It’s been a busy week in Westminster with calls for the Prime Minister to resign over Peter Mandelson’s failed security vetting.
All eyes have been on Sir Keir Starmer since he sacked Former Foreign Office Chief Sir Olly Robbins last Thursday 16th May.
This came after a Guardian investigation revealed that despite concerns being raised about Mandelson during his security vetting, the Foreign Office went ahead with his appointment.
Having been announced as the UK’s ambassador to the US in December 2024, Peter Mandelson was formally appointed as US ambassador on 10th February 2025. However, he was sacked in September last year over his links to the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
Over the past week, the Prime Minister has been facing calls to resign over claims he misled MPs when he told them that “full due process” had been followed – a claim 10 Downing Street strongly denies.
Monday: Starmer addresses MPs
In a statement to MPs on Monday afternoon, Starmer said he takes “responsibility” for appointing Peter Mandelson, and that he shouldn’t have taken that decision.
Explaining the timeline of events, he said he became aware that the Foreign Office granted Mandelson Developed Vetting clearance against the recommendations of the UK’s Security Vetting (UKSV) agency “for the first time” on Tuesday 14th April.
He said: “I should have had [this information] a long time ago.”
Regarding why Mandelson was appointed before security vetting had been completed, he said: “For a direct ministerial appointment, it was usual for security vetting to happen after the appointment but before starting in post.” He has since changed this process.
He also explained that while UKSV’s decision is binding for many government departments, for the foreign office, appointment decisions are ultimately at their own discretion. The Prime Minister has now suspended these powers.
Continuing his statement, Starmer said it was “absolutely unforgivable” that Sir Olly had let the then-Foreign Secretary David Lammy sign a statement that developed vetting clearance had been granted.
He said had he known about UKSV’s recommendations, he would not have appointed Peter Mandelson.
Sir Adrian Fulford has now been appointed to lead a review into security vetting.
Closing his statement, the PM called these events “incredible” and “beggars belief” – statements greeted with laughter by the House.
Leader of the opposition Kemi Badenoch claimed Sir Keir had breached the ministerial code in not revealing this information “at the earliest opportunity” – this would have been during last week’s Prime Minister’s Questions on Wednesday 15th April.
Putting six questions to the PM, she asked whether he would stand by his previous assertion while in opposition that a prime minister should resign if they mislead the house.
Meanwhile, leader of the opposition Sir Ed Davey accused the PM of blaming his officials, asking why he asked “so few questions personally about the vetting process himself”.
Both he and Green Party Leader Zack Polanski called on Sir Keir to resign.
Reform UK MP Lee Anderson alongside Your Party MP Zarah Sultana were both made to leave the House after accusing the PM of lying.
Tuesday morning: Robbins’ response
Speaking to Emily Thornberry’s Foreign Affairs Committee, Sir Olly said there was an “atmosphere of pressure” from No. 10 over Peter Mandelson’s vetting.
Thornberry opened the meeting by telling him to “feel freer to give fuller answers to us” than he had at his previous appearance before the Committee on 3rd November 2025. “You clearly told us the truth, but you only told us part of the truth,” she said.
Robbins accused No.10 of taking “a generally dismissive attitude” to Mandelson’s vetting clearance in January last year, saying: “The focus was on getting Mandelson to Washington quickly.”
He said that when he arrived in post on 20th January, “there was already a very, very strong expectation coming from number ten that he needed to be in post and in America as quickly as possible”.
By this point, Peter Mandelson’s name had already been submitted to the King as a nomination and the PM had announced his appointment. He said that agrément (the formal process by which the host country accepts the appointment) had also been obtained.
“Throughout January honestly, my office, the foreign secretary’s office were under constant pressure. There was an atmosphere of constant chasing,” the former foreign office chief said, with very frequent phone calls asking, “has this been delivered yet?”.
When questioned by Emily Thornberry over whether there was any evidence of this pressure, he said he was sure there were phone calls showing contact between his office and the No. 10’s private office, but that there were no emails.
In response, Thornberry highlighted the need for records “to show the extent of pressure the foreign office was being put under by No.10.”
When pressed on why he didn’t know more about the contents of the vetting decision, Sir Olly explained that while he was told it was a “borderline” case, he’s “never seen a UKSV document”. He also declined to confirm whether anything had been identified that wasn’t already in the public realm.
He maintained that vetting was completed “to the normal high standard” and that “whilst there was an atmosphere of pressure, the department rigorously followed process […] despite some in government never believing it was a process we needed to follow”.
In response to a question from Sir John Wittingdale MP, he also confirmed that “it would have damaged” relations with the US to pull Mandelson as ambassador at that stage.
