BREAKING | ‘Keir Starmer LIED to the House!’ – PM called to RESIGN over fresh Mandelson scandal
Major breaking news this hour and it’s this. The Guardian is reporting this afternoon that Peter Mandelton failed his security vetting clearance but the decision was overruled by the foreign office to ensure that he could take up his post to be the ambassador to the United States of America. Now the leader of the opposition Kem Benog has already reacted to this news claiming the prime minister as you can see on your screen misled the house.
We now know she claims the prime minister misled the house. The prime minister must take responsibility claims Kem Bay right now the leader of the opposition. A huge amount of detail to go through. Let’s get to the bottom of this. I’m delighted to be joined in the studio by GB News’s home and security editor Mark White and our political editor Christopher Hope.
Gentlemen, welcome back to studio. Let’s start with you Mark White. In terms of the technicalities of this process and how it may have walked talked, walk us through it. >> Right. This is all according to the Guardian. On the face of it, a very significant uh exclusive story that they are breaking late this afternoon.
Uh they say that Peter Mandlesson failed a developed vetting process check. Now developed vetting process is controlled by the cabinet office. It’s a process which uh sort of officials are uh subject to confidential uh but very detailed background checks to determine whether they uh are approved for a sensitive role such as of course the UK ambassador to the US.
Um but sir Peter Mandlesson we’re told failed that in late January of last year. Now the significance of this date in late January is that uh Sir Kir Stammer had already announced Peter Mandlesson as the new UK ambassador to the US by that point. Then after that, according to the Guardian, foreign officials used a rarely um uh used authority to override the recommendation um and to appoint Peter Mandolson to that position.
Now what we don’t know at this stage is whether this was carried out by officials on their own or whether they had sought uh any kind of guidance and authority from their political masters. I would find from a personal point of view something as serious as this you would think that politicians would be brought into the loop course but we can tell you at that point that Sir Ollie Robbins was the newly appointed permanent secretary to the foreign office.
He was appointed in January 2025. This decision was made in late January 2025. So it seems under Ollle Robbins watch this decision was made and that’s as I say the big question is was there any oversight was this just made by officials and if so why um or did they have you know reference to polit their political masters uh to make the decision.
Was it for instance the prime minister who said look is there a way around this and of course that rarely enacted uh process they were able to enact to override it. Thank you, Mark. Chris Hope, let’s get to you now. So many questions to ask. Let’s try and make this calm and measured to help our viewers and listen understand a complicated process.
Quite simply, if the foreign office overruled the vetting process, we need to know the very the very big question. Who did that? Who knew? And how how high up the pecking order does this go? And if as Kimmy Benedog is claiming, Saki Stormer misled the house, does that put his position as prime minister in jeopardy? Okay, let’s take those those points in order then.
He was initially denied uh security vetting according to the Guardian in late January 2025. On the 30th of January of that year, he was confirmed as being security cleared. So at some point someone in that final week of January according to the Guardian made the point to overrule what the security services said and on the then uh we it moved on it was confirmed by the prime minister in February.
I was in Washington when he was unveiled as the as the as the ambassador. Fast forward to last September when the PM was defending Peter Manson. He’s told MPs then that full due process was gone through. Now this is a political difficulty for Sir Kiama. What does that mean? Was he misleading MPs? Kevin Bedno thinks so.
She says this that last September Karma told parliament three times a full due process was followed over the appointment. She says we now know the prime minister misled the house. The House of Commons she means the prime minister must take responsibility. This matters because misleading the commons at the dispatch box is a resigning matter.
It’s what did eventually for Boris Johnson over party gate and that is why it’s so important. We are not there yet. We don’t know what due process meant. Normally there’ll be a lobby briefing for me to be speak asked these questions questions of number 10 now. They’ve been cancelled by the government.
My next chance to do this will be tomorrow morning. A lot hangs on tomorrow morning suddenly. what we need to try and do if we can um team in the back in the gallery there. Let’s try and pull this clip. This is from Prime Minister’s question time on September the 10th. We’ll try and pull the clip as we speak. Let’s look let’s watch it together and go through it and ascertain because Ben put Saki Star on the spot ostensibly force him out into the open to admit that the due process had been followed.
And if Sakius Arma did commit the cordinal error, the mistake of saying something on record in parliament which wasn’t true, that has consequences. >> I have a copy here of the rules on the ministerial code for ministers. It says this ministers who knowingly mislead parliament will be expected to offer their resignation.
