Skip to playerSkip to main content
  • 4 hours ago
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer tells the House of Commons that he "would not have appointed" Lord Mandelson if he had been told that he had failed vetting. Report by Ketchs. Like us on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/itn and follow us on Twitter at http://twitter.com/itn
Transcript
00:00I accept that the sensitive personal information provided by an individual being vetted must
00:07be protected from disclosure. If that were not the case, the integrity of the whole process
00:15would be compromised. What I do not accept is that the appointing minister cannot be
00:22told of the recommendation by UKSV. Indeed, given the seriousness of these issues and the
00:31significance of the appointment, I simply do not accept that Foreign Office officials
00:37could not have informed me of UKSV's recommendations whilst also maintaining the necessary confidentiality
00:44that vetting requires. There is no law that stops civil servants sensibly flagging UKSV
00:52recommendations while protecting detailed sensitive vetting information to allow ministers
00:57to make judgments on appointments or explaining matters to Parliament. So let me be very clear,
01:04the recommendation in the Peter Mandelson case could and should have been shared with me
01:11before he took up his post. Mr Speaker, let me make a second point. If I had known before
01:21he took up his post that UKSV recommendation was that developed vetting clearance should
01:27be denied, I would not have gone ahead with the appointment.
Comments

Recommended