Starmer still under pressure as sacked civil servant defends actions over Mandelson appointment

BRITISH PRIME MINISTER Keir Starmer remains under pressure after a sacked top civil servant claimed there was a “dismissive approach”to Peter Mandelson’s security vetting from Downing Street. 

Olly Robbins told the UK foreign affairs committee that there was an “atmosphere of pressure” from No 10 to get the appointment through.

Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch subsequently said it is time for Starmer “to go” and agreed with the SNP’s Commons leader Stephen Flynn that a vote of no confidence in the Labour leader should be held. 

Starmer sacked Olly Robbins last week for not disclosing Peter Mandelson failed security checks, but was granted developed vetting (DV) clearance anyway by the foreign office.

He insisted that only the final outcome of the vetting process – which was that Mandelson was granted security clearance – should be shared with ministers, rather than the concerns raised.

Starmer told his Cabinet this morning that Robbins was “a man of integrity and professionalism” who made an “error of judgment” while Downing Street denied claims of a dismissive approach towards the process.

Robbins told the committee this morning that he does not “fully understand” the reasons why he was sacked and is “desperately sad” about it.

The initial announcement that Mandelson was being sent to Washington as UK ambassador was made before Robbins took up the role of permanent under-secretary at the Foreign Office in January 2025.

By that time, the process of clearing the former peer was already well underway – and there had been questions from the Cabinet Office about whether he needed to go through the formal vetting process at all.

When Robbins took over in the foreign office on 20 January, Mandelson had already gone through the cabinet office’s “due diligence” process, approval had been given by King Charles, the US had agreed to him, he was already allowed in the building and was being granted access to “highly classified briefings” on a case-by-case basis – without his security clearance being confirmed.

‘Atmosphere of pressure’

The former official said all those factors “resulted in a dismissive attitude to DV” from No 10 but “despite this atmosphere of pressure” he insisted the Foreign Office’s civil servants carried out the process as normal.

“I was very conscious that if we went through the rigour of our process and decided against granting clearance that would have caused a real problem for the Government and a problem for the country,” Robbins told the committee.

“I was conscious of that without letting it influence my judgment, let alone transferring any of that atmosphere on to the people charged with actually making that assessment.”

MPs on the committee said UK Security Vetting (UKSV), the agency responsible for checks on candidates for sensitive posts, had ticked two red boxes on Mandelson’s form – meaning they had “high concern” and recommended “clearance denied or withdrawn”.

Robbins said he had never seen that form when making the decision on Mandelson’s clearance, but had instead been briefed by foreign office security staff that “UKSV considered Mandelson a borderline case and that they were leaning towards recommending that clearance be denied”.

He said he was told the risks in his case did not relate to Mandelson’s relationship with paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein.

Robbins said: “I was told that UKSV acknowledged, I don’t know in what way, but acknowledged that the Foreign Office might wish to grant clearance with appropriate risk management.”

He told MPs that the normal vetting process was carried out only because the Foreign Office “put its foot down” after the Cabinet Office suggested Mandelson’s status as a member of the House of Lords and a privy counsellor meant that was unnecessary.

He also said dropping Mandelson as the nominee for the Washington post would have caused “quite an issue” with Donald Trump’s incoming administration in January 2025.

Advertisement

During a two-and-a-half hour session in the House of Commons yesterday, Starmer said he challenged Robbins over why he went against the recommendation of UKSV after finding out about it last week.

“I did ask him and I didn’t accept his explanation,” he said. “That’s why I sacked him.”

But Robbins insisted that the confidentiality of the vetting process was “designed to protect UK national security”.

Robbins received the formal letter confirming he had been sacked yesterday and has “sought advice” on it, indicating there could be a legal battle to come.

He told MPs: “I don’t fully understand the reasons that I’m in the position I am in, but that is for a separate process for me to try to get to the bottom of.

“As a human being, I’m desperately, desperately sad about it.”

Asked by reporters about Robbins’ characterisation of No 10’s approach, Starmer’s official spokesman denied a “dismissive” approach had been shown.

“There is a distinction clearly between asking reasonably for updates on an appointment process … I would draw a distinction between the idea of pressure and, you know, being kept informed about the process and the progress of the appointment,” he said.

Calls for no confidence vote

Tory leader Kemi Badenoch claimed Robbins’ evidence was “devastating” to Starmer and showed the British prime minister had misled parliament.

Speaking in the House of Commons this afternoon, she agreed there should be a vote of no confidence in Starmer.

She was responding to an intervention from SNP Westminster leader Stephen Flynn, who asked: “Does she not believe that the sorry souls opposite us should have to put their money where their mouth is, and that there should be a vote of no confidence in this prime minister in due course?”

Responding, Badenoch said: “I think he is right, because I don’t believe the prime minister has the intention of doing the honourable thing himself, even though that’s the standard to which he held everyone else.

“The decision about whether he will ultimately take responsibility for his actions is now up to Labour MPs,” she said, adding: “This cannot go on.

“The prime minister is not fit for Office. The first duty of any prime minister is to keep this country safe. This prime minister has put the country’s national security at risk. He must take responsibility. It is time for him to go.”

Elsewhere, Labour MP Imran Hussain has called for an independent inquiry into the “whole situation” around the appointment of Mandelson, and for “consequences” for Starmer.

“At the heart of this is a toxic and dismissive culture at Number 10. That’s a point we cannot get away from. That dismissal has led us to this place. This is not a small administration breach. It’s a matter of national security,” the Bradford East MP said.

“The British public is not buying it. Surely we should be saying there needs to be a full, transparent, independent inquiry into this whole situation to uncover the truth – that’s what the British public want – with consequences for including the Prime Minister.”

Another Labour MP, Matt Western, defended Starmer and said he had been let down by his advisers. 

“He may have accepted that advice and maybe that advice has now proven to be wrong. But he has been let down by those around him,” he told the House of Commons.

“He’s made a mistake, he understands that and he’s accepted it.”

Readers like you are keeping these stories free for everyone...
A mix of advertising and supporting contributions helps keep paywalls away from valuable information like this article. Over 5,000 readers like you have already stepped up and support us with a monthly payment or a once-off donation.
Learn More Support The Journal