By Elizabeth Piper, Andrew MacAskill and Sarah Young
LONDON, April 17 (Reuters) – Prime Minister Keir Starmer expressed anger on Friday over not being informed that his former ambassador to the United States had failed security vetting before being handed the job, defending himself from renewed pressure to resign.
Starmer, who won the largest majority in modern history for Labour at a national election in 2024, faces new questions over his political judgment, just three weeks before his party is expected to be punished in local elections in England, and regional votes in Scotland and Wales.
Following the resignation of Labour veteran Peter Mandelson as U.S. ambassador over his ties to the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, Starmer had managed to win a brief reprieve from his critics after limiting Britain’s role in U.S. President Donald Trump’s and Israel’s war in Iran.
However, on Thursday it emerged that Mandelson had failed the security vetting conducted before his appointment as envoy, a fact that Starmer’s team said the prime minister had been unaware of. Starmer’s political foes have questioned how a prime minister could not know and have demanded his resignation.
SENIOR MINISTER SAYS STARMER IS FURIOUS
Starmer, who was in France on Friday for talks on the Iran crisis, told reporters it was unforgivable that he had not been told about Mandelson having failed security vetting “when I was telling parliament that due process had been followed”.
Asked if he would resign, Starmer said he would “set out the relevant facts” on Monday to parliament.
Downing Street moved swiftly late on Thursday to try to quash the scandal, sacking the Foreign Office’s top official, Olly Robbins.
Yet his team’s argument that Starmer did not know until this week key information surrounding an appointment he had promoted in 2024 as a stroke of genius has sparked doubts over whether the prime minister has a proper grip on his government.
One Labour lawmaker, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the party was unlikely to move against Starmer for now but that the Mandelson saga was “a gift that keeps on giving” and would ensure the premier remained under scrutiny before an expected drubbing in the local elections on May 7.
Another Labour lawmaker said David Lammy, Britain’s deputy prime minister who had served as foreign secretary at the time of the vetting, should quit. “The choice is incompetence over deceit,” the lawmaker added.
But George Foulkes, a Labour member of the House of Lords, Britain’s unelected upper chamber of parliament, urged caution, saying “mistakes have been made” but that it would be reckless to move against Starmer.
“We need to keep things in perspective when there are so many issues he has been dealing with well,” he told Reuters.
Starmer could be challenged if 20% of Labour members of parliament support a rival candidate to replace him. That means such a candidate would need the backing of 81 lawmakers.
DID STARMER MISLEAD PARLIAMENT?
The point of contention for opposition politicians is whether Starmer knowingly misled parliament when he reassured lawmakers that Mandelson had completed security vetting when he was appointed and that no red flags had been raised.
A letter from the Foreign Office in January last year offering Mandelson the job as ambassador, and released by parliament last month, suggested that he had passed the security vetting.
“Your security clearance has been confirmed by Vetting Unit and is valid until 29 January 2030,” the letter said.
Mandelson was sacked in September when the extent of his ties with Epstein was revealed in documents published in the United States.
He is now under police investigation on suspicion of leaking government documents to Epstein but has not commented publicly on the allegations. A lawyer for Mandelson did not provide a comment on Thursday about the vetting process.
Starmer has previously apologised for appointing Mandelson, accusing the former ambassador of creating a “litany of deceit” about his ties to Epstein.
Kemi Badenoch, leader of the opposition Conservative Party, described Starmer’s defence as “preposterous” and Nigel Farage, the leader of Labour’s main electoral challenger, the populist Reform UK party, said it was “blatant dishonesty”.
Both lamented the loss of Robbins, whom Farage described as “a professional civil servant”.
Badenoch said on X that working for Starmer was “now one of the most dangerous occupations in the UK”, referring to the earlier departure of Starmer’s closest aide. “There are few known survivors.”
(Reporting by Elizabeth Piper, Andrew MacAskill and Sarah Young; additional reporting by William James, Paul Sandle and Alistair Smout, Writing by Elizabeth Piper; Editing by Gareth Jones)
Disclaimer: This report is auto generated from the Reuters news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.