Starmer brushes off reports of cabinet divisions over Mandelson scandal
In his broadcast interview this morning, Keir Starmer also brushed off suggestions that cabinet ministers do not support him over the sacking of Olly Robbins.
Asked if he thought the cabinet was united behind him, Starmer replied:
The cabinet is working really hard on a huge amount of issues and what we’re delivering at the moment.
We’re preparing for the king’s speech and all the further measures that we’re going to need to take the country forward.
And of course, the issue we discuss at cabinet a lot in recent weeks is the war on two fronts, the ongoing war in Ukraine and the developing situation in Iran.
What we discuss at cabinet is the international aspect of that, but also the domestic impact in relation to that and the measures that we need to take to ensure that we’re assessing the risks and making sure we’re protecting people in this country from those impacts.
When asked a similar question this morning, the Home Office minister Alex Norris just described stories about cabinet divisions as “a load of guff”. (See 9.18am.)
Shabana Mahmood has been in France today signing a new UK-France deal relating to intercepting small boats.
Here are some pictures from her trip.
Three hereditary peers have been sworn in as life peers, so they can continue to sit in the House of Lords, the Press Association reports. Hereditary peers are set to vacate their seats on the red benches during the next fortnight, as the current parliamentary session comes to an end. But Liberal Democrats Lord Addington and Earl Russell and independent crossbencher the Earl of Kinnoull will now retain their right to speak and vote in parliament as life peers.
Former Foreign Office permanent secretary Philip Barton to give evidence to MPs about Mandelson appointment on Tuesday
Sir Philip Barton, another former permanent secretary at the Foreign Office, will give evidence to the Commons foreign affairs committee at 9am on Tuesday next week, the committee has announced. Barton was in post when the appointment of Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the US was announced, but he had left by the time the department had to decide whether or not to approve his developed vetting. It is thought he was not happy about the way his team was under pressure to push through the appointment.
Morgan McSweeney, Keir Starmer’s former chief of staff, is also giving evidence to the committee on Tuesday, but a time for that has not been announced yet.
There is a lot of colourful detail in Tim Shipman’s cover story for the Spectator about the Peter Mandelson vetting controversy and the sacking of Olly Robbins. Shipman claims that, the day before it was announced the Peter Mandelson was going to be the ambassador to Washington, Keir Starmer sent the peer a text message saying:
You’ll be brilliant in challenging circumstances, … And after many years of our discussions, we get to work together side by side. I really look forward to that.
Shipman also claims that Starmer now thinks he went too far in what he said criticising Robbins after he sacked him in the Commons on Monday. Shipman says:
It will be a costly mistake. The ‘payoff to beat’ is the £370,000 paid to Philip Rutnam when he was forced out of the Home Office in 2020. But it is understood that (former cabinet secretary Chris) Wormald’s compensation (not yet revealed) was double or more than that (‘It will make your eyes bleed,’ says a source), and Robbins can expect even more. ‘We’re looking at half a million quid minimum to make this go away,’ says one serving official. Others think double that. ‘Olly was earning a million a year in the private sector,’ a friend of Robbins says. ‘He is a younger man, his loss of future earnings is higher and the price for the reputational damage is huge.’
Robbins’s supporters say he only really wants to serve in government. He told one friend: ‘I was an OK banker, but I was a brilliant civil servant.’ A former colleague predicts: ‘I think Olly will get his job back when we get a new prime minister.’
Karl Turner has now published a statement on X saying that posting his letter to the speaker about Keir Starmer earlier (see 1.24pm and 1.31pm) was an “administrative error”, that he has taken it down, and that he has apologised to the speaker.
MPs who want to raise an allegation of contempt of parliament with the speaker are required to do so privately.
Swinney says SNP would make supermarket price cap for essential foods ‘urgent priority’, and urges shops to act now
Libby Brooks is the Guardian’s Scotland correspondent.
John Swinney has called on retailers to “do the right thing by people who are struggling right now” with food inflation, suggesting that major supermarkets should introduce the most eye-catching pledge of the SNP’s Holyrood manifesto before the party has even been re-elected.
The plan – to cap supermarket prices for essential goods such as bread and milk – was immediately slammed as a “potty gimmick” by retailers, while many constitutional academics cast doubt on whether the Scottish parliament would have the powers to legislate for it, putting them on another collision course with the UK government.
But today Swinney confirmed legislation will be in place this year – if his party can form a government after 7 May – and asked supermarkets to take immediate, voluntary action to support people before the new law is in place, with food inflation rising even before the full impact of the Iran War is felt.