It says that that was signed off by the prime minister Dharma in October 2025. Is of paramount importance. It says the ministers give accurate and truthful information to parliament correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity. Those who mislead parliament will be expected offered their resignation to the prime minister.
As as we are waiting for comment, I’ve gone to the foreign office. Number 10, Peter Mandlesson. No comment yet. And of course they well may they would probably deny any misleading of the House of Commons. What does full due process mean? That is important to understand. And what do the PM know about what Mark White is saying about overre? I think that there’s an arguable point here as well about what would constitute misleading the house here.
Now, if the prime minister stands up and says that Peter Mandlesson passed his vetting, uh he might in the letter of the law be right at that point that he had subsequently passed it because this little used authority had been invoked by foreign office. But actually, you know, in the round examining the fact that Peter Manderson was initially denied that he did not he failed his vetting, then can you honestly get away with suggesting that he passed his vetting the second time of asking? In fact, didn’t even pass it. It
was over overridden to allow him to take up his job. He failed his vetting. >> Using the internet without a VPN, a virtual private network, is a bit like taking to the road without car insurance. All it takes is one unlucky moment to cost you a lot of cash. This video sponsor is Private Internet Access.
They are the VPN to help keep you safe. Click the link in the description below to find out why over 30 million people have downloaded PIA to protect themselves online. A virtual private network is an app that hides your IP address and helps keep your data private. When you’re browsing the internet at home, you give up a large amount of data to businesses, to shops, and indeed to social media giants, too.
Hackers have the ability to steal your personal data with ease, including sensitive information such as passwords, keystrokes, and even your personal photos. Private internet access helps protect your personal data by encrypting your internet connection to keep your data out of the hands of cyber criminals.
And it’s not just hackers either to be concerned about. Information can be censored, too. When Canada passed their C18 bill, social media giants decided to ban news content on their platforms. But PIA can protect your ability to consume the news and content you love. Private Internet Access is available for Windows users, MacOSS, Android, Linux, iOS, and you can use one PIA subscription to protect an unlimited amount of devices.
And we’ve got a huge GB news discount for you, too. Click the link in this video’s description, and you’ll get a massive 83% off PIA. That’s under2 a month, the price of a coffee, and you’ll get an extra four months completely free on top. Also, there’s a 30-day money back guarantee, too. Visit piavpn.com/gbnews to start protecting yourself digitally today.
If you go back in time, there was so much analysis, wasn’t there, about who knew what and when? And more to the point, why wasn’t a thorough vetting process carried out? And if it was, who knew about it? Now, it turns out there probably was a vetting process. There was, >> but we got the wrong answer, but we overturned it anyway.
It gets worse by the second. >> And what’s really interesting about this as well is, of course, lots of people have been clamoring ever since uh Peter Mandel was sacked uh to try to get to the truth of what decisions were made, whether there was poor judgment or worse by Sir Dammer in appointing Peter Mandelson to that key position.
And as part of that process of trying to assuage all of the concerns that people understandably have, we had the 146 pages of documents around this process and other background info relating to his appointment that was released. And going forward, this issue about him failing the vetting. uh according to the Guardian and this is really interesting.
The Cabinet Office is currently examining whether to withhold redact that information about the fact that he failed the vetting. They haven’t yet made a decision. But the authority lies with them as the entity who actually carried out the vetting check. >> What’s really important here is they can’t they have to give everything to the intelligence and security committee.
is chaired by Lord Beamish, formerly Kevin Jones, a Labour MP. He must approve what they say. Now, we’re I’m expecting next week for the second volume of Madison papers to be released. The first volumes come out that could include Martin and Mark the crucial WhatsApp messages and if they’ve been redacted or not.
>> And don’t forget that Morgan Mwin, he lost his phone. And don’t forget that there was also stolen. Yeah. Well, but you know, >> well, it was but the point the point is this. don’t know who knew what when where’s the proof and Sakir Stormma the man of process the man who follows the the law to the letter constantly said this is the matter for the intelligence services we cannot share it because it’s legally sensitive and now that process has been shortcircuited and how many bodies have been thrown over B’s
government already over this Morgan Mweeney press secretaries you know surely now a bigger head needs to be on the block m >> well that is potentially true if and and I think it all hinges on whether this was kept within official whether officials decided look the prime minister’s already announced it let’s just use this rarely used authority that we have to override the vetting failure and allow the appointment of Peter Manderson in the first place if they have done that I think that’s extraordinary anyway and I think many
people might rightly ask why on earth would an official not refer this up to, you know, a very senior politician such as the foreign secretary or the prime minister who making this key appointment who’ve announced this and now you’re about to tell them or you should be telling them that actually there’s a serious hiccup here. He’s failed a vetting.
