. As you say, this is a highly confidential security check, but Lord Mandelson was, of course, forced to resign from his position as US ambassador in September of last year that sort of set various things in motion, not least the humble address that was put in place by the Conservative Party in February. How did these two things interlink? As many people watching this will remember, he resigned over disclosures about his relationship with the disgraced sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

4:58And then in the wake of that, there's been, you know, lots of concern in Parliament about the process that led up to his appointment. And in February, there was this thing you referenced, the Humble Address. Now, what that is, it's a parliamentary motion to force the government to disclose what it said were, quote, all papers related to Mandelson's appointment. And that's actually, I think, really important here. And we've been reporting on some of this. So essentially, you know, that's a mandate to government to say anything you've got about Mandelson has to be disclosed. there was an exception made for documents that could prejudice national security or international relations.

5:32And those documents, the super sensitive ones, were supposed to go to the Intelligence and Security Committee. However, the documents about Mandelson's vetting, highly sensitive, have not gone to that committee. And according to our reporting, officials have recently been considering whether not to disclose them to the committee. And that would be a really significant thing. arguably a breach of Parliament's wishes. You know, I think that has sort of been lost. It's turned into such a huge political story, right? Keir Starmer, we're like weeks away from the May election. I can see that Westminster is latching onto all these different aspects.

6:09But for me, it's really significant that, you know, officials, unelected officials, have been actively thinking about, and as of when we published our story, no decision had been made, not disclosing these documents, the documents at the heart of the story that relate to what we've revealed. to Parliament's approved committee. Yes, it speaks to something about unelected officials making these very, very significant decisions, doesn't it? Sir Ollie Robbins, who was former permanent secretary to the Foreign Office, the FCDO, resigned very late last night over this, effectively taking the hit for the Foreign Office's decision not to disclose this or to withhold this information.

6:50Yeah, taking the hit or was either, did it voluntarily or was forced to take the hit. Forced to do it. But what are we hearing from Keir Starmer himself, who's been quizzed about this in Paris this morning, but also his chief secretary, Darren Jones, who has quizzed about this on the BBC this morning, because they're saying they really did not know about the existence of this failed vetting procedure. So Starmer and his chief secretary, Darren Jones, said slightly different things. Starmer, he's furious. He says, you know, how on earth could it be that I wasn't informed of this? And I think lots of people in the country would be asking the same thing.

7:23You know, this is the prime minister. It's his pick for Washington. You know, if you're ambassador to Washington, you have to handle highly sensitive matters. You look at top secret documents from GCHQ, the National Security Agency in the US. How could it be that failing vetting is not something that is mentioned? The failure of vetting is not mentioned to the to the prime minister. Darren Jones was on the radio this morning and he actually shot down our reporting about officials or sought to refute or deny our reporting that officials had been considering withholding this information from Parliament.

7:57He said, quote, that's not true. We're very confident it is true. And I guess we'll see how that plays out. So Keir Starmer will be addressing MPs in the Commons on Monday. as we understand from that interview this morning with Darren Jones, he sort of requested the full picture about what's gone on here. Yeah, but can I just say on that, a dose of scepticism. Kistama says he found out about this on Tuesday. Yeah. He has an obligation as a minister to correct the record to Parliament as soon as he can. He, the following day, on Wednesday, did PMQs and did not correct the record. Now, the argument may be that he was seeking to establish the facts before he fully appraised Parliament of what was going on.

8:34But what further facts did he need to establish? He was told, he says on Tuesday, that Peter Mandelson had failed security vetting. So the question is, should he not have right away or at the earliest opportunity told Parliament that that was the fact? Or indeed his own MPs, who it seems in large numbers found out about this as the Guardian exclusive dropped last night. I mean, I'm not a Westminster reporter, right? But I hear from colleagues who are that, you know, there were government ministers, senior cabinet ministers who were learning about this for the first time, you know, when they were edited in The Guardian on Thursday.

9:07I mean, Paul, obviously this has become a political story in lots of ways. And certainly that's the sort of splash on the front pages of much of the newspapers this morning. But there's something bigger at play here. And I wonder what you think those questions are as head of investigations. So, you know, honestly, what's really interesting to me, I'm not a political hound. You know, lots of people talking about, you know, what does it mean to Starmer? What will it mean for the elections? But really what's curious to me is what does this tell you about where power resides in the state? You know, the notion that senior officials could make a decision of this magnitude and not inform a minister, let alone the Prime Minister, any government minister, I think will strike many people as extraordinary.

9:53So too will the idea that officials have been considering withholding, disclosing information that they've been compelled to reveal by Parliament. I mean, all of this just raises the question about who is in charge. Is it the people we elect to government, to Parliament? Or is it, you know, officialdom, the state, the national security establishment? I mean, for me, that's the heart of this question. Well, Paul, so much further to go with this story. But thank you to you, Pippa and Henry for such a fantastic piece of reporting and well done on the scoop. Thank you for your time. Thank you. That's it for today.

10:29My huge thanks again to Paul Lewis, the Guardian's head of investigations. Do read the Guardian's ongoing coverage of this story, including yesterday's exclusive written by Paul alongside our political editor, Pippa Creera, and investigations correspondent, Henry Dyer. Find all of that and more coverage over at theguardian.com. I also really recommend today's episode of Today in Focus, which is looking at Donald Trump versus the Pope, and what it means for the President's relationship with the Catholic and Evangelical Christian wing of his MAGA base. Thanks for listening to this episode of The Latest, the new evening edition of Today in Focus.

11:03Today in Focus will be back in your feeds as usual on Monday morning. The Latest will be back on Monday night. Have a lovely weekend. This episode was presented by me, Meet Lucy Half. It was produced by Bryony Moore. The senior producer was Ryan Ramgoban, and the lead producer was Zoe Hitch.

11:23This is The Guardian.

11:33Security program on spreadsheets, new regulations piling up, and audit dread? It's time for Vanta. Vanta automates security and compliance, brings evidence into one place, and cuts audit prep by 82%. Less manual work, clearer visibility, faster deals. Zero chaos. Call it compliance or call it compliance. Get it? Join the 15 ,000 companies using Vanta to prove trust. Go to vanta.com slash com.