Swinney said the legal cap on the cost of essential food items would be “a matter of urgent priority” after the election. He went on:
But that does not mean people are not struggling now – every time people get to the checkout with their messages, they are seeing the impact. So I am asking the large supermarkets to take immediate, voluntary action today – in advance of the new law being in place this year.
Here is a screengrab of the letter to the speaker that Karl Turner posted on X calling for Keir Starmer to be referred to the privileges committee. (See 1.24pm.)
Karl Turner joins Tories in proposing inquiry into whether Starmer misled MPs with PMQs comments about Robbins
Alexandra Topping
Alexandra Topping is a Guardian political correspondent.
Karl Turner has joined opposition MPs in calling for Keir Starmer to face a powerful Commons committee to examine whether the prime minister misled parliament about the appointment of Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the US.
Turner, who was elected as Labour but who has currently had the whip withdrawn after making a series of interventions criticising Starmer and No 10, has written to the speaker of the Commons urging him to refer Starmer to the privileges committee, the same body which found that Boris Johnson had lied in the Commons over the lockdown parties scandal.
In a letter to the speaker posted on X (but later removed), Turner wrote that he was raising a “matter of serious concern regarding the conduct” of the prime minister during PMQs yesterday.
He said it was clear that the prime minister’s characterisation of the evidence given by Olly Robbins about the Mandleson vetting controversy was “at best, inaccurate and, at worst, misleading to the house”.
During PMQs, Starmer’s said no pressure was put on the Foreign Office to approve the vetting of Mandelson, using quotes from Robbins, the former Foreign Office permanent secretary.
The Conservatives, with the support of the Liberal Democrats and the SNP, have been pushing for the privileges committee to intervene in the crisis, and are understood to be exploring a Boris Johnson-style motion which could see all MPs to vote on whether the committee should explore if Starmer was in contempt of parliament.
Mel Stride, the shadow chancellor, said that the privileges committee should examine if Starmer had misled parliament, saying testimony by Robbins on Tuesday “directly contradicts” assurances given by the prime minister in the Commons.
Stride told GB News:
Our belief is that the prime minister has misled parliament, because what he’s said in parliament is that that pressure was not applied, and he’s been contradicted by Olly Robbins.
At the No 10 lobby briefing the PM’s spokesperson said Starmer did not mislead the house, and was “being very specific in terms of talking about the allegation that there was pressure around taking up the role regardless of the vetting outcome”. They added: “We’ve been very clear that wasn’t the case.”
Bibby Stockholm asylum barge contractor admits overcharging UK government £118m
The Australian company that ran the Bibby Stockholm asylum barge has admitted it overcharged the British government by £118m, Lauren Almeida reports.
Starmer brushes off reports of cabinet divisions over Mandelson scandal
In his broadcast interview this morning, Keir Starmer also brushed off suggestions that cabinet ministers do not support him over the sacking of Olly Robbins.
Asked if he thought the cabinet was united behind him, Starmer replied:
The cabinet is working really hard on a huge amount of issues and what we’re delivering at the moment.
We’re preparing for the king’s speech and all the further measures that we’re going to need to take the country forward.
And of course, the issue we discuss at cabinet a lot in recent weeks is the war on two fronts, the ongoing war in Ukraine and the developing situation in Iran.
What we discuss at cabinet is the international aspect of that, but also the domestic impact in relation to that and the measures that we need to take to ensure that we’re assessing the risks and making sure we’re protecting people in this country from those impacts.
When asked a similar question this morning, the Home Office minister Alex Norris just described stories about cabinet divisions as “a load of guff”. (See 9.18am.)
Starmer suggests Tories making false claims about his handling of Mandelson vetting row to derail Labour’s domestic agenda
Keir Starmer has accused opposition parties of making false claims about his handling of the Peter Mandelson vetting row because they are trying to derail Labour’s domestic agenda.
The controversy has been in the news for a week now, with Kemi Badenoch in particular initially accusing Starmer of lying about what happened. All of the main opposition parties have called for Starmer’s resignation over this.
But, speaking to reporters this morning, Starmer said claims being made by his critics were wrong, and politically motivated.
He told reporters at an event in Newcastle:
I think it’s very important to see what’s going on here.
Last week, my political opponents were saying that there’s no way a civil servant wouldn’t have told me about the outcome of a developed vetting security exercise. Turns out my political opponents were completely wrong about that.
Then they said that I was dishonest. It turns out they were completely wrong about that.
They are now putting any allegation they can and I will tell you for why – they are opposed politically to what this government is trying to achieve.
We have introduced the Employment Rights Act to give people more rights at work, and the Renters’ Rights Act giving those in rented accommodation more rights is coming in very shortly, we’ve invested a huge amount in the NHS.
But my political opponents don’t like that and so you have these allegations that keep on coming.
