Latest / The Fourcast / ‘Very bad for Starmer’ - sacked civil servant turns on government over Mandelson

Transcript

‘Very bad for Starmer’ - sacked civil servant turns on government over Mandelson · The Fourcast

0:00
He is in peril as Prime Minister.
0:02
This is very bad for Keir Starmer, but it takes a lot for
0:05
Labour MPs to act and there are things that are holding them
0:08
back. We've got war in Europe, war in
0:10
the Gulf and we can't have a breakdown in relations between
0:13
the Prime Minister and the Foreign Office.
0:16
This has been very damaging, couldn't really have come at a
0:18
worse time, but they need to start the rebuilding of trust
0:21
now. I served in Keir Star Michella
0:22
cabinet. I worked very closely with him.
0:24
He's a man of great integrity. This is a wider thing than just
0:27
the culture within the civil service, isn't it?
0:29
This is an issue with the Prime Minister, who always finds
0:32
someone else to blame except himself.
0:37
Hello and welcome to the forecast.
0:40
Peter Mandelson's appointment as ambassador to the US was a rush
0:44
job carried out under an atmosphere of pressure from 10
0:47
Downing St. and a, quote, dismissive attitude to security
0:52
vetting. That's the claim by Sir Olly
0:54
Robbins, the sacked head of the Foreign Office, as he was
0:57
grilled by Parliament's Foreign Affairs Select Tech Committee.
1:00
So is it now clear what happened behind the scenes #10 denies
1:06
Robbins characterization of events.
1:08
But could this still be damning for Starmer's premiership?
1:11
Or has his sacking of a senior Mandarin now being vindicated?
1:17
Later I'll be speaking to Labour MP Preet Call Gill, but now I'm
1:21
joined by 1 of Olly Robbins predecessors as head of the
1:24
Foreign Office, Lord Ricketts and political commentator Sonia
1:28
Soda, who was an advisor surprises to Ed Miliband when he
1:32
was Labour leader. The one thing that we learned
1:34
pretty quickly today and that Olly Robbins, that himself was
1:38
that he did not pass crucial information onto Downing Street.
1:43
So Sonia, was this a win for Keir Starmer?
1:46
No, I don't think so. I mean, that was 1 aspect of
1:50
Keir Starmer's account of what happened that Olly Robbins did
1:54
back up. But I think it was extremely
1:57
clear from the accounts that Olly Robbins gave to the
1:59
committee that I thought was very credible that he thought he
2:03
was following procedure, Foreign Office procedure, Foreign Office
2:07
guidance. He made it very clear this is a
2:09
department where thousands of people have this betting.
2:12
This is the process as it follows.
2:14
So although it might sound extraordinary to us outside of
2:18
government that there were things that went on in this
2:21
process that were not revealed to ministers, I think it was
2:24
very clear that Olly Robbins thought he was under an
2:27
obligation not to disclose what went on beneath the vetting
2:32
process to ministers. So I don't think it helped out
2:35
Keir Starmer in that sense. And in fact, I think there were
2:38
a number of revelations about things that we were not aware of
2:41
before, which I'm sure that we're going to come on to, which
2:44
are incredibly problematic for Keir Starmer.
2:48
Lord Ricketts, for those of us who aren't familiar with the
2:51
inimachinations or the civil service, put us in that mindset.
2:55
Tell us what's it like, and Can you imagine a situation where
2:59
you're not told explicitly, but you are given no uncertain terms
3:04
of the decision, the outcome that you think your political
3:08
masters want you to come to? I think Sonia is right.
3:11
First of all, I think at the heart of this is a massive
3:13
misunderstanding between the civil servants and the
3:17
politicians about what this fessing process is about.
3:21
And the Prime Minister therefore went off the deep end when he
3:24
thought he'd been denied information by Olly Robbins.
3:27
You know, that became crucial just just to make the point.
3:30
It only became crucial because the Mandelson ambassadorship in
3:34
Washington blew up in mid air and he was fired.
3:37
And at that point, the detail of his vetting before he went
3:41
became super political and toxic.
3:45
But I mean, yes, of course, civil servants want to do what
3:49
they understand ministers, you know, require.
3:51
And it was pretty clear to the Foreign Office, as Ollie made
3:54
clear, there was enormous pressure to get the Mandelson
3:57
appointment through and get him to Washington before Trump
4:01
arrived. And that meant things were
4:03
happening very quickly, that the Prime Minister had announced the
4:06
appointment, had got the King's agreement to the appointment,
4:09
even the Americans agreement, even before starting this
4:12
vetting process. So the system was under
4:14
pressure. Can you do a little bit of
4:17
explaining to us here? Because the impression that I
4:20
and lots of other journalists and the public have been left
4:24
under by Downing Street is that this vetting comes down to a
4:28
yes, no, pass or fail. Peter Manderson was a no.
