2.3.2 – The concept of individual ministerial responsibility
The Peter Mandelson scandal reawakened last week to rock the government once again. It emerged that prior to his appointment, Peter Mandelson had failed the Developed Vetting (DV) process. DV is the highest level of national security clearance used by the UK Government. It is required for those who require access to the most sensitive documents, including those classified as Top Secret.
This immediately led to calls for Keir Starmer to resign with Kemi Badenoch saying that ‘Keir Starmer’s position is untenable’.
Starmer had told the House of Commons that the appointment of Peter Mandelson had followed ‘full due process’ and that ‘security vetting carried out independently by the security services… gave him clearance for the role’. Under the Ministerial Code, any Minister who lies to Parliament is expected to resign: ‘Ministers who knowingly mislead Parliament will be expected to offer their resignation to the Prime Minister.’
However, it has emerged that Senior Civil Servants in the Foreign Office may not have told Number 10 that Mandelson had failed DV. It is being alleged that the DV judgement was overruled by Senior Civil Servants unilaterally. Keir Starmer says that he only found out that Mandelson had failed DV on Tuesday last week. He stated that he was ‘furious’ about it and that it was ‘unforgivable’. He also promised to clarify the record in Parliament on Monday 20 April. In addition, it emerged that the most Senior Civil Servant at the Foreign Office, Sir Olly Robins, was fired on Friday 17 April.
Misleading Parliament is a very serious issue. Indeed, during the Partygate Scandal involving Boris Johnson, whilst Keir Starmer was Leader of the Opposition, Starmer accused Johnson of misleading the House and said he should resign. It appears that Starmer may escape a finding that he misled Parliament – he cannot mislead Parliament about something he did not know.
Yet, regardless of whether he did knowingly mislead Parliament, therefore triggering the constitutional conventions under the Ministerial Code, the political ramifications for Keir Starmer are huge. The question that follows is ‘why did he not know?‘. It has been reported that Number 10 were told by journalists in September that Mandelson had failed security vetting. If this is the case, it may be argued that Number 10 had a duty to investigate and clarify the situation.
Under the doctrine of individual ministerial responsibility, a minister is expected to competently manage their brief. The Prime Minister is ultimately responsible for ensuring that across government. Yet, Starmer increasingly looks like he does not have a handle on what is happening in his own government. As a Sky News interviewer put it to Starmer, ‘Prime Minister, why do you always end up sounding like the passenger in this government rather than the driver?‘
With the May Local Elections in less than three weeks’ time, it may be that leadership challenge to Starmer now would be self-defeating. However, it is clear that Starmer’s authority is increasingly threadbare.