Sir Keir Starmer has denied misleading the House of Commons over Peter Mandelson’s vetting process to become US ambassador.
The prime minister told MPs in September last year – twice in one day – that “full due process was followed”, when it was revealed Lord Mandelson continued his friendship with paedophile Jeffrey Epstein after he was jailed, which led to his sacking.
But after the British government last Wednesday published its first tranche of the Mandelson files, detailing correspondence around his appointment and sacking, questions have been raised about whether Sir Keir did follow the correct process in appointing Lord Mandelson to the top diplomatic job.
Politics latest: PM announces energy bills support
The documents showed the PM and his chief of staff at the time, Morgan McSweeney, were told about Lord Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein, including how he stayed at the sex offender’s house while he was in jail, and how his appointment could be a “reputational risk”.
The files also showed how Jonathan Powell, the national security adviser, was worried about his appointment and described the process as “weirdly rushed”.
But when asked by Sky News’ Beth Rigby if he misled MPs about due process being followed, Sir Keir said: “No. And the independent adviser looked at that very question, I think on Thursday or Friday of last week, and answered it very robustly, that the process had been followed.”
Andrew and Peter Mandelson appear in bathrobes as they sit with Epstein in new picture
Why the Mandelson files matter for Starmer’s future
Starmer risks misleading Commons claims if Mandelson story doesn’t match files, warns Harman
He again blamed the process, saying it “wasn’t strong enough” and that he is making changes to the vetting process as a result.
The PM said among those changes will be the government not being allowed to announce who has got an ambassador job before the vetting process is finished.
Sir Keir sought to distance himself from the fact this happened with Mandelson, saying it “wasn’t an individual decision in the Mandelson case, that was the process”.
“You only have to look at that, in the light of the appointment, to realise that that needs to change.
“But on due process, the process that was there was followed, the problem was the process wasn’t strong enough.”
He again said sorry, adding: “Ultimately, it was my mistake and I have apologised for that and quite right too.”
Read more:
What’s in the Mandelson files?
Analysis – It’s difficult to see how Starmer can put this right
The Conservatives have claimed there was a “cover-up” in the release of the Mandelson documents, as two sections reserved for the PM to write comments about Lord Mandelson’s appointment were blank.
However, it is understood no redactions were made to the sections and he had simply not filled them in after reviewing them.
Sir Keir’s spokesman said last week: “I refute the suggestion of a cover-up. The government’s complied fully.”
But a Conservative spokesman on Monday accused Sir Keir of “never owning up to his mistakes” as they said “it’s always someone else’s fault – his team, the civil service, the vetting”.
He told Sky News: “Starmer’s half-hearted apology for appointing Peter Mandelson rings hollow when he can’t just be honest it’s because he allowed the process to be circumvented by Morgan McSweeney and the disgraced Labour peer Matthew Doyle.
“The fact is we will never get to the bottom of this scandal until the government release every document relating to Mandelson’s appointment, which they’re refusing to do. We need to end the cover up now.”
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
Both the Lib Dems and the Conservatives have called for the PM’s independent ethics adviser to investigate him over his appointment of Lord Mandelson.
But Sir Laurie Magnus last week said the documents indicated “the relevant process for a political appointee was followed”.
Ambassadors are normally diplomatic appointments, but Lord Mandelson, having served in the former Labour government, was a political appointee.