4:32
He was a fail. And then Olly Robbins has
4:35
decided, now I know what this piece of paper that says he's a
4:38
fail, but actually I'm now going to pass him.
4:41
Is that how it works? Is that what you're presented
4:43
with when you get this betting? No, it's not in the in the
4:46
Foreign Office. I mean, it turns out that for
4:49
many government departments, it seems that's to be the case
4:52
because the government produced that bit of paper, now famous,
4:55
which had the sort of green, yellow, red markings, and
4:59
Mandelson was a red and therefore he, you know, he'd
5:01
failed his vetting. I'd never seen a piece of paper
5:04
like that. And Ollie explained very
5:06
carefully that in the Foreign Office, vetting is a more
5:09
nuanced process, that you go through all the possible risks.
5:13
The professionals do this security vetting team, They come
5:18
up with the problems they see, the risks that they see and the
5:22
possible mitigations. And then they discussed that
5:25
with their civil service decision maker, in this case
5:27
Ollie Robbins. So they don't present him a pass
5:30
or fail tick box thing. They present him with risks.
5:34
And we were told by Ollie that they were leaning in favour of
5:38
rejection, but it was borderline and they wanted to talk to him
5:42
about it. And he quite rightly,
5:43
apparently, under the procedure that exists, decided they could
5:46
be mitigations and therefore he approved the vetting.
5:50
So there was number failing of vetting followed by, you know,
5:54
an overriding by Olly Robbins. That's not how the process
5:58
worked. What a pity the Prime Minister
6:00
didn't get a briefing on how the vetting process worked in the
6:04
kind of clarity that Olly Robbins set out for the
6:06
committee today, because then he might have understood Robbins
6:09
wasn't overriding something and failing to tell ministers he'd
6:12
finished off the process. The process had been done.
6:15
It's true what the Prime Minister said, due diligence was
6:17
followed. It's just that he didn't
6:19
understand what due diligence was.
6:21
So. I can't remember a Select
6:23
Committee hearing in which people were waiting for it with
6:27
a bowl of popcorn quite like this.
6:28
Possibly since Dominic Cummings was last in front of a Select
6:32
Committee. What did we actually learn from
6:35
this today? Or what bit surprised you most?
6:38
Well, there were a few things. I think.
6:40
First of all, I think Ollie Robbins gave us a lot of colour
6:45
about the pressure that was exerted by #10, in terms of
6:49
getting Peter Mendelssohn kind of through the initial stages of
6:52
the process, because they were very keen to have him as
6:55
ambassador of the US. So I think there was that one
6:59
thing that really surprised me was the fact that the Cabinet
7:02
Office, according to Olly Robbins, and this is before he
7:04
took up his post as permanent secretary at the Foreign Office,
7:08
was actually pressurising the Foreign Office saying we don't
7:13
think Mandelson needs to go through a betting because he's
7:16
already a member of the House of Lords.
7:18
I thought that was quite extraordinary and doesn't sit
7:22
well with Downing St's accounts that if they'd known, they would
7:27
have promptly kind of unappointed Mandelson, even
7:31
though he'd been announced. So I thought that was really
7:34
quite seismic. The third thing that I thought
7:36
was incredibly important was that we found out that actually
7:40
Downing St. had asked about another potential political
7:44
appointment to the senior echelons of the diplomatic
7:47
service. That's Matthew Doyle, Starmer's
7:50
former director of communications.
7:53
He was then subsequently put into the House of Lords and had
7:56
to resign the Labour whip. Or actually suspended from the
7:59
Labour whip very quickly because of reporting that he went and
8:04
campaigned for somebody who was charged for child sex offences,
8:08
I think it was for a local councillor position.
8:11
And that person subsequently went on to be convicted, which
8:14
obviously shows extremely poor judgement.
8:17
You're going out and asking the voters to vote for somebody
8:19
who's been charged with very serious offences.
8:21
So this is not somebody who is considered fit to take the
8:26
Labour whip in the House of Lords, you know, let alone be
8:29
parachuted into a senior job in the Foreign Office, which meant
8:33
that another long standing civil servant would have to lose their
8:36
job. So I thought that really kind of
8:39
spoke to me of a Sweeties for Mates culture in #10 that I
8:42
thought was already apparent, in fact, in the way that Matthew
8:45
Doyle was eventually parachuted into the Lords instead of the
8:48
Foreign Office. To be fair to the government,
8:52
they would say actually a lot of those revelations about Matthew
8:54
Doyle came out after his appointment to the House of
8:57
Lords and at the time time when it looked like someone from
9:00
government was trying to parachute him into a nice plum
9:03
and back royal ship, he was merely just not very good at his
9:07
job in Downing St. Yes, well, not very.
