Sir Keir Starmer has stood by his decision to sack the former Foreign Office chief over the vetting process for Lord Peter Mandelson and said he faced only the “everyday pressure of Government” to clear the peer’s appointment as ambassador to Washington.
The Prime Minister has maintained that Sir Olly Robbins was wrong not to have told him the outcome of the so-called developed vetting process and insisted he would not have gone ahead with having the peer as his top diplomat to Washington had he known.
Sir Olly said earlier this week there was an “atmosphere of pressure” and “constant chasing” from Downing Street while the checks were taking place.
Sir Keir said during Prime Minister’s Questions this week that “no pressure existed whatsoever in relation to this case”.
Speaking to The Sunday Times, he said made a distinction between “different types of pressure”.
“There’s pressure – ‘Can we get this done quickly?’ – which is not an unusual pressure. That is the everyday pressure of Government,” he said.
He said a pressure “essentially, to disregard the security vetting element and give clearance” would be something different, and that Sir Olly “was really clear in his mind that wasn’t pressure that was put on him”.
MPs on the Foreign Affairs Committee said UK Security Vetting (UKSV), the agency responsible for checks on candidates for sensitive posts, had ticked two red boxes on Lord Mandelson’s form – meaning they had “high concern” and recommended “clearance denied or withdrawn”.
Asked if he regretted firing Sir Olly so quickly after information came to light about the vetting, Sir Keir said: “When there’s a double red flag not to give clearance and (showing) high concern, then I’m sorry. I’m sorry.
“But I do not accept the argument that that is something which should not be told to the Prime Minister.”
He said it was a “fundamental matter” to have told him about the vetting, not just at the time of the appointment, but also later on.
“I was going out saying that (Mandelson’s) clearance has been given. I’m afraid not bringing that to my attention, it’s not a small matter. It’s a fundamental matter.”
Sir Keir rejected a suggestion he could have been more curious about the clearance.
He said: “When I’m told there’s security clearance, should I go back and quiz officials and say: ‘Are you telling me the truth?’”
The Prime Minister said earlier this week that Sir Olly’s evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee had put to bed any claims that Sir Keir misled Parliament.
To be clear, I am satisfied by the reasons behind Ian Collard not giving oral evidence before the FAC at the moment. We have therefore asked for his evidence in writing. 🧵
— Emily Thornberry (@EmilyThornberry) April 25, 2026
Questions over the vetting scandal will carry on into next week when Sir Keir’s former chief of staff Morgan McSweeney is due to appear before committee of MPs.
Foreign Office official Ian Collard, who Sir Olly said briefed him on the vetting findings that deemed Lord Mandelson a borderline case and leaned towards recommending that clearance be denied, will give written evidence.
He was asked to appear in person before the committee, but its chair Dame Emily Thornberry said on Saturday that the Foreign Secretary had declined this.
She has set out questions for Mr Collard to answer ahead of Tuesday’s session, including whether he felt under pressure to deliver Lord Mandelson’s clearance and to detail his recollection of the meeting he had with Sir Olly about the vetting.
Read MoreSunak: Starmer must take responsibility for Mandelson vetting scandal
Unpopular Starmer a negative on the doorstep, Labour mayors warn
Falklands veteran blasts Trump’s threat to withdraw US support a ‘cruel joke’
Tories’ political domination in Sussex set for its biggest test in decades
Mary Lou McDonald calls for by‑election backing to pressure Government
Government on ‘dangerous path’ over Legacy Bill changes, says John Finucane
