Sir Keir Starmer has defended his decision to sack Sir Olly Robbins, stating that the former Foreign Office chief only faced the “everyday pressure of Government” during the vetting process for Lord Peter Mandelson. The prime minister insisted that he would not have appointed Lord Mandelson as his diplomat to Washington had Sir Olly informed him of the outcome of the developed vetting process.
Distinction Between Types of Pressure
Earlier this week, Sir Olly told a committee that there was an “atmosphere of pressure” and “constant chasing” from Downing Street while the checks were taking place. However, during Prime Minister’s Questions, Sir Keir said that “no pressure existed whatsoever in relation to this case.” Speaking to The Sunday Times, he made a distinction between different types of pressure. “There’s pressure – ‘Can we get this done quickly?’ – which is not an unusual pressure. That is the everyday pressure of Government,” he said. He added that pressure “essentially, to disregard the security vetting element and give clearance” would be something different, and that Sir Olly “was really clear in his mind that wasn’t pressure that was put on him.”
Lord Mandelson's Sacking and Police Inquiry
Lord Mandelson was sacked months after his appointment over his links to Jeffrey Epstein and is now facing a police inquiry over claims he leaked sensitive government documents to the paedophile financier when he was business secretary. The prime minister has told MPs that he and his ministers only found out last Tuesday evening that UK Security Vetting had advised that Lord Mandelson should be denied clearance. But Sir Keir faces questions over how he could have failed to know about the issue when his communications chief was told directly and the story became headline news.
Red Flags and Regret
MPs on the Foreign Affairs Committee said UK Security Vetting had ticked two red boxes on Lord Mandelson’s form, meaning they had “high concern” and recommended “clearance denied or withdrawn.” Asked if he regretted firing Sir Olly so quickly after information came to light, Sir Keir said: “When there’s a double red flag not to give clearance and (showing) high concern, then I’m sorry. I’m sorry. But I do not accept the argument that that is something which should not be told to the prime minister.” He said it was a “fundamental matter” to have told him about the vetting, not just at the time of the appointment, but also later on. “I was going out saying that (Mandelson’s) clearance has been given. I’m afraid not bringing that to my attention, it’s not a small matter. It’s a fundamental matter.”
Questions Over Curiosity
However, Sir Keir rejected a suggestion he could have been more curious about the clearance. “When I’m told there’s security clearance, should I go back and quiz officials and say: ‘Are you telling me the truth?’,” he said.
Upcoming Committee Appearances
Questions over the vetting scandal will continue next week when Sir Keir’s former chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, is due to appear before a committee of MPs. Foreign Office official Ian Collard, who Sir Olly said briefed him on the vetting findings that deemed Lord Mandelson a borderline case and leaned towards recommending that clearance be denied, will give written evidence. He was asked to appear in person before the committee, but its chair, Dame Emily Thornberry, said on Saturday that the Foreign Secretary had declined this. She has set out questions for Mr Collard to answer ahead of Tuesday’s session, including whether he felt under pressure to deliver Lord Mandelson’s clearance and to detail his recollection of the meeting he had with Sir Olly about the vetting.
Sir Keir has faced calls to resign amid the fallout from the Lord Peter Mandelson vetting scandal, and Cabinet divisions are said to have emerged over his handling of the process, including his decision to sack Sir Olly.