9:10
It's Robin Downing Street. I think that sort of says a lot,
9:14
doesn't it really? But I mean, you've worked with
9:16
someone for a number of years, you might have a clue about
9:19
judgement calls that they took, like the one that Matthew Doyle
9:21
clearly made in the past. So you know, yes #10 would say,
9:25
well, we suspended him from the Labour whip as soon as we found
9:29
out about these revelations in the press.
9:31
But what does it say about the Prime Minister that he had to be
9:33
told that by the press about his own director of communications
9:37
judgement? I think that kind of raises
9:39
questions. Little rickets, what did you,
9:41
what did you say that? That perked an eyebrow.
9:43
I did raise a diplomatic eyebrow, yes.
9:46
Olly Robbins was instructed not to tell the foreign secretary
9:49
that number 10 was hunting for a post for Matthew Doyle.
9:53
I mean, that shows, you know, the really difficult pressures
9:56
that these top civil servants can be put under by #10 They
10:01
were pressing hard for Mandelson to get to Washington, possibly
10:04
without even vetting. They were trying to physician,
10:08
you know, one of their friends in a, you know, plush
10:12
ambassadorial job. And to his great credit, Ory
10:15
Robbins stood out against that. And that was fairly quickly
10:17
dropped. So it's a quite a pressured
10:20
environment. But I think, I mean, one of the
10:22
stories that has come out of this is real tensions between
10:26
#10 and now the Prime Minister and the civil service.
10:30
And I think a lesson is that the prime minister's gotta work now
10:33
to restore, you know, relations with the civil service, to
10:36
rebuild trust. We do need the functioning
10:39
relationship between #10 and the civil servant have no, you know,
10:42
we've got crises in all directions.
10:44
We've got war in Europe, war in the Gulf.
10:47
Now we can't have a breakdown in relations between the Prime
10:50
Minister and the Foreign Office. So I think there's a big job of
10:54
work to rebuild trust, get a new leader into the Foreign Office
10:57
soon, because this has been very damaging at a time when they're
11:00
going through quite wrenching change and downsizing in the
11:04
Foreign Office. And they couldn't really have
11:06
come at a worse time. But they need to start the
11:08
rebuilding of trust now. One of the points I'm sure down
11:11
will make to me at some point is that look for all those
11:14
revelations that the pair of you have pointed out that came out
11:19
during the evidence session is that Olly Robbins is talking
11:22
about people in down the street, not Keir Starmer himself.
11:26
So Keir Starmer vindicated as, as Olly Robbins evidence at the
11:32
Select Committee here vindicated everything that Keir Starm was
11:34
saying in Parliament. Yes, they effectively I am
11:37
outraged and I cannot believe that I personally have not been
11:41
told all of these things. No, I don't think so, because I
11:44
think there are questions about Keir Starmer.
11:46
And when you take a step back from this and look at the big
11:48
picture, we must forget that one of the reasons why there was so
11:52
much pressure on the Foreign Office, one of the reasons why
11:54
the Cabinet Office was saying to the Foreign Office, you know,
11:56
this guy doesn't even need to go through the vetting, was because
12:00
of Starmer's original decision to appoint, well, at least
12:04
announce the appointment of Mandelson.
12:06
So it was effectively done, as it were, before he'd gone
12:09
through the vetting process. And that went against the advice
12:13
of Sir Simon Case and all we have now is Keir Starmers word
12:17
that had he known that Peter Mandelson had failed in adverted
12:22
commerce, his vetting, obviously the Foreign Office would put it
12:25
a different way. They would say they were
12:26
concerns flagged. But had he known that, he would
12:30
have not gone ahead with the appointment.
12:32
And I think, well, A, that's a counterfactual and, B, that, you
12:35
know, there were some real reasons to think that maybe
12:37
that's not what would have happened.
12:39
Partly the fact that Cabinet Office didn't seem to be that
12:41
bothered about the betting to the extent that they said it
12:44
shouldn't even be happening in the 1st place.
12:46
But I thought it was also very interesting what Olly Robbins
12:48
said about potential diplomatic fallout.
12:51
There'd been pressure put on the US and on Washington to go
12:55
through the process that they have to approve a British
12:58
ambassador to the US. And there was clearly not just
13:01
going to be a lot of political fallout, but potentially
13:04
diplomatic fallout as well if Peter Mandelson was going to,
13:07
you know, if we euphemistically call it be unappointed as a
13:11
result of the outcome of, of, of the vetting process.
13:16
How bad, then, do you think all this has been?
13:19
Or how bad do you think today's been for Keir Starmer?