Alongside this, he revealed that in March 2025 he was asked to “potentially” find Lord Matthew Doyle, the PM’s director of communications, a position as an ambassador.
Tuesday afternoon: MPs respond
Downing Street denied Robbins’ claims of an “atmosphere of pressure” and “dismissive attitude” towards Mandelson’s vetting.
In an emergency debate called by the Conservatives on Tuesday afternoon, Kemi Badenoch said the Prime Minister “personally decided to appoint a serious, known national security risk” due to his known relationship with Epstein and links to Russia and China.
Accusing the PM of using Sir Olly as a “human shield”, she said: “The idea that it is No. 10 who are the victims of others not following due process is quite frankly laughable.”
She backed SNP MP Stephen Flynn’s call for a no confidence vote, adding: “This Prime Minister has put the country’s national security at risk. He must take responsibility, it is time for him to go.”
The Lib Dems accused the PM of trying to “appease Trump” with Mandelson’s appointment, while Reform said he is trying to “dump the entire scandal on one official”. Meanwhile the Green Party said the PM showed “totally unacceptable” “wilful ignorance” over the appointment.
In response, Darren Jones, Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, said: “The government has been and remains committed to keeping the House informed.”
Acknowledging that appointing Mandelson was the “wrong” decision, he added: “I’m here however to account for the government’s accountability on the process that followed.”
Mr Jones also said that the government is working “at pace” to publish the remaining documents related to Mandelson’s appointment, as required by February’s humble address.
Wednesday: PMQs
PMQs were, as expected, dominated by questions over Mandelson’s appointment.
The PM confirmed that Matthew Doyle was considered for an ambassadorial appointment – as is a normal conversation when people leave a position, according to Starmer. But, he said, nothing came of this conversation – and Doyle himself had come out on Tuesday saying he hadn’t known of any such conversations before then.
In her six questions to the PM, Kemi Badenoch pressed Sir Keir on whether he stands by his statement that “full due process” was followed in Mandelson’s appointment, referring to Robbins’ testimony of a dismissive approach from No.10.
Reiterating her concerns about national security, she said there is “no way” she would have appointed someone with Mandelson’s reputation, asking the PM “what planet” he was on over claims that Mandelson was given access to classified briefings before being cleared.
Badenoch also said Robbins’ dismissal was unfair – an opinion shared by the Green Party’s Ellie Chowns – and asked the PM to “take responsibility and go”.
Starmer maintained that due process was followed, and that Sir Olly’s testimony that he hadn’t shared his decision with No. 10 “puts to bed all the allegations levelled at [him] by those opposite in relation to dishonesty”.
He also reiterated that he was unaware of UKSV’s recommendations. Calling this a “very serious error in judgement,” he said: “Nothing is going to distract me from delivering for our country.”
Thursday: Back to the select committee
Thursday morning saw Cat Little, Permanent Secretary of the Cabinet Office (the department’s most senior civil servant) giving evidence to Dame Emily Thornberry’s Select Committee.
In her evidence, she echoed the PM in saying that “due process was followed.”
Referring to Sir Olly’s claims of pressure, she said that while putting together the documents to be published under the humble address: “I’ve not seen any documentation that would formally confirm that level of pressure”.
In regards to the vetting summary, she told the committee she asked Sir Olly for a summary of UKSV’s recommendations, but “it was made clear to me that that information would not be forthcoming.”
Requesting this information directly from security officials, she received it on 25th March but sought legal advice about handling sensitive documents before deciding to share them with the PM on 14th April.
A lack of records has been a frequent issue throughout this saga, and it continued when Ms Little confirmed there was no formal record of the meeting in which Starmer decided to move forward with Mandelson’s appointment – even though “it is normal” to do so.
Ms Little’s versions of events also seemed to suggest – in contrast to Sir Olly’s – that the Cabinet Office advised in favour of vetting Mandelson, not that this was unnecessary.
Beyond the walls of the Select Committee, Thursday also saw an increase in murmurings about the Prime Minister’s future, with political reporters noting unrest among both Labour backbenchers and Cabinet ministers.
What next?
Friday’s headlines were not dominated by the scandal – much to the PM’s relief. Rather, attention has turned to the failure of the Assisted Dying Bill in the House of Lords.
However, the row is far from over. On Tuesday, we heard from Morgan McSweeney – the PM’s former Chief of Staff, who resigned over Mandelson’s appointment in February, taking “full responsibility”.
He, alongside the Foreign Office’s Chief Property and Security Officer Ian Collard and former Foreign Office top civil servant Sir Philip Barton, have all been compelled to give evidence to the Select Committee.
And of course the polls have opened this Thursday 7th May at 7am, which will likely put further pressure on the PM’s survival.
Featured Image Credit: Prime Minister’s Office / Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office
