Sir Keir Starmer is facing growing pressure over the Lord Mandelson vetting controversy, as the senior civil servant at the centre of the row prepares to give his version of events to MPs today (Tuesday).
The Prime Minister told the House of Commons on Monday that the situation “beggared belief”, as he was repeatedly challenged over how Lord Mandelson came to be appointed UK ambassador to Washington despite failing security vetting.
During a lengthy and at times heated session in Parliament, Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch led a sustained attack, putting a series of detailed questions to Sir Keir about what he knew, and when.
She pressed him on whether he had misled MPs when he previously said “full due process was followed”, and asked why Downing Street had failed to deny reports last year that Lord Mandelson had not passed vetting.
Mrs Badenoch also challenged the Prime Minister over his claim that no one in No 10 knew about the failed vetting until recently, and questioned how he had referred to sensitive details, including Lord Mandelson’s links to Jeffrey Epstein, if he had not seen the full security file.
Adding to the pressure are claims that concerns about Lord Mandelson were already in the public domain months ago. Reports about the failed vetting process appeared on the front page of a national newspaper last September, raising questions about how widely known the issue was at the time.
Critics have seized on this point, arguing that the Prime Minister should have been aware. As Independent Political Editor David Maddox put it:
“He didn’t need security vetting to know Peter Mandelson was a wrong’un.”
In response, Sir Keir insisted he had not misled Parliament, saying:
“I did not mislead the House of Commons… I accept that information that I should have had and information that the House should have had should have been before the House but I did not mislead the House.”
He maintained that he had been relying on earlier due diligence checks, rather than the formal vetting report, and repeated his claim that Downing Street had not been informed of the security services’ recommendation.
However, he acknowledged MPs would “find these facts to be incredible”, adding: “To that I can only say they are right.”
The focus is now shifting to Sir Olly Robbins, the former most senior civil servant at the Foreign Office, who was sacked last week and will appear before a parliamentary committee this morning.
Sir Olly, who had been permanent under secretary since January 2025, was removed from his post on Thursday evening after it emerged that he had not told ministers that Lord Mandelson had failed the vetting process.
The Government says the Prime Minister was not informed that Lord Mandelson had been deemed a potential security risk, despite advice from UK Security Vetting.
Sir Keir has argued that this information should have been shared, saying there were several points when officials could have alerted Downing Street.
But Sir Olly is expected to defend his actions, arguing that strict rules around the vetting process meant he could only share the final outcome, not the underlying concerns.
He is also understood to be upset by the way events have unfolded, both losing his job and facing strong public criticism.
His friend reportedly told the BBC:
“Olly doesn’t do personal. He never has and he never will.”
The dispute highlights a fundamental disagreement at the heart of the row, whether officials were right to keep details confidential, or whether ministers should have been given fuller information.
Allies of the Prime Minister insist their interpretation of the rules is different, arguing that Sir Olly could and should have made ministers aware of the concerns.
Sir Keir has ordered further reviews into both Lord Mandelson’s appointment and the wider vetting system, as he seeks to draw a line under the issue.
With Sir Olly now set to give evidence today, MPs are expected to examine closely why the information was not shared, and whether changes are needed to how security vetting is handled at the highest levels of government.
