While the Prime Minister is engaged in discussions in Paris regarding the opening of the Strait of Hormuz, his chief secretary, Darren Jones, is facing criticism due to the recent revelations surrounding the vetting of Peter Mandelson.
Jones has publicly condemned the Foreign Office’s decision to override security vetting protocols, labeling it as “utterly unacceptable.” He disclosed that an immediate review has been initiated following his realization that the Foreign Office and several other governmental bodies had the authority to disregard security recommendations when appointing individuals to sensitive positions.
He stated, “It is completely unacceptable, not only in the specific case of Peter Mandelson and the Prime Minister’s justified anger towards the Foreign Office for not informing him sooner, but also because such processes existed that permitted this to occur in the first place.” As a result, he has suspended the rights of these organizations to make such judgments while requesting an urgent examination of past decisions where security vetting recommendations were ignored. Jones also mentioned that he was already planning to announce a broader, independent review of the vetting process, which will now encompass these issues.
During an appearance on ITV’s Good Morning Britain, Jones reiterated his stance, indicating that he promptly revoked the Foreign Office’s authority to override security vetting findings upon discovering this discrepancy. He emphasized, “As soon as I learned last night that the Foreign Office, along with a few other organizations, had the power to dismiss recommendations, I immediately suspended those rights and initiated an urgent audit.”
Meanwhile, Kemi Badenoch has continued to criticize the Prime Minister, stating on BBC Radio 4’s Today program, “Ultimately, all roads lead to a resignation.” She pointed out that the Prime Minister claimed he was made aware of the Foreign Office’s decision on Tuesday and highlighted the Ministerial Code, which dictates that ministers must correct the record if Parliament has been inadvertently misled. Badenoch accused the Prime Minister of neglecting to address this issue during Prime Minister’s Questions, which she views as a violation of the Ministerial Code.
Badenoch asserted that there was clear dishonesty in the Prime Minister’s narrative, arguing that it is implausible for him to have been unaware of the security vetting situation. She stated, “It is absurd to believe that when the Prime Minister claimed in the House of Commons that due process was followed, officials would not have informed him otherwise. He was aware.” She further expressed skepticism about the claim that Mandelson, a prominent political figure, could have been cleared by civil servants despite failing security vetting.
Furthermore, Badenoch criticized the lack of transparency, stating, “We would not have learned about this if it weren’t for the Guardian. The facts simply do not add up, and the Prime Minister is treating us as if we are naive.”
Sir Ed Davey, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, has joined the calls for the Prime Minister’s resignation. He remarked that even if the Prime Minister’s assertion—claiming he was unaware of the Foreign Office’s overruling of Mandelson’s failed vetting until recently—were accurate, he should still resign. Davey warned that if the Prime Minister does not step down voluntarily, his party may take parliamentary action to remove him.
During his segment on BBC Radio 4’s Today program, Davey commented, “The Prime Minister cannot evade accountability by merely dismissing Olly Robbins; ultimate responsibility rests with Mr. Starmer.” He expressed disbelief that, given the sensitive nature of the matter, the permanent secretary at the Foreign Office would not have consulted ministers regarding the situation.
Davey expressed skepticism about the credibility of the claim that the Prime Minister was unaware of the Foreign Office’s actions until this week, stating, “If we assume their account is truthful and they only learned of this on Tuesday, it raises serious questions about how the government operates. It suggests that key information was being concealed from the Prime Minister, who made a significant decision without consulting Mandelson or being fully informed of his security vetting status.” He concluded by asserting that the evidence indicates the Prime Minister misled both Parliament and the public, which is against established rules and warrants his resignation.