>> Okay, hang on Chris Mog. So I believe now we do have that clip um from September the 10th last year. the crucial exchange between Sakia Stormer and Kem Bay on Peter Manderson. Let’s take a look and listen. >> Mr. Speaker, the relationship between the US and the UK is one of our foremost relationships and I have confidence in the ambassador in the role that he is doing.
>> Mr. Speaker, I think it is embarrassing that the prime minister is still saying that he has confidence in a man who is brokering deals with convicted child sex offenders while sitting in government. That is a disgrace. >> Okay, so we need to dig out the clip where it actually we’ll keep going because I know this was happening quickly in there where Saki Starama replied the quote to search for is full due process was gone through.
So that seems to be the the clear the comment that Keock is hanging this upon. Right. Got some more evidence here what Karma said in the past. This time on the 5th of February this year, he said that the he said in quotes there was then I should add security vetting carried out independently by the security services which is an intensive exercise which gave him clearance for the role and you have to go do before that before you take up the post.
The question is is that wrong because it could be wrong given what the guard is reporting. If he failed the test asked of him by security services and it’s overruled by a hidden hand someone in the foreign office or higher that is the point that we’re getting towards but the point is surely you know how many minions how many underlings how many people further down the food chain Mark why can be thrown overboard before we have to say perhaps it’s the captain of the ship that needs to be brought to account here the prime minister
>> well the first person that will obviously have to answer to this if remember of course This is an exclusive that has been released by the Guardian. We’re in this process according to the Guardian where the Cabinet Office was deciding whether actually to redact this information and not tell us that Peter Manderson had at one point failed his vetting.
Um so the now that it is in the public uh sphere we need to hear from the senior civil servant the cabinet secretary um uh the permanent secretary sorry at the foreign office siri Robbins as to you know whether it was him that made the decision whether as an official it was someone below him you know who made that decision and why wasn’t it referred if it wasn’t referred to a sen
ior politician i.e. his boss, the foreign secretary, or all of their bosses, the prime minister. And I just go back to this point given the very sensitive nature of what was happening here. Uh a key position of UK ambassador to the United States being appointed being announced by the prime minister and then all of a sudden oops he’s actually failed his vetting this detailed and confidential vetting process that the cabinet vetting security uh developed security process uh was involved in. He’s failed that.
So given that he’s failed that, wouldn’t you feel that those in official dumb would refer it up to their political masters? >> It was a political choice to point him. We knew all those warnings. We’ve seen the warnings. They played out in full in that document that was presented to Karma in the previous November.
They were ignored as political people. Morgan Mcweeny, Matthew Doyle did the vetting. They are political appointments. It was a political matter by this time when the security service had a problem. and it may well have been a political choice to overall them and that is very very serious and now it’s a political mess of the highest caliber.
Gentlemen, thank you. Let’s get my next guest in now. I’d like to be joined by the former Labour Party advisor Kevin Mah. Kevin, the prince of darkness once again has cast his shadow and it’s not looking at all good. On what planet is it a good idea for a government to overrule a vetting process? >> It’s never a good idea.
Um and I mean the question I think as Mark alluded to um a few minutes ago is is is where where did this news this revelation where did it bubble up to? Is it has it stayed in the foreign office and has the foreign office simply said look Peter Madison’s already a done deal so we don’t need to bother the prime minister with this which I think would be pretty extraordinary quite frankly.
Um, I think until until we see a smoking gun that lands this at Karmama’s desk, then then I think the prime minister will will body swerve a lot of this. But it’s it’s not good. It’s it speaks to a dysfunction at the very heart of government. We’ve had lots of this in in in you know, in the last the last 15 years or so particularly where where you know the the the how the government is run at the very very top has often been very dysfunctional under successive governments.
I mean there’s no, you know, there’s there’s no green light here for Labor that they’ve carried on a tradition that the Tories certainly started um of of bungling at the at the very very top of government. Now if Peter Mandlesson has failed failed failed this vetting which is which is which is very very scrupulous and of course you’re trying to ensure that uh diplomats, politicians, cabinet ministers, generals, security um service personnel that you know that they are they are whiter than white and that they they can’t be they can’t be blackmailed.