13:21
I mean, I think it's, it's really quite bad in terms of the
13:25
questions it raises about Kiss Starmer's own judgment.
13:29
Think it also raises some very serious questions about Kiss
13:32
Starmer actions. We found out about all of this
13:35
because it sounds to me like what happened was he got very
13:39
angry and he decided quite quickly to sack Olly Robbins, to
13:44
put pressure on him to go. Olly Robbins now says he's had a
13:46
dismissal letter this week. And I thought it was clear from
13:49
what Olly Robbins said that some of the stuff that the Prime
13:52
Minister has been saying in terms of Olly Robbins's
13:56
accountability, his responsibility was not even put
14:00
to Olly Robbins before he was dismissed.
14:03
And that seems to be to be quite a serious breach of due process
14:07
in relation to somebody who is a very well respected public
14:10
servant. So I think this is very bad for
14:13
Keir Starmer. The thing I will say again,
14:14
looking at the big picture is that things were already pretty
14:18
bad for him politically before this happened.
14:20
So does this make a material difference in the here or now to
14:24
how long Keir Starmer has got left in Downing St.
14:27
That I'm less clear on? Because I think there's no way
14:30
that he's going to go before the local elections unless he
14:32
resigns anyway. There's actually no way his
14:34
party gonna look to get him out of of Downing St.
14:38
And even after the local elections, you know, the process
14:42
might take some time. So it's done him no favors.
14:44
Does it materially change his fortunes, you know, in the next
14:48
two to three weeks? Probably not from my
14:50
perspective. We'll we'll come back to his his
14:54
future in a second, but Lord Ricketts just picking up on some
14:57
of those points there. Do you think there's a do you
15:00
think there's a a case now where Keirs Armour might be slightly
15:04
regretting going to war with the Civil service, might be slightly
15:07
regretting firing Ollie Robbins? I hope so.
15:11
I'll leave Sonia with the political analysis, but I think
15:14
now he, as everybody else will be clearer about what exactly
15:19
Ollie was doing and the fact that he was carefully following
15:22
long established process designed to ensure that the
15:26
actual detail of the vetting process stays secret.
15:30
As already said, thousands of people go through developed
15:32
vetting. They have to lay bare their
15:34
personal life, their financial affairs, their contacts.
15:39
You know, there can be an awful lot of very intrusive
15:41
information there. So it has to be, as he put it,
15:45
in a box and kept in a box with only the outcome of the process
15:49
disclosed to ministers. And I think if the Prime
15:51
Minister had understood that better and understood there was
15:54
number hiding or obfuscation or overriding going on in the
15:58
Foreign Office, it was scrupulous observing of the
16:00
rules, he might have come to a different conclusion.
16:03
And as Sonia says, it did seem to be, you know, a decision
16:06
taken in anger on the basis of, let's say, incomplete advice and
16:11
evidence that this very distinguished, talented civil
16:15
servant who is committed to national security and spent 25
16:20
years looking after the interests of the country, he's
16:22
suddenly fired, leaving a big gap at the top of the Foreign
16:25
Office. So, yeah, I hope there's a bit
16:27
of reflection goes on about the quality of the briefing.
16:30
He had no doubt he was entirely, you know, he he meant it when he
16:35
said that he was angry and it was staggering, but he'd
16:38
understood what was actually going on.
16:40
I think perhaps he would have thought twice about sacking
16:44
Ollie and and making sure that he understood the system better
16:47
in the future. Rodrick is, are you not a little
16:50
surprised at least that Olly Robbins might not have maybe
16:55
even had a conversation with his effectively line manager, the
16:58
cabinet secretary, Sir Chris Wormwood?
17:00
Just saying, look, this is this is what come back to me in the
17:04
developed betting process. This is where I'm thinking of
17:07
leaning to what are your what are your thoughts?
17:10
But instead, he just kept it all to himself.
17:12
Olly explained at length to the committee why he didn't feel he
17:17
could go to his line manager and say, look, there's been a
17:20
wrinkle or two, but we're sorting it out.
17:22
It'll be OK. Because as soon as you do that,
17:24
you open this sealed box of the vetting material.
17:30
You invite further questions as to what the wrinkles might be.
17:33
You transfer the kind of responsibility of decision
17:36
taking away and therefore you put at risk this very intrusive
17:41
process of vetting which requires individuals to lay out
17:45
their personal details, their financial details, their
17:48
contacts in a way which can damage the system.
17:52
So he decided he would take the responsibility.
17:54
He thought that was his job. He didn't share the process that
17:58
led up to the decision and that that had always been the way
18:01
this decision making or vetting had been done.
