The Peter Mandelson vetting scandal continues to undermine Keir Starmer’s premiership, prompting extensive parliamentary scrutiny and raising serious questions about governance and transparency. Morgan McSweeney, Starmer's former chief of staff, has been summoned before the foreign affairs select committee, an unusual move highlighting the gravity of the situation. This follows allegations that Downing Street exerted immense pressure on the civil service to approve Mandelson's appointment as the UK’s ambassador to Washington, despite significant concerns.

Olly Robbins, the former top Foreign Office official, was sacked by Starmer last week after testifying before MPs. Robbins recounted an "atmosphere of pressure" from No 10, making it impossible to deny clearance for Mandelson and a "dismissive" attitude to vetting. He told MPs that Mandelson's case was considered "borderline" by UK Security Vetting (UKSV), a claim that has become a central point of contention.

Robbins’ testimony resonated with many senior civil servants. Lord Sedwill, a former cabinet secretary, urged the prime minister to retract accusations and reinstate Robbins, while Sir Simon McDonald, a predecessor in Robbins' Foreign Office role, suggested Starmer had acted too hastily. Even in media circles, Robbins' handling of Mandelson's "developed vetting" clearance, and not informing Starmer, seemed to find some vindication, with one journalist calling it "the very best of the civil service."

However, a closer look at the facts reveals stark contradictions to Robbins' "borderline" claim. The core document, Mandelson’s vetting file completed by UKSV on January 28, 2025, used a clear traffic-light system, and the vetting officer explicitly chose the "clearance denied" option, marked in red. Downing Street, the Cabinet Office, and even media reports have confirmed this "red flag" assessment. MPs on the committee were reportedly briefed that UKSV gave Mandelson "two ticks in the red boxes," and Starmer himself stated the agency recommended denial "with red flags."

Robbins, by his own admission, did not see the vetting file, describing it as sitting in a "hermetically sealed box," and relied entirely on an "oral briefing" from Ian Collard, the Foreign Office’s then director of security. He claimed Collard briefed him that UKSV considered Mandelson "a ‘borderline’ case" and was only "leaning towards recommending clearance be denied," with an indication that the Foreign Office "may wish to grant" clearance with mitigations. This raises questions about how mitigations could be properly considered without seeing the full context of the risks.

Robbins defended "the system," stating that in the Foreign Office, clearance is granted by the department, not solely by UKSV, allowing him to quibble with language about Mandelson "failing" the assessment. He described the vetting as a "dialogue" between security professionals where assessments of risk "shifted up and down a bit," leading to speculation that a "red" denial might have morphed into an "amber" by the time of his briefing. He maintained that not seeing the file was standard for national security, yet later admitted considering looking at it seven months *after* Mandelson was sacked, a contradiction that further undercuts his defence.

The pressure from No 10 was significant. Robbins testified that the tone was "get it done," with an "unmistakable feeling" of strong expectation for Mandelson to be in post quickly. Allegations include No 10 "chasing" the posting and being "dismissive" of security vetting, with one claim of a chief of staff insisting: "Just f***ing approve it." Robbins also revealed that No 10 had tried to secure an ambassadorial posting for Starmer's former director of communications, Matthew Doyle, although nothing came of it. Starmer confirmed these conversations, stating "When people leave roles there are often conversations about other roles, but nothing came of this."

Starmer's decision to sack Robbins sparked "deep unease" within his own government. During a cabinet meeting, ministers including Deputy PM David Lammy, Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood, Health Secretary Wes Streeting, and Chancellor Rachel Reeves warned against alienating the civil service and questioned the justification for firing an "outstanding civil servant" while praising his integrity. Starmer, however, maintained Robbins "made an error of judgment" but was a "man of integrity and professionalism," insisting Robbins' evidence "puts to bed all the allegations levelled at me" regarding dishonesty, as he was not informed of the denial.

Despite Starmer's denials, the scandal has reignited concerns about his leadership, with opposition leaders like Kemi Badenoch demanding answers on other controversial issues, such as Mandelson’s links to a "Kremlin-linked defence company" and his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, which Starmer reportedly read about in a due diligence report. Several senior Labour sources believe Starmer is "on borrowed time," describing a "weirdly resigned" atmosphere within the party.

The Foreign Affairs Select Committee continues its investigation. Cat Little, the permanent secretary at the Cabinet Office, will testify to offer a counterpoint to Robbins’ evidence, having obtained the vetting summary and struggled to get information from the Foreign Office. Ian Collard is expected to be questioned on his briefing to Robbins. Philip Barton will also give evidence on pressure from No 10. Morgan McSweeney is set to appear next Tuesday, facing scrutiny as a "most powerful figure in recent Labour history." The Intelligence and Security Committee is also reportedly "furious" at the lack of key documents relating to Robbins' decision to overturn the clearance recommendation and his failure to record notes of crucial meetings.

In the aftermath of the fiasco, the civil service has launched a recruitment drive for 10 new vetting clearance officers for UKSV, offering up to £42,000 a year. The job description emphasizes the role's integral nature to security vetting, involving processing sensitive information and making informed decisions, underscoring the renewed focus on this critical process following Mandelson’s failed security check.