Keir Starmer has publicly accused Olly Robbins, the sacked top official at the Foreign Office, of deliberately obstructing the truth surrounding the Peter Mandelson vetting scandal. Six days after admitting Mandelson, his choice for Washington ambassador, had failed security vetting, Starmer conceded that the appointment was a fundamental mistake. In a solemn address to parliament, he vehemently placed blame on the Foreign Office for a "staggering" and "incredible" decision to withhold crucial vetting advice from him and Downing Street officials.

Starmer revealed that the sensitive vetting information has now been forwarded to the trusted Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC), which is expected to review it before its public release. This information reportedly includes a summary document detailing aspects of Mandelson’s personal life, financial affairs, and business dealings, along with the definitive recommendation that Mandelson had failed vetting. The ISC is anticipated to seek further details, such as an audit trail of who possessed what information and when, alongside minutes from any relevant meetings held by Robbins within the Foreign Office concerning the affair. Lord Beamish, chair of the ISC, also urged Lords ministers to release all pertinent decision-making documents from the Foreign Office, which the Cabinet Office had previously claimed did not exist.

A dramatic day in Westminster saw several key details emerge. Starmer has ordered an investigation into any security concerns related to Mandelson’s tenure in the top diplomatic role, especially amid potential leak worries. It was revealed that Olly Robbins, then the most senior Foreign Office official, failed to inform the then-cabinet secretary, Chris Wormald (even during a review of the process), or any other No 10 official about Mandelson's vetting failure. Furthermore, Simon Case, Wormald’s predecessor, had explicitly advised Starmer to complete Mandelson’s security vetting *before* his appointment, advice that was ignored. Crucially, Robbins overturned the United Kingdom Security Vetting (UKSV) decision to deny Mandelson clearance just 24 hours later, leaving little scope for mitigation. In response, the Foreign Office has since been stripped of this power.

Starmer firmly denied misleading the Commons, despite acknowledging his previous account was incorrect. He stated, “A deliberate decision was taken to withhold that material from me. This was not a lack of asking. This wasn’t an oversight. It was a decision taken not to share that information on repeated occasions.” The Prime Minister reiterated that it was "frankly staggering" he was not informed, asserting that while sensitive personal information should be protected, the overall vetting recommendation should not be withheld from ministers. In the wake of the controversy, Starmer has ordered a full review of the vetting system. He also clarified that rules have been changed, ensuring that ambassadorial appointments can no longer be publicly announced before security vetting is successfully completed, a direct reversal of the process followed for Mandelson.

Starmer provided a detailed timeline, noting that Mandelson’s vetting took place in December 2024 and January 2025, *after* his appointment had already been announced. On January 28, 2025, UKSV recommended denying Mandelson developed vetting clearance. However, just one day later, the Foreign Office exercised its unique power to overrule this decision – a power suspended by No 10 after the news broke. Starmer told jeering MPs that he found these facts "incredible," agreeing with their sentiment. He condemned the Foreign Office for withholding this critical information from senior ministers, stating, "That is not how the vast majority of people in this country expect politics, government or accountability to work, and I do not think it’s how most public servants think it should work either."

The scandal has enraged Labour MPs, who believe Starmer was misled but still point to a fundamental misjudgment in Mandelson’s appointment, eroding goodwill built from handling the Iran crisis. Olly Robbins is set to appear before the Commons foreign affairs committee (FAC) in a high-stakes hearing, with Downing Street anticipating potential new revelations. Starmer had appointed Mandelson before Robbins assumed his role and before vetting was complete, suggesting to senior officials that No 10 prioritised Mandelson's appointment regardless of risk. Labour MP Emily Thornberry suggested security was a "secondary consideration," to which Starmer responded that he would have blocked Mandelson had he known the vetting outcome.

Sources close to Robbins indicate he will argue he followed established practice by approving Mandelson’s security clearance, possibly breaking the law if he had informed No 10. He is expected to assert that the final clearance decision was his to make, pushing back against the notion Mandelson "failed" vetting. Senior Whitehall officials have criticised Starmer’s decision to sack Robbins, believing he merely followed rules, which they fear has created a "chill" within the civil service. A senior Labour source predicted Starmer would survive the immediate crisis but foresees "toxic relations" with Whitehall, potentially leading to increased leaks. While MPs don't anticipate an imminent leadership challenge, significant questions about Starmer's judgment persist, despite his allies believing he will overcome the scandal through candour.