18:05
Yeah, I mean, people can question that, but it seems to
18:07
me he laid that out in a very persuasive way and in a way
18:11
which showed that he took his responsibilities very seriously.
18:15
Sonia, take yourself back two years.
18:17
If you were playing future political bingo, would you have
18:21
at any point put the former chief public prosecutor going to
18:26
war with the Civil Service as being the thing that you thought
18:29
might be the political scandal of the future?
18:32
I wouldn't have necessarily predicted that this would have
18:35
come up in quite the way that it did, I have to say.
18:38
But for me personally, as somebody who's observed British
18:41
politics, you know, for the last however long it is, I do think
18:45
there were signs that Keir Starmer has actually got quite
18:48
poor judgement as a Prime Minister on a range of issues.
18:53
You know, some might say it even goes back so far as to the fact
18:56
that he chose to serve under Jeremy Corbyn's shadow cabinet
19:00
at a point where actually lots of people who are senior in the
19:02
Labour Party now, who are in cabinet positions chose to do
19:05
senior roles on the backbenches instead.
19:07
So some might even say that that showed poor judgement.
19:11
Some people might say it's a fact that he, he clearly sort of
19:14
adopted a position that would get him elected by party members
19:19
as leader. That's not a position he's
19:22
really stuck talked to as Prime Minister.
19:23
So there are all kinds of questions I think to be asked
19:26
about his judgement that make me not necessarily, I wouldn't have
19:30
predicted this particular crisis potentially, but I, I, I'm not
19:37
surprised that he's run into hot water because I'm not sure that
19:41
his approach to governing and to government is one that's
19:44
necessarily conducive to being a Prime Minister and running, you
19:49
know, being on top of a machine that is as complex as.
19:53
Lord Ricketts, given everything that you've seen unfold over the
19:56
last week or so, if you were back in the civil service right
20:01
now, how confident would you be that your political masters are
20:05
always looking out for you? Or would you always be a little
20:07
bit nervous now that you might be 1 mistake away from being
20:10
thrown under a bus? Well, I, I mean, I think the
20:15
impact of this on other senior civil servants sort of working
20:19
in and around Olly Robbins and with #10 can only be damaging.
20:23
But I think you can overdo this sort of chilling effect on the
20:27
civil service business. I was in the Foreign Office
20:30
yesterday, as it turns out. I mean, people are getting on
20:32
with their jobs. Most people wouldn't have
20:34
actually met Olly Robbins. You know, there's a massive
20:37
issues that they have to deal with.
20:38
They're a resilient professional organization.
20:41
Sonia, is this something that just a couple of political
20:44
journalists and a former civil servant and a few people in
20:47
Southwest one are worried about or do you think this is actually
20:50
coming through with the public? I think that's, I would be
20:54
surprised if it's got massive, massive cut through, to be
20:57
honest. I would imagine that people may
20:58
have just clocked, but there's more stuff that's come out about
21:02
Peter Mandelson and the way he was appointed.
21:05
And I, I would expect that somebody who just kind of
21:09
follows the news occasionally would, would know perhaps that
21:14
something's going on with Peter Mandelson.
21:16
But that's kind of pretty much all they need to know.
21:18
And in many ways voters don't need to concern themselves with
21:22
the detail and the insurance and outs of this.
21:24
That doesn't, however, mean that it's not very important and that
21:28
it's not important for Parliament to be scrutinising
21:31
this and for journalists to be trying to uncover what went on
21:34
behind the scenes. Because while this may not
21:37
matter to every single voter, it goes to really important
21:41
questions, I think about how ministers and the civil service
21:45
work together. I think it goes to important
21:48
questions about the character of our Prime Minister, whether he's
21:52
prepared to take responsibility for poor judgement calls or
21:55
whether, you know, as I sort of think the evidence suggests,
21:58
he's rather quick to make other people take cop the blame for
22:03
things that are really, you know, he should step up and say,
22:05
look, I run the government, I'm the Prime Minister, the buck
22:08
stops with me. So even though the public may
22:11
not be engaged with every twist and turn, it's a very technical
22:14
story. I still think it's very
22:17
important that journalists in Parliament are scrutinising
22:19
their. So what do you think it means
22:21
for his future Sonia? I think his future was already
22:24
hanging in the balance. I think that Labour MPs are
22:29
dissatisfied enough with him now and with his performance in the
22:34
polls. And that's not just to do with
22:36
this. This is to do with, you know,
22:37
his popularity ratings. It's to do with what's going on
22:39
in the economy that that he he is in peril as Prime Minister.
22:45
That said, there are a number of things that act in his favour if
22:49
he wants to stick around. 1 is there's absolutely no way his
22:52
party will act against him before the local elections.
22:55
They want him to own the local elections results.
