PM Accused of Ignoring Due Process in Ambassador Appointment

Top Official Claims PM Undermined Security Vetting

A member of the Foreign Affairs Committee has stated that the Prime Minister failed to follow proper procedures when appointing an ambassador. Afua Brandford, a Conservative member of the committee, suggested that Number 10 pressured officials to rush the security clearance for Peter Mandelson, who was set to become an ambassador.

Brandford’s comments came after a session with Sir Oliver Robbins, a senior civil servant. She indicated that the Prime Minister had already announced Mandelson’s appointment before the security checks were finished. This, she argued, made the vetting process seem unimportant and possibly irrelevant.

Pressure on Security Vetting Process

According to Brandford, Sir Oliver Robbins faced constant pressure from Number 10. This pressure was reportedly aimed at ensuring Mandelson received his security clearance quickly. The committee member expressed shock, though not complete surprise, at this revelation.

During the committee’s questioning, it was revealed that the Cabinet Office itself questioned if security vetting was even necessary. Despite this, Sir Oliver Robbins insisted that security clearance was essential and pushed back against the pressure. However, the Prime Minister had already publicly confirmed the appointment, effectively presenting it as a done deal.

Prime Minister’s Judgment Questioned

Brandford pointed to the Prime Minister’s judgment as the root cause of the situation. She explained that the appointment was announced before vetting was complete. This action, she believes, signaled that the security vetting was not a crucial step in the process.

The Prime Minister had already announced the appointment of Peter Mandelson before security vetting had even taken place. He had effectively said security vetting is irrelevant.

She suggested that by the time Sir Oliver Robbins could have hinted at potential issues, the decision was already made. It was the Prime Minister’s decision to proceed that led to the controversy, she stated.

Background Information Was Known

During the discussion, Brandford acknowledged that some background information on Mandelson was known before the vetting. This included his business connections in Russia and China, as well as issues related to Jeffrey Epstein. She noted that the vetting problems did not appear to be directly linked to the Epstein matter.

The committee member confirmed that this information was available during the initial due diligence. The Prime Minister was aware of these details and still decided to move forward with the appointment. This suggests the Prime Minister believed any risks could be managed.

Questions Over Due Process Claims

Brandford raised concerns about the Prime Minister’s later claims that due process was not followed. She questioned why the Prime Minister would make such a statement if he had already approved the appointment despite knowing the risks. She also questioned the dismissal of Sir Oliver Robbins in light of these events.

The committee member believes the Prime Minister has not been straightforward about how the situation unfolded. She noted that Sir Oliver Robbins was unwilling to discuss certain aspects during the session, leading her to assume he might challenge his dismissal as unfair.

Integrity and Misleading Parliament

The discussion touched upon Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s reputation for integrity. Brandford acknowledged that Starmer is often seen as a person of high standards in public life. However, she noted that he previously stated he would take responsibility for his team’s actions.

She pointed out that Starmer now appears to be backtracking on that stance. The key question, Brandford argued, is whether Starmer misled Parliament. While Robbins believes he followed the process, the appointment occurred before vetting was finalized, which Brandford sees as a failure to follow due process by the Prime Minister.

Call for Further Inquiry

Brandford concluded by emphasizing the need for more investigation. She believes it is important to understand why the Prime Minister dismissed Sir Oliver Robbins. She wants clarity on how the Prime Minister could announce an appointment subject to security clearance, yet claim he would not have made it if vetting results were known.

The committee member stated that further inquiry is warranted to clarify these points. The public deserves a clear explanation of the events surrounding the ambassadorial appointment.

Source: Starmer Didn’t Correctly Follow Due Process, Says Foreign Affairs Committee Member (YouTube)