Starmer says it ‘beggars belief’ he wasn’t told about Mandelson vetting failure as he faces down the Commons – UK politics live

Key events

Show key events only

Please turn on JavaScript to use this feature

Starmer's Mandelson statement to MPs - snap verdict

It wasn’t much of a win, but as Keir Starmer has heads back to Downing Street he will probably count that as a sort of success. Labour MPs did not turn on him; there was no one on his side calling for his resignation, and those who did speak out were mostly from the Corbynite left (whose views are discounted by No 10 anyway), and who were more keen to aim their fire at Morgan McSweeney and Peter Mandelson. If Kemi Badenoch thought there was more mileage in this, she could have tabled a no confidence motion on this which would have to be debated tomorrow, but she didn’t. She can be brutal in the Commons, but her speech today did not cause the PM any difficulties. Last week she was saying he was clearly lying. If he is, then he is doing it quite well, because neither she, nor any other MP, made a convincing job this afternoon of establishing that he has not been telling the truth about what he was told about by the Foreign Office about the Mandelson vetting process.

On the narrow process point – it is really plausible that No 10 did not know, and could not find out, that Peter Mandelson failed his security vetting interview?– Starmer may even have won some people around this afternoon. He sounded believable.

But, in other respects, the process point (as well the issue about whether he inadvertently misled parliament) is irrelevant. Starmer’s problem is that he decided to approve the appointment of Mandelson in the first place, when it was already clear that there was ample evidence that his business record and his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein made him suspect. That, presumably, is why Olly Robbins decided to facilitate the appointment by using his discretion over overrule the vetting recommendation.

It seems the argument of some in Downing Street might have been the Mandelson should get the job not despite being the sleazy former best friend of a paedophile, but precisely because he was this sort of character. They weren’t appointing him ambassador to the Vatican. There seems to have been the assumption that this was the sort of interlocutor Donald Trump (another ex-Epstein best friend) might like. You can understand why Starmer won’t put it like that in public.

Whatever the reason, it turned out to be a colossal misjudgment. Starmer may have seen off Kemi Badenoch, Ed Davey and all the others this afternoon, but this controversy has only added to the long list of reasons Labour MPs have for wanting him out before the next election and nothing he said this afternoon changes that.

That is all from me now. Aneesa Ahmed is taking over.

The statement is now over. Keir Starmer was taking questions for almost two and a half hours.

Your Party MP Zarah Sultana suspended from parliament after calling Starmer 'barefaced liar'

The Your Party MP Zarah Sultana has also been thrown out of the Commons. She called Starmer a “barefaced liar” and refused to withdraw when Lindsay Hoyle, the speaker, asked her to withdraw.

But, unlike with Lee Anderson (see 4.45pm), Hoyle had to “name” Sultana. She did not leave the chamber when he asked her to. Instead, after he “named” here, a motion was passed suspending her from participation in the proceedings. That means she is out for five days, and will also lose pay as a result.

Hoyle only named her reluctantly, after he refused her request to leave without being named. Suspensions like this are relatively rare.

Before she was interrupted, Sultana said:

We all know that the prime minister appointed Mandelson because he owes his job to him. He appointed him, he defended him and now he claims to know nothing. He is gaslighting the nation. So let’s call this out for what it is. The prime minister is a barefaced liar.

Starmer declines invitation to accept he inadvertently misled MPs with previous Mandelson vetting comments

Starmer told MPs that he did not mislead the Commons when he said that due process was followed.

At the No 10 lobby briefing this morning the PM’s spokesperson implied that Starmer would accept he inadvertently misled MPs. (See 1.01pm.) On Friday morning last week Darren Jones, the chief secretary to the PM, said he did not think the PM had misled MPs on this issue. Later, at the morning lobby briefing on Friday, No 10 was not willing to repeat this line. On Friday night Downing Street released minutes of a meeting saying officials discussed “whether ministers, having been provided (incorrectly) with assurances about the process, had inadvertently misled parliament when commenting on the process which had been followed”.

But today, when the Tory John Lamont asked Starmer if he accepted he had “inadvertently misled the House of Commons”, Starmer replied:

I did not mislead the House of Commons. I accept that information that I should have had, and information that the house should have had, should have been before the House.

But I did not mislead the House, and that’s why I’ve set out the account in full.

Mark Francois (Con) asks Starmer to confirm that he had asked if Mandelson failed his vetting, and who he asked.

Starmer said he was told that Mandelson was given vetting clearance.

Ellie Chowns (Green) said Starmer should resign.

What’s really staggering and unforgivable is that [Starmer] appointed Peter Mandelson … knowing about his friendship with the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein. What’s unforgivable is that the prime minister was more concerned with pandering to Donald Trump than with standing with the victims and survivors …

Will he take personal responsibility for his staggering and unforgivable errors of judgment and resign?

Starmer said it was unbelievable that he was not told.

Neil Duncan-Jordan (Lab) says Starmer covered process in his statement. He went on:

Surely, Prime Minister, the real issue is why, when Peter Mandelson’s reputation was already known, was he ever considered for such an important role?

Starmer says he accepts the appointment was wrong.

Lisa Smart (Lib Dem) asks Starmer again to explain why he ignored Simon Case’s advice. (See 4.51pm.)

Starmer said that he thought he had followed the advice, because Mandleson’s appointment was subject to vetting being approved. He said when Chris Wormald, the then cabinet secretary, looked at this process in September, he concluded that the process had been followed in line with what Case recommended.

(Starmer’s answer seems to miss the point, implicit in Case’s advice, which was that, once an appointment gets publicly announced, it becomes much harder for political reasons to accept a vetting decision saying the appointment should not go ahead.)

Starmer says Robbins' sacking does not blight his record as having 'distinguished career'

Andrew Mitchell, the former Tory cabinet minister, said Robbins was “a fine and experienced civil servant” who should not be made to take the blame.

Starmer said he lost confidence in Robbins because he did not share the vetting information. But, he went on:

That doesn’t mean [Robbins] hasn’t got a distinguished career. He does have a distinguished career.

Oliver Dowden, the former Tory deputy PM, asked Starmer what Olly Robbins told him when Starmer said he should have been told about the vetting decision. Dowden said that senior officials try to deliver on the wishes of ministers. He suggests that Robbins was trying to help Starmer because he knew Starmer wanted the appointment to go ahead.

Starmer said Robbins has had “a distinguished career”. He said that Robbins’ view was that he was not allowed to give this information to the PM.

But Starmer said he does not want to put words into Robbins’ mouth. Robbins will explain his position tomorrow, he said.

One of Kemi Badenoch’s six questions for Keir Starmer was about Mandelson remaning a director of a Russian defence firm after the invastion of Crimea. See 4.10pm.

She has now answered her own question – posting another extract from the documents released under the humble address mechanism showing that this issue was flagged up to Starmer as a result of the Cabinet Office vetting process (which was different from the UKSV vetting – the main focus of this hearing).

She said:

It’s quite clear from this document the Prime Minister was told this in November 2024.

He didn’t want to answer my question…because HE KNEW.

He was told.

Yet he appointed Mandelson anyway putting our national security at risk.

Memo to PM Photograph: Kemi Badenoch