22:58
The second reason is that there's no obvious candidate to
23:01
take over and importantly, with a fully worked up policy agenda.
23:05
So I think MPs are wary of the risk of replacing Keir Starmer
23:10
with someone else, there being a honeymoon and then six months
23:13
later them being in a very similar position.
23:16
So that all acts in his favour in terms of the fact that MPs
23:21
are really worried about the next general election.
23:24
But it takes a lot for Labour MPs to act and there are things
23:28
that are holding them back. So he may last longer than some
23:33
of some people in the Westminster bubble are
23:35
predicting. He may even last the year.
23:38
Oh, but even to the end of the year, heaven for.
23:40
Fame could do. I think he could do.
23:42
I think the Labour Party is notorious for not acting
23:46
swiftly. That said, what I will say is I
23:48
think it would be an absolute disaster for the Labour Party to
23:51
go into the next election with Keir Starmer at the helm, given
23:54
where his poll ratings are. Lord Ricketts, do you think
23:57
today is the last we hear about Olly Robbins in and involved in
24:02
this affair, or do you think there's more to come out of it?
24:06
I don't think there's more to come out on Olly Robbins.
24:09
I mean, he's going to no doubt have a long discussion about
24:12
his, the way he was sacked and there'll be some kind of
24:14
employment tribunal case there. I think the fallout for the
24:18
Prime Minister will go on. But there are new questions that
24:21
have been raised today that will no doubt echo around Parliament.
24:25
And my concern is the distraction this is from the
24:28
real issues the Prime Minister needs to grapple with, of
24:30
course, the domestic issues, but also the international ones.
24:33
He's done very well, I think, internationally in his time as
24:37
Prime Minister. He's he's got a good reputation
24:39
abroad. We need him to be out there
24:42
trying to resolve the problems in the Gulf and help the
24:45
Ukrainians and the rest of it. All this is consuming bandwidth
24:49
that I think needs to be applied to the, you know, the huge
24:52
international issues, you know, which frankly, you know, over
24:55
shadow this issue, this row, this difficulty which will pass
25:00
and, you know, it will, you know, they will move on from it.
25:03
But my goodness, it's a political distraction.
25:06
It's an energy sapping for the Prime Minister when he's got a
25:10
lot of other things to do. And, you know, I think the
25:12
foreign secretary as well, I think the foreign secretary now
25:15
sees that she's going to have to really get stuck into ensuring
25:18
the Foreign Office is working well with ministers.
25:21
And just lastly, Sonia, then over the last month or so, how
25:26
hi was Keir Starmer's stock price?
25:28
How had he fared the Iran war, how had it gone down with his
25:31
MPs? And on the flip side of that,
25:34
how bad has the last week been for him?
25:36
So I agree with Lord Ricketts that he's done a lot better on
25:39
the international scene than he has a domestic scene.
25:42
Unfortunately, I don't think that matters as much as some
25:47
people might wish it to with voters.
25:50
I think the next general election is going to be all
25:52
about the state of the economy, how people are feeling at the
25:55
end of the month. Of course international events
25:57
play into that, as we've seen with Iran.
26:01
But I, yeah, I, so I think there are a lot of people saying,
26:04
well, look, Keir Starmer's bought himself some more time,
26:08
done really well on the international scene and Labour
26:11
MPs are not going to want to switch Prime Minister at a time
26:14
of global instability. And there may be something to
26:17
that. But I just think you, you, the
26:20
local election results are going to be dire for Labour and the
26:23
emotional experience of seeing those losses, you know, people
26:26
can say, oh, they're priced in. Labour MPs know how badly
26:29
they're going to be doing. If you're a Labour MP in an area
26:31
that's always had a Labour council that's dominated by
26:34
Labour and you lose a lot of council seats, that is going to
26:39
have a, a big emotional impact on Labour MPs.
26:41
So I, yeah, I, I, I, I, I don't think the fact that he's done
26:47
well on the international stage is going to save him
26:50
politically, I'm afraid. Well, on that rather damning
26:53
verdict of the Prime Minister, Lord Ricketts, Sonia, Sonia,
26:57
thank you very much for your time.
26:59
Thank you so much. Thank you.
27:02
So this morning we heard from Olly Robbins and we heard that
27:06
number 10 had a quote, dismissive approach to vetting.
27:12
Do you think that's good enough from the government?
27:14
Well, I don't accept that there was a dismissive approach
27:18
because the day after Peter Manderson was announced, you
27:23
know, given his appointment which was made on the 20th of
27:26
December, he was actually emailed to say that an official
27:30
would be in touch regarding his clearance.
27:32
There was another e-mail that was mentioned as well that he
27:35
was told he'd be going through the betting process and it was
27:38
one of the most important first steps.
