Prime Minister Keir Starmer has accused former Foreign Office permanent secretary Olly Robbins of deliberately obstructing the truth about the security vetting scandal surrounding Peter Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador. In a high-stakes statement to Parliament, Starmer admitted his decision to appoint Mandelson was a fundamental mistake, but blamed the Foreign Office for a “staggering” failure to brief him or Downing Street about the vetting advice.
Starmer told MPs that the vetting information has now been handed to the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC), which is expected to assess it before public release within days. The Guardian understands this includes a summary document detailing Mandelson’s personal life, financial dealings, and the recommendation that he failed vetting. The ISC is expected to push for further information, including an audit trail of who knew what and when.
During a dramatic day in Westminster, it emerged that Starmer has ordered an investigation into security concerns over Mandelson’s tenure. Robbins, sacked last week, did not inform then-cabinet secretary Chris Wormald about the vetting failure during a review last September, nor did he tell any No 10 officials. Simon Case, Wormald’s predecessor, had advised Starmer to complete Mandelson’s vetting before appointment, but was ignored.
Robbins overturned the UK Security Vetting decision to fail Mandelson just 24 hours later, with the Foreign Office now stripped of this power. Starmer claimed he had not misled Parliament, despite admitting his previous version of events was wrong. He said: “A deliberate decision was taken to withhold that material from me. It was a decision taken not to share that information on repeated occasions.”
Starmer’s position puts him on a collision course with Robbins, who is due to appear before the Commons foreign affairs committee on Tuesday. Downing Street is braced for potential revelations that could derail efforts to move the government past the scandal. Labour MPs have expressed fury, viewing it as an unwelcome reminder of a fundamental misjudgment.
