Prime Minister Keir Starmer is facing mounting pressure ahead of a Commons statement on Monday, as the fallout over Peter Mandelson's failed security vetting continues to engulf Whitehall. Senior government figures have indicated that Mr Starmer's position remains precarious, with the prime minister insisting he was "staggered" not to have been informed of the vetting decision earlier.
Olly Robbins, the former Permanent Secretary at the Foreign Office who was forced out within hours of the disclosure, is expected to give evidence to the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee on Tuesday. Mr Robbins is understood to be furious at his treatment and believes he was following due process. Some ministers fear he may use his appearance to challenge Downing Street's account of events, potentially damaging the prime minister.
The Guardian revealed that two other senior civil servants, Cabinet Secretary Antonia Romeo and Cabinet Office Permanent Secretary Catherine Little, were aware of the situation last month. Government sources denied they had been "sitting on" the knowledge, citing a complex process to assess the risks of sharing highly sensitive data, including with the prime minister, who was only informed on Tuesday.
At a press conference, Mr Starmer described the failure to brief him as "unforgivable" and said he was "furious" about what had occurred. Downing Street squarely blamed the Foreign Office, with the prime minister's official spokesman stating that No 10 had "repeatedly" sought the facts. When asked whether this amounted to a cover-up, the spokesman did not reject the suggestion, saying the prime minister had been left uninformed.
Ciaran Martin, a former senior civil servant and close friend of Mr Robbins, told the BBC that his colleague appeared to have been made a scapegoat. He argued that vetting is a "risk assessment" rather than a simple pass or fail, and that officials are duty-bound not to disclose details to ministers. However, another senior government official with knowledge of the process said it was highly unusual for the Foreign Office to overrule UKSV advice, suggesting Mr Robbins could at least have informed a senior minister of the decision.
The chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Emily Thornberry, accused Mr Robbins of failing to tell the truth through omission in his previous answers, by leaving out his decision to overrule the vetting advice. She raised the possibility that additional pressure may have been applied to him from Downing Street, something the committee now wishes to explore.