27:41
So betting, I think was clearly at the heart of this appointment
27:44
and I think he was aware. Wouldn't it have made a lot more
27:48
sense had to have done these checks before giving Lord
27:52
Mandelson, a man with quite a chequered history, the job in
27:56
the first place? Well, look, I think, you know,
27:58
the Prime Minister has reviewed and strengthened the process.
28:01
It cannot be right that any official thinks that they should
28:04
not be flagging any concerns with the Prime Minister or the
28:06
ministers because they are fundamentally accountable to the
28:09
House and they're accountable to the British public.
28:14
So. But I do think it's important to
28:16
note that actually it is quite common where appointments are
28:21
announced that betting takes place afterwards.
28:25
You know, Sir Ali also told MPs that that was actually normally
28:29
the case. This was certainly not a one
28:32
off. So you know this has been a
28:34
process that has existed, it appears on many appointments.
28:39
But this is a career civil servant that we're talking about
28:42
here, a man who served many governments, governments of
28:45
different color in different, different parties, saying that
28:49
he had, quote, a strong expectation coming from Downing
28:52
St. that Lord Mandelson, quote, needed to be in post and in
28:56
America as quickly as humanly possible.
28:59
This was a man put on unrealistic pressures, wasn't
29:01
he? Well, look, I think, you know,
29:03
what Ollie Haley said in the evidence he gave to committee is
29:08
that he is not somebody who would bow to pressure from
29:10
anyone. And he was confident that his
29:12
team were actually handling the process quite well.
29:15
And that this is coming from him.
29:17
I think, you know, he was well aware that the inauguration was
29:21
going to take place of, of President Trump, Trump.
29:23
So clearly there was some kind of time pressure.
29:27
But the fact that he did say that he wouldn't bow down to
29:30
pressure, you know, I, I, I think is quite clear.
29:34
Do you think that during this whole saga that quote full due
29:40
process was followed? Well, look, I think, you know,
29:43
we've got to be clear that there is auk betting process.
29:46
It is right that it's independent.
29:48
It's got to be independent because we need people to
29:50
cooperate equally. We need to make sure that
29:53
sensitive information of any person that's part of that
29:56
process isn't shared across Whitehall and there's got to be
29:58
confidence in that process. And I, you know, respect that
30:02
principle. But you know, you do have to ask
30:05
questions. On what basis did Olly Robbins
30:08
make a decision that he did not then need to flag concerns about
30:13
somebody failing vetting? Not the content of what was in
30:16
the UK Vetting Agency's concerns, but actually to be
30:20
able to flag to ministers and Prime Minister.
30:23
I think that's quite an absurd position to be in.
30:26
When I was out on the doors, certainly that was people were
30:29
quite shocked that that was even a process.
30:31
And I think many of us were quite surprised too, because in
30:35
the end it's ministers and the Prime Minister that's
30:37
accountable to the House and accountable to the British
30:40
public. So how is it possible that any
30:42
official would think that actually they don't then need to
30:46
flag concerns. It's not about sharing the
30:48
detail, it's about flagging simply that there was a concern
30:51
in the system. Keir Starmer stood in in front
30:54
of the House and said three times that full due process was
30:58
followed. Now it may have been done
31:03
inadvertently. It may have been done and the
31:05
Prime Minister didn't want to mislead the House.
31:08
But doesn't it look like that when the Prime Minister said
31:10
that full due process was followed and Lord Mandelson had
31:13
passed his vetting for the job, the House was nonetheless.
31:18
Well, look, Keir Starmer made very clear in his statement that
31:21
he had asked the then Cabinet Secretary Chris Wormald to
31:25
review the process and he did do that.
31:27
At no point was he was it flagged with him by Olly Robbins
31:31
or any other official that there was a concern in the vetting
31:35
process. So absolutely, you know, what
31:37
Keir Starmer relied on is when even when he did ask the
31:39
questions, even when the process was being reviewed, he was told
31:43
that all those processes had been followed.
31:46
It has only come to light subsequently that there is a
31:50
process within the Foreign Office where if somebody doesn't
31:52
pass the vetting, then they can override clearly that decision.
31:57
And that is the information that Keir Starmer has found out.
32:00
That is what he has changed immediately so that nobody, no
32:03
official should be able to have that level of, you know,
32:07
autonomy to undertake such a decision because in the end,
32:10
even Olly Robbins is accountable.
