British Prime Minister Starmer holds showdown in Parliament over US ambassador scandal

Starmer made the comments in a speech in the House of Commons setting out the timetable for his decision to appoint Mandelson as envoy to the US despite his scandal with US sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Embattled Starmer, who is struggling for his job, was forced to defend the move after Mandelson was cleared to take up a diplomatic post despite failing a mandatory security clearance.

The Prime Minister insists he was never aware of the failed UK security review, despite opposition parties questioning his judgment and accusing him of misleading parliament.

Starmer told MPs: “Had I known before he took office that UKSV’s advice was that developed review permission should be refused, I would not have gone ahead with the appointment.”

UKSV recommended to the Foreign Office that approval be refused, but the next day officials overruled the recommendation and allowed the appointment to stand.

Starmer said: “Many members of the House will find these facts incredible. All I can say about this is that they are right. It is incredible that throughout the course of this incident Foreign Office officials saw fit to withhold this information from the most senior ministers in our system of government.”

He said it was “absolutely inexcusable” that the foreign minister was told and allowed to sign a statement without being informed of the vetting security agency’s recommendation that Mandelson be refused entry.

“The recommendations in Peter Mandelson’s case could and should have been shared with me before he took office,” he stressed.

After weeks of controversy over what he knew and when he learned about the process, Starmer admitted that “sensitive personal information” provided by appointees under scrutiny must be protected. However, he expressed disappointment that appointing ministers were not informed of UKSV’s recommendations.

He added: “Indeed, given the seriousness of the issues and the importance of the appointment, I simply do not think it would have been possible for Foreign Office officials to brief me on UKSV’s recommendations while maintaining the necessary confidentiality required for the review.”

“There is no law that prevents civil servants from judiciously flagging UKSV advice while protecting detailed sensitive review information to allow ministers to make judgments on appointments or explain matters to Parliament.”

The issue was thrust into the spotlight again last week after Lord Mandelson failed to pass a mandatory security clearance for high-profile government appointments. However, it is reported that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office overturned this strict review last year and gave the green light to the appointment.

The government placed the blame on Foreign Office officials, with the Foreign Office’s top civil servant, Sir Ollie Robbins, sacked over the mistake.

However, opposition MPs and some of Starmer’s own Labor colleagues have raised questions about the credibility of claims the prime minister was informed of the failed UK security service review only days ago.

The issue continues to dog his government as the Metropolitan Police investigate further revelations about Mandelson’s ties to the late American sex offender.

Although Mandelson denied wrongdoing, he was sacked after seven months in Washington and the British government released documents related to his appointment process in line with transparency norms.

This article was generated from automated news agency feeds without modifications to the text.