Dr Austen Morgan is a barrister at 33 Bedford Row Chambers. He is the author of: Pretence: why the United Kingdom needs a written constitution, London 2023.
Enter stage left: Sir Keir Starmer, a north London human rights lawyer, and a slip of a prime minister.
Enter stage right: Sir Olly Robbins, the sacked foreign office permanent secretary, and nemesis of the former.
After three days of preliminary skirmishes in parliament, where are we on the Peter Mandelson scandal?
First, we know the prime minister formally secured his appointment as UK ambassador to the US. That was judged wrong — as could have been anticipated — by events within months (February to September 2025). The substantive historical responsibility rests with Sir Keir, with his bleating apologies. (For the record, Jeffrey Epstein, and his abuse of women and girls, has faded as the essence of the story. It is now about threats to national security and repairing any damage.)
Second, following the political decision of 18 December 2024 to appoint Mandelson, number 10 – backed by the cabinet office – wanted him in Washington, DC for the Trump inauguration on 20 January 2025. Robbins (in his letter of 21 April 2026 to the foreign affairs committee) accuses Starmer of having a ‘dismissive approach’ to any question of Mandelson being security vetted; he was, after all, a member of the house of lords and a privy councillor, permitted to view foreign office documents!
(A query has arisen about Robbins’ predecessor as permanent secretary, Sir Philip Barton, who was removed in January 2025, as to whether this also related to the Mandelson appointment.)
Third, Starmer and Robbins have differing views of security vetting, conducted by United Kingdom Security Vetting (‘UKSV’). For the prime minister, one either fails or passes – as with a driving test. He exploded on 14 April 2026 (two days before the Guardian leak), when the cabinet office told him seemingly that the red box on a form dated 28 January 2025 had been ticked: ‘Clearance Denied or Withdrawn’.
Robbins – with eight thousand foreign office officials holding developed vetting (‘DV’) status – has never seen such a form (other than his own). He told the foreign affairs committee that, on 29 January2025, he met with Ian Collard, head of personnel security in the foreign office. The latter told him that Mandelson was a borderline case, but UKSV was leaning towards recommending clearance denied. The foreign office (mainly Robbins) decided to grant clearance, managing Mandelson risks – largely to do with General Counsel and China and Russia – with mitigations.
The key question remains: would Robbins have done this for a civil service candidate; or was he acting under continuing pressure from number 10? His answers to the foreign affairs committee (where he expanded on his answers of 3 November 2025) were respectively yes and no.
Starmer’s view of vetting – ironically for a public lawyer – is dogmatic. Robbins referred to the (woke) guidance for DV applicants on gov.uk. This refers to six outcomes, including ‘clearance awarded with aftercare’ and ‘clearance awarded with caveats and/or restrictions’ – Mandelson’s outcome.
The argument will continue. Starmer owns an unwise decision (Ambassador Mandelson), but he continues – like a feckless adolescent – to blame others and thinks that gets him off the hook. The prime minister now has a credibility problem: he has to prove that he would have stopped the appointment (on which he was so keen) if he had known about the UKSV recommendation – if it ever existed in recorded form.
Robbins – who will come under further scrutiny from Starmer loyalists – also has a problem. Surely the recommendation should have been conveyed to the foreign minister, or even whispered official (Olly Robbins) to official (Morgan McSweeney) to get to the political level?
The former permanent under-secretary has a functional answer: vetting is about risk and pre-empting it; ‘communication and honesty is key’; candidates would not disclose to UKSV, if they thought that personal information – including alcohol and substance use, internet usage and lifestyle & beliefs – might leak into Whitehall and even Westminster.
Starmer must be regretting his decision to sack Robbins, because the issues are now becoming much more complicated.
Robbins had close body protection from the first division association at the foreign affairs committee, and he referred to his dismissal letter of the day before (his birthday!). The normal course is a claim in the employment tribunal within three months, and a financial settlement before a final hearing.
Lord Butler, the former cabinet secretary, has called most unusually for Robbins’ reinstatement.
But what if Robbins takes a more constitutional approach, justifying civil service discretion in the face of ministerial rights to know? Starmer will have diminishing political support. Robbins will have the support of the former cabinet secretaries and other mandarins.
Public opinion, unimpressed with the former, may warm to the latter.
It is significant that Robbins, in his oral evidence, outed Matthew (now Lord) Doyle, Starmer’s director of communications, until March 2025, claiming that number 10 — who said do not tell the foreign secretary (David Lammy) — wanted him to be made an ambassador or sent to Washington to support Mandelson.
And finally Jonathan Powell is also being caught up in labour cronyism, with allegations about his status when conducting the Chagos archipelago negotiations with Mauritius from July 2024.
This saga may still have further to run.