32:13
And how did he decide that? It was in his gift not only to
32:18
make a decision and then have mitigations to address that, but
32:22
how did he think it was not right to raise that with the
32:26
Cabinet secretary when he was asked to review the process or
32:29
every other opportunity that existed for when these questions
32:33
were being asked? Are you not the least little bit
32:36
worried or concerned that there seems to be a culture that has
32:42
developed in Downing St. in which either people are too
32:45
scared or just don't want to tell the Prime Minister the
32:49
uncomfortable truth? I think, you know, one of the
32:52
things that this does highlight is clearly there was a there was
32:55
a culture in the Foreign Office where this is probably seen to
32:58
be a norm. So I don't know how many times
33:01
this has happened where, you know, somebody has gone through
33:03
the vetting process there, there there needs to be mitigations or
33:07
there's been flags. And how many other times that
33:09
they have actually put in place a plan, for example.
33:13
And clearly, the previous government will know much more
33:16
about that culture. But of course, every government
33:18
will inherit a culture. And, you know, what this Prime
33:22
Minister and his cabinet have been trying to do is restore
33:24
trust back into politics by making sure that there is
33:28
accountability in the system, but equally making sure that
33:33
officials are very, very clear as to what is expected.
33:36
Now, you know, there's been a lot of things, speculation
33:39
about, you know, the culture within the organization in the
33:42
at the end of the day, the civil servants are there to serve the
33:46
British public, too. This is a wider thing than just
33:49
the culture within the civil service, isn't it?
33:51
Because in in opposition, Keir Starmer said that he's not the
33:54
sort of person that points a finger at people beneath him.
33:57
He's the person who takes it on the chin himself.
34:00
Well in this circumstance it's Olly Robbins who is very much
34:03
having the finger point at him. In the past we've had Sue Grey.
34:07
She was a person who wasn't up to task and has left and has
34:11
left office. Matthew Doyle, he's a man who
34:13
wasn't up to task and now now left office.
34:15
Morgan McSweeney wasn't up to it.
34:18
He's gone because of Lord Medicine.
34:19
Isn't this a Prime Minister who not not an issue with the
34:22
Foreign Office? This is an issue with the Prime
34:24
Minister, who always finds someone else to blame except
34:28
himself. I served in Kier Star, Michelle
34:30
Cabinet, I work very closely with him.
34:32
He's a man of great integrity. He takes his public service duty
34:36
really, really, you know, seriously and he wants to go on
34:40
and deliver for the British public.
34:43
Now, this will be as frustrating as it is for him as it is for
34:46
anybody else. In the end, he's got to rely on
34:49
officials and the people around him to carry out the task or the
34:53
job that he's asked them to do with honesty and to feed that
34:57
back. Now, every organization will
34:59
have issues like this. Leadership is about addressing
35:02
those issues. Clearly, some of these
35:03
individuals were not fit for the jobs that they were given and
35:07
they've had to go. And this is the Prime Minister
35:10
that is really, really clear that he will not sit and wait
35:13
and let these things continue to fester.
35:15
He's going to take decision. He's going to change the process
35:17
because in the in the end he wants to deliver for the British
35:20
public. We've got a cost of living
35:21
crisis, we've got a war in Ukraine and Iran and people are
35:25
looking to him to to help them ease some of those issues that
35:29
they are facing. He's got to rely on that team
35:31
around him. But doesn't all this show that
35:33
this is a man who's pretty bad at picking that team?
35:36
Only Robbins is the latest to go.
35:37
We've had two chiefs of staff, we've had a couple of cabinet
35:42
secretaries, we've had God knows how many director of
35:44
communications. Is that about to go?
35:46
He's very bad at picking that team, isn't he?
35:49
Well, look, you know, the first thing he did was apologise about
35:52
appointing Mandelson. He made it very clear if he had
35:54
the information, he would never ever have appointed him, you
35:59
know, So I, I think, you know, he's been very, very clear about
36:02
his position. Now look, many of the British
36:06
public, when I'm out on the doors, I'm not talking about
36:08
this issue, this is a very much Westminster obsession about
36:12
individuals, that people don't even know who they are and their
36:15
names don't exist. It doesn't mean much to them.
36:17
They've elected a government to serve them and what they want to
36:20
see from this government is delivery on the issues that we
36:23
had in our manifesto and the issues that they are grappling
36:25
with at the moment. Now I hear what you're saying
36:28
around judgement. The Prime Minister has clearly
36:30
taken responsibility. Most of the public, when I speak
36:33
to them, value the, the fact that the Prime Minister is
36:35
prepared to do that and then move on and try and address the
36:39
other issues that he has been elected to do.
36:42
You know, so I, I, I, I do think it's an unfortunate situation
36:46
that, you know, there are, have been individuals around Kier
36:49
that, you know, have not understood.
36:51
This is a man of integrity. And if you are not adhering to
36:56
the Nolan principles and you're not governing with integrity,
36:59
then of course he is going to dismiss you.
37:01
Preet Kaur Gill, thank you very much for your time.