That’s that’s one of the obvious reasons why we do this kind of vetting and and if any any individual fails it then that’s really significant and and and the political ramifications for it are enormous which is why if this did stop at the foreign office and they didn’t pass this up the chain to number 10 and to the prime minister himself that is pretty serious in itself but I think I think it’s going to be very interesting to see um as Chris was mentioning a few minutes ago the next cache of documents um that are going to be released in the
next week or so to see if there’s any other breadcrumbs that position this um pointing towards Karma because I think if it does that the prime minister is in you know a pretty delicate situation to put it politely um but as I say at the moment it doesn’t appear from reading the Guardian piece just very quickly before I came on it doesn’t appear that it did stop on the prime minister’s desk and that that’s the thing that would I think save him in this instance >> Kevin Moore the the situation is this and that is how many scandals can a
government undergo go before the head honcho has to carry the can. This is let’s be let’s be brutally frank that this government was elected on a position a ticket of change a sanctimonious holier than thou you know you know getting on your high horse position we are going to change no more sleas no more corruption we’re going to change almost the halo glowing back in July 2024 now we’re seeing the grubby reality of a government not only mired in scandal but worse than the previous regime Well, I think it’s not quite as bad as
the previous regime. There’s still some way to go on that front, but it’s it’s not good. This government’s not even in office for two years. And and and you know, already we’ve we’ve seen it battered with with with lots and lots of perfectly avoidable fat falls is is a way I probably describe it.
Things that should not have happened. You know, Peter Mandlesson should have been nowhere near this job. I mean, that, you know, this wiser heads around the prime minister should have said Peter’s got too much baggage. Um and and let’s let’s let’s keep Karen Pierce who was the previous ambassador who was doing a very good job. Let’s keep her in place.
There’s no urgency to change this situation. So so so let’s not do that. And it’s these kind of forced errors um which are you know in politics as always unforgivable. I mean there’s enough things that go wrong in government anyway. You don’t need to actually put the accelerator pedal down even harder and and create more of them.
So So I think there’s there’s there’s there’s a real lesson here. However long Karma is prime minister, if if he lasts the parliament, if he if he if he goes next week, doesn’t really matter in that sense. There are lots of lessons, good lessons to learn after this first 18 months to say for God’s sake, don’t do some of these things, these daft things again because you know, as I say, you’ve got enough problems to be dealing with.
Your entry is deep enough without putting even more paper in it yourself. >> Okay, Kevin Mo, thank you for your expertise and your opinion as ever. Dark day perhaps for the Labour Party. Kevin Mo, thank you very very much in the Chris Hope. I want to get a quick reaction to you. I’m getting asked by a lot of our viewers listeners now, what about David Lambi? David Lammy at the time was the foreign secretary.
What’s his remitt? His overview in simple terms so our viewers understand could the book stop with David overview. >> His overview is overlooking MI6 which will done the vetting. He is in charge of the department which did the vetting uh on this new ambassador. The problem that made the difference here, he hasn’t really appeared in any of the documents surrounding the first tranch of those released about uh Peter Manson and it really was a political choice made number 10 by politically appointed individuals and that’s why I think it
goes really the heart of the team around Kia Dharma. How bad could this get? I mean chemog has got blood in the water. She’s sensing a political victory and to be absolutely fair to her she forces out of Kia Stoma at prime minister’s questions. We’re hearing all the time that Karma won’t answer questions. Perhaps this is why when he does he gets things wrong.
>> Well, yes. I mean, he’s obviously angry because he felt he relied on political political appointments to make this choice and he feels he wasn’t he was let down by them when he made that’s why heads ro will be hearing from Kevin Bnock within the hour live on your show. Martin >> can I just put something to you Chris? Um we know that foreign office senior officials were not happy with Mandel as the man for Washington.
they had a career civil servant highly regarded in that position. Is it conceivable as a senior official that if you came across uh the information that he had failed his vetting check, you would just hold it, hold on to it and smooth the course or would you want to highlight to your political masters who’d made the decision that you didn’t? >> The reason why this matters, Mark, is because they are vetting now the information that goes to the the security committee, the MPs will vet it.
This is obviously an attempt to show MPs look for this too because don’t let the security services keep it from