Starmer accuses Robbins of obstructing truth about Mandelson vetting | Keir Starmer

Keir Starmer has accused Olly Robbins of deliberately and repeatedly blocking the truth about the Mandelson inquiry scandal, which puts the sacked senior official at high risk of appearing before MPs on Tuesday.

Six days after the Prime Minister said he learned his pick as ambassador to Washington had failed a security clearance, Starmer admitted the decision to appoint him was a fundamental mistake.

But in a sombre speech to parliament he insisted the Foreign Office was responsible for the “surprising” and “incredible” decision not to brief him or anyone in Downing Street about the review’s recommendation.

Starmer told MPs that the review information has now been handed over to the credible Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC), which is expected to consider it before sending it to the government within days for public release.

The Guardian understands this includes a brief summary document (which the prime minister is also believed to have now seen) containing details of Mandelson’s personal life and financial and business dealings, as well as advice that Mandelson failed to vet.

The ISC is expected to press for more information, which could include an audit trail of who within the government knew what and when about the decision to investigate, as well as minutes of Robbins’ meetings at the State Department about the incident.

ISC chairman Lord Beamish also asked Lords ministers to release documents relating to decision-making within the Foreign Office, but was told by the Cabinet Office that his committee did not exist.

“If so, can you expedite this information to ensure it reaches us as quickly as possible?” he said.

Labor MPs were furious that the scandal had resurfaced at a time when the prime minister was rebuilding his good faith in handling the Iran crisis. Many said they believed he was left in the dark, but it was an unwelcome reminder of the fundamental misjudgment of Mandelson’s appointment.

During a dramatic day at Westminster that included two hours of questions from MPs following Starmer’s packed speech to the House of Commons, it was revealed:

He ordered an investigation into any security concerns about Mandelson’s tenure in the top diplomatic post, amid concerns about potential leaks.

Robbins, who was the State Department’s top official before his dismissal last week, did not mention the review failure to his boss, cabinet secretary Chris Wormald, even as he reviewed the process last September; Robbins also did not mention it to any other No. 10 official or his aides.

Wormald’s predecessor, Simon Case, had recommended Keir Starmer complete Mandelson’s security clearance before his appointment as ambassador, but the suggestion was ignored.

Robbins overturned the UK Security Review’s (UKVS) decision to fail Mandelson just 24 hours later, giving little time for any potential mitigating measures to be put in place. This authority has now been taken away from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Starmer claimed he had not misled the House of Commons about Mandelson, although he admitted his previous version of events was wrong.

Starmer told MPs: “A deliberate decision was made to keep this material from me. This was not a failure to ask. This was not an oversight. It was a decision to ensure that this information was not shared repeatedly.”

The Prime Minister said it was “frankly surprising” that he had not been told. While he accepted that “sensitive, personal information” provided during the investigation process needed to be protected, he rejected the idea that ministers could not be told the general advice.

His position puts him on a collision course with Robbins, who is due to appear at a key hearing of the House of Commons foreign affairs committee (FAC) on Tuesday; Downing Street is braced for any new revelations from the former permanent secretary that could derail his plan to get the government back on track.

Starmer appointed Mandelson before Robbins took on the role of Foreign Office chief, and also before the vetting took place, with senior officials telling the Guardian it was clear to them that No 10 wanted Mandelson in Washington, whatever the risk.

Labor MP Emily Thornberry, chair of the foreign affairs select committee, told MPs that security appeared to be a “secondary consideration” for Downing Street in the appointments process.

“Doesn’t this seem to some members of the Prime Minister’s team to be a priority over everything else for Peter Mandelson to get this job?” he asked. Starmer said he would have stopped Mandelson from going to Washington if he had known.

Robbins is expected to argue on Tuesday morning that Mandelson followed established practice in approving his security clearance and that he may have broken the law by telling No 10.

Sources close to him say that he is not planning to bomb the committee, but will answer the questions asked to him honestly. He will push back on the fact that Mandelson “failed” his security clearance and maintain that the final decision on the warrant was his.

Senior Whitehall officials criticized Starmer’s decision to sack Robbins for following the rules, suggesting the move had created a chill in the civil service.

A senior Labor Party source said they thought the prime minister would survive the next few days despite the Mandelson scandal, one of the most significant crises of his leadership, but the long-term consequence would be toxic relations with Whitehall.

“The Foreign Office will be very hurt by this and what usually happens when ministers lose the trust of their officials, who tend to spend the rest of their time leaking like billy-o,” they added.

Labor MPs told the Guardian they did not believe Starmer’s performance had “moved the dial” in favor of a leadership challenge that many believed would come before the next election, but not anytime soon.

“I think broadly we’re in the same place; there are significant questions here about the prime minister’s decision that will be hard to ignore, but at the same time the situation in the world at the moment means he’s safe for now,” said one former minister.

“Something like this happens every day, it shifts the balance of the PLP away from Keir,” said another. “But that doesn’t make any of his rivals more plausible.”

The Prime Minister’s allies have said they believe Starmer will recover from this particular scandal. “I think we learned in these moments that straightforwardness is our friend, and you can see his obvious frustration that he can’t even be as forthright as he would like,” one counselor said.

But some MPs said they were skeptical of any genuine remorse from the prime minister after receiving a series of planned questions from Whips, including quotes from Jeffrey Epstein’s victims. “It’s absolutely bizarre to pretend to care about the victims at any point,” one MP said.