Dr Austen Morgan is a barrister at 33 Bedford Row Chambers. He is the author of: Pretence: why the United Kingdom needs a written constitution, London 2023.
Enter stage left: Sir Keir Starmer, a north London human rights lawyer, and a slip of a prime minister.
Enter stage right: Sir Olly Robbins, the sacked foreign office permanent secretary, and nemesis of the former.
After three days of preliminary skirmishes in parliament, where are we on the Peter Mandelson scandal?
First, we know the prime minister formally secured his appointment as UK ambassador to the US. That was judged wrong — as could have been anticipated — by events within months (February to September 2025). The substantive historical responsibility rests with Sir Keir, with his bleating apologies. (For the record, Jeffrey Epstein, and his abuse of women and girls, has faded as the essence of the story. It is now about threats to national security and repairing any damage.)
Second, following the political decision of 18 December 2024 to appoint Mandelson, number 10 – backed by the cabinet office – wanted him in Washington, DC for the Trump inauguration on 20 January 2025. Robbins (in his letter of 21 April 2026 to the foreign affairs committee) accuses Starmer of having a ‘dismissive approach’ to any question of Mandelson being security vetted; he was, after all, a member of the house of lords and a privy councillor, permitted to view foreign office documents!
(A query has arisen about Robbins’ predecessor as permanent secretary, Sir Philip Barton, who was removed in January 2025, as to whether this also related to the Mandelson appointment.)
Third, Starmer and Robbins have differing views of security vetting, conducted by United Kingdom Security Vetting (‘UKSV’). For the prime minister, one either fails or passes – as with a driving test. He exploded on 14 April 2026 (two days before the Guardian leak), when the cabinet office told him seemingly that the red box on a form dated 28 January 2025 had been ticked: ‘Clearance Denied or Withdrawn’.
Robbins – with eight thousand foreign office officials holding developed vetting (‘DV’) status – has never seen such a form (other than his own). He told the foreign affairs committee that, on 29 January2025, he met with Ian Collard, head of personnel security in the foreign office. The latter told him that Mandelson was a borderline case, but UKSV was leaning towards recommending clearance denied. The foreign office (mainly Robbins) decided to grant clearance, managing Mandelson risks – largely to do with General Counsel and China and Russia – with mitigations.
The key question remains: would Robbins have done this for a civil service candidate; or was he acting under continuing pressure from number 10? His answers to the foreign affairs committee (where he expanded on his answers of 3 November 2025) were respectively yes and no.
Starmer’s view of vetting – ironically for a public lawyer – is dogmatic. Robbins referred to the (woke) guidance for DV applicants on gov.uk. This refers to six outcomes, including ‘clearance awarded with aftercare’ and ‘clearance awarded with caveats and/or restrictions’ – Mandelson’s outcome.
The argument will continue. Starmer owns an unwise decision (Ambassador Mandelson), but he continues – like a feckless adolescent – to blame others and thinks that gets him off the hook. The prime minister now has a credibility problem: he has to prove that he would have stopped the appointment (on which he was so keen) if he had known about the UKSV recommendation – if it ever existed in recorded form.
Robbins – who will come under further scrutiny from Starmer loyalists – also has a problem. Surely the recommendation should have been conveyed to the foreign minister, or even whispered official (Olly Robbins) to official (Morgan McSweeney) to get to the political level?
The former permanent under-secretary has a functional answer: vetting is about risk and pre-empting it; ‘communication and honesty is key’; candidates would not disclose to UKSV, if they thought that personal information – including alcohol and substance use, internet usage and lifestyle & beliefs – might leak into Whitehall and even Westminster.
Starmer must be regretting his decision to sack Robbins, because the issues are now becoming much more complicated.
Robbins had close body protection from the first division association at the foreign affairs committee, and he referred to his dismissal letter of the day before (his birthday!). The normal course is a claim in the employment tribunal within three months, and a financial settlement before a final hearing.
Lord Butler, the former cabinet secretary, has called most unusually for Robbins’ reinstatement.
But what if Robbins takes a more constitutional approach, justifying civil service discretion in the face of ministerial rights to know? Starmer will have diminishing political support. Robbins will have the support of the former cabinet secretaries and other mandarins.
Public opinion, unimpressed with the former, may warm to the latter.
It is significant that Robbins, in his oral evidence, outed Matthew (now Lord) Doyle, Starmer’s director of communications, until March 2025, claiming that number 10 — who said do not tell the foreign secretary (David Lammy) — wanted him to be made an ambassador or sent to Washington to support Mandelson.
And finally Jonathan Powell is also being caught up in labour cronyism, with allegations about his status when conducting the Chagos archipelago negotiations with Mauritius from July 2024.
This saga may still have further to run.