Downing Street maintains that, under the 2010 Constitutional Reform and Governance Act, Foreign Office permanent secretary Olly Robbins had the authority to inform Keir Starmer about Peter Mandelson’s effective failure in security vetting. The briefing paper released today explains that prerogative powers originate from the crown but are exercised by ministers, and only when delegated or authorized by statute, by civil servants. In security vetting, officials manage the process and decide on clearances. Legal requirements ensure sensitive personal data is protected under data protection laws. However, no legislation bars civil servants from appropriately highlighting vetting recommendations or key risks and solutions while safeguarding that information. This enables ministers to make well-informed choices on appointments or parliamentary matters. In a Times article today, former cabinet secretary Gus O’Donnell supported Robbins’ choice not to disclose the details to Starmer, noting that Robbins, as the final authority, approved the clearance. O’Donnell commented that a government often criticized for excessive legal focus appears to lack a solid grasp of its own vetting procedures. He described the government’s explanation of ministers’ exclusion from the vetting process—as outlined in law—and how they receive information as confusing at best. He added that if the prime minister believes this exclusion was unhelpful, he should reform the system rather than quickly dismissing someone for following a standard legal interpretation. Scottish Secretary Douglas Alexander represented the government in media appearances this morning. As one of the reliable ministers for challenging situations, alongside Pat McFadden and Darren Jones, he argued that appointing Mandelson as US ambassador was an error, which Starmer has acknowledged and apologized for. However, Starmer did not mislead because he was not informed of the vetting concerns. Alexander stated that such critical details from vetting agencies should have been shared with relevant ministers. Speaking to Sky News, he said most viewers would agree that significant concerns from an intensive vetting process ought to be communicated to decision-makers. When asked if he anticipates Starmer leading Labour in the next election, Alexander replied affirmatively, emphasizing Starmer’s sound judgment on major issues like avoiding involvement in foreign conflicts. He also noted that, as a Scottish Presbyterian, he rejects notions of infallibility for popes or prime ministers. Good morning. There are rare instances when a prime minister’s performance in the Commons could determine their tenure, such as Margaret Thatcher’s Westland debate or Boris Johnson’s post-resignation appearance before the privileges committee on Partygate claims. James Callaghan’s 1979 confidence vote ended his leadership, though not due to his speech. It appears unlikely that Keir Starmer’s position will be jeopardized by today’s parliamentary events. Following last week’s Guardian revelations that Peter Mandelson effectively failed security checks for the US ambassador role—despite Starmer’s assurances of clearance—Labour MPs have not demanded his resignation. This stance is unlikely to shift by evening. Yet, many already held the opinion that he is
