If there’s one thing all government ministers and Labour MPs can agree on, it’s that the scandal over the appointment of Peter Mandelson as US ambassador really needs to be over now.
More time has now passed since his sacking than he spent in the role – almost exactly seven months, from February 10 to September 11 last year.
Yet the revelations keep coming. In normal circumstances, the Prime Minister might have been able to use this stream to justify his decision last autumn, but instead he’s being asked why he made such a controversial choice in the first place.
On Thursday night, the Guardian revealed a new twist: the former Labour bigwig had failed the vetting that took place ahead of his appointment – but the appointment happened regardless.
Understandably, there were immediate questions over Sir Keir Starmer’s judgment. The PM had already announced his pick in December before Mandelson was denied security clearance in January, and he did not withdraw.
But as with many things involving the murky world of the civil service and international diplomacy, it’s more complex than it initially looks.
Want to understand more about how politics affects your life?
Metro’s senior politics reporter Craig Munro breaks down all the chaos into easy to follow insight, in Metro‘s politics newsletter Alright, Gov? Sent every Wednesday. Sign up here.
The vetting process had two stages. First, it was carried out by a government agency called UK Security Vetting (UKSV). Then, the conclusion was provided to the Foreign Office for final approval.
In this case, UKSV decided against granting developed vetting to Mandelson, and top Foreign Office civil servant Sir Olly Robbins overruled that decision.
Downing Street officials say Starmer only heard the result of the second stage – that Mandelson had been cleared. This makes sense, as the vetting process is carried out completely separately from ministers.
The PM only learned about the results of the initial UKSV investigation a couple of days before the Guardian published its story.
In the meantime, he had repeatedly told Parliament that due process was followed in the appointment process. He’s said to be furious after being told the truth.
Who is Sir Olly Robbins?
Sir Olly Robbins, who was sacked last week as the head of the British diplomatic service, has had a long career in the non-political side of government.
He first worked on Downing Street under Tony Blair before serving as one of David Cameron’s Deputy National Security Advisors.
His most prominent role in the public eye was as Theresa May’s top Brexit negotiator for the first withdrawal agreement, later rejected by Parliament.
After six years away from government, he was appointed as Permanent Under-Secretary at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office in January 2025 – becoming the most senior civil servant in one of the most prominent departments.
Shortly after taking up the post, he was responsible for the decision to overrule the UKSV’s conclusion on Lord Mandelson’s vetting.
That sowed the seeds of his departure last week, when the story emerged in the press.
Sir Olly was sacked on Thursday hours after the initial reports emerged, with No 10 insisting he should have flagged the vetting failure with someone in government – especially after those parliamentary statements.
That has been challenged by other former top civil servants, who say the law clearly sets out what can and can’t be told to ministers.
So, this is where we are. On the face of it, Starmer is unhappy – and his opponents are calling for his resignation – because he wasn’t given facts he arguably should never have been given.
But there are two big questions that remain unanswered, and both are potential headaches for the PM.
First – why did Starmer announce Mandelson’s appointment before vetting was carried out?
Sky News reported this morning that the Prime Minister was told in November 2024 that he should only confirm someone to the post once the vetting process was complete.
The timing would suggest that appointing Mandelson well in advance of Donald Trump’s January 2025 inauguration took priority over ensuring he should get security clearance.
And second – why did Sir Olly Robbins decide to overrule the conclusion of the vetting agency?
It could be argued that so many potential issues with the Mandelson appointment were already in the public domain – from his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein to the previous resignations from government – that those flagged in the vetting process wouldn’t make much of a difference.
The government was aware of those issues before he was confirmed to the top role in British diplomacy, so perhaps Robbins believed Starmer was determined to get the green-light for Mandelson no matter what.
That would fly in the face of Tech Secretary Liz Kendall’s argument on the BBC’s Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg, when she said: ‘If he had known that UK security vetting hadn’t cleared him, he would not have made that appointment.’
All may be revealed when the Prime Minister steps up in front of MPs at 3.30pm to give a high-stakes statement on the new revelation and take their questions.
He is expected to tell the Commons he provided misleading information, but it was done inadvertently as he was unaware of the vetting failure.
Whatever happens, it’s unlikely Starmer will face a challenge to his leadership so close to the May local elections – but the resurgence of the biggest controversy of his premiership has undoubtably weakened an already weak PM further.
And if there’s one guarantee in British politics at the moment, it’s that the Mandelson controversy is never quite wrapped up.
Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@metro.co.uk.
For more stories like this, check our news page.