Starmer also defended his decision to sack Olly Robbins, head of the Foreign Office, last week after learning that Robbins had not told him the UK Security Vetting officials who interviewed Mandelson were opposed to him getting clearance.
Starmer said:
I strongly think that the outcome of the security clearance exercise, the developed vetting exercise, was important and should have been brought to my attention, and could have been brought to my attention, and had it been brought to my attention before Peter Mandelson took up his post and I wouldn’t have appointed him …
(Robbins) makes it clear he took a decision not to give me that information. I think that was the wrong decision.
Swinney proposes £200 ‘culture pass’ for every Scot turning 18 if SNP win Holyrood election
Severin Carrell
Severin Carrell is the Guardian’s Scotland editor.
John Swinney is bidding to counter Scottish Labour’s offer to overhaul Scotland’s arts policy with a promise to give every young adult a £200 “culture pass” to ensure older teenagers are not priced out of arts and music events.
The Scottish National party leader said the pass, which would be given to every teenager when they turned 18, was based on similar policies in Italy, France and Spain. It would cost about £10.8m to deliver.
“The days when Scotland’s cultural offering was out of reach to anyone based on their background must be over,” he said. Teenagers would be able to “enjoy the world-class cultural offering on their doorstep, supporting the creative industries and possibly opening up new horizons for young people.”
With inflation pushing up live music and gallery prices, it is unlikely £200 will go far but the SNP is also pledging to test whether a minimum wage for Scottish artists can be introduced, similar to Ireland’s successful scheme to give 3,000 artists €325 (£283) a week in three-year cycles.
Anas Sarwar, the Scottish Labour leader, said earlier in April his party would introduce a pilot project to top up the incomes of 1,000 artists, musicians and cultural entrepreneurs to a minimum wage of around £14,000 a year.
Cultural groups have been pressing for such a scheme in Scotland, and with both the SNP and Labour committed to a pilot project projected to cost £30m, it seems likely one will start.
Swinney said the SNP would also reinstate the agency Screen Scotland as a distinct organisation to support the film industry, establish a film and TV school at a university and also a new national company for traditional music, on similar lines to Scottish Opera and Scottish Ballet.
Labour’s plans are more far-reaching. It argues Scotland’s arts sector needs a significant overhaul in funding and governance, by making arts and cultural companies eligible for enterprise and national bank funding, and by restructuring the government agency Creative Scotland.
Cat Little’s evidence to foreign affairs committee – snap verdict
Readers, I’m afraid you deserve an apology. That was all a bit dull. Cat Little is a very senior civil servant, and she was giving evidence on a controversy that has gripped Westminster to such an extent that it would ultimately bring down the PM. But she did not say anything that will substantially revise our opinion of what happened. Her appearance also confirmed a Westminster truism; while ex civil servants can be extremely newsworthy talking in public, when serving civil servants are on the record, their default mode is boring.
From Keir Starmer’s point of view, boring is good. You won’t be seeing much of this on the TV news. And, with Labour desperate to talk about other things, that is a bonus.
On most points of substance, what Little said was helpful to the PM. She plausibly refuted the claim that the Cabinet Office suggested Peter Mandelson did not need vetting. (See 9.47am.) She said that “due process” was followed in the Mandelson appointment (see 10.09am) – confirming what Starmer told MPs, and contradicting Tory claims parliament was misled. And she also appeared to criticise Olly Robbins for withholding information from her about the UK Security Vetting report. (See 10.01am.)
But she was not prepared to go as far as saying that the PM was right to sack Robbins. And at one point she suggested that, when Starmer did sack Robbins, he was doing so on the basis of limited information; he got rid of Robbins without having read the memo about what mitigations the Foreign Office proposed to put in place to handle the risks around Mandelson appointment, she suggested.
She also hinted – but quite vaguely (see 11.19am) – that No 10 has not been fully forthcoming yet about all the minutes relating to Starmer appointing Mandelson.
These are answers of interest to Whitehall specialists. But, to most people, the process points in relation to this story are irrelevant, because the key error was the decision to make Mandelson an ambassador in the first place. On the merits of that, the country has already made up its mind.
Little refuses to say if she thinks Robbins did anything wrong
Towards the end of the hearing, Little was asked if she thought Robbins did anything wrong when he decided to give Mandleson vetting clearance, and when he subsequently without information from the PM. Did he do anything wrong, or was he acting within his powers?
Little replied:
I’m not here to opine on that, and I don’t think it’s appropriate to give a judgment …
’m not going to be drawn into giving an opinion on the actions of one of my former colleagues. I do not think that is within the scope of my responsibilities in discharging the will of parliament in the humble address.
<a href