Starmer accuses Robbins of obstructing truth about Mandelson vetting

Starmer claimed that he had not misled the Commons over Mandelson, despite admitting his previous version of events was wrong.

In his statement to MPs, Starmer said: “A deliberate decision was taken to withhold that material from me. This was not a lack of asking. This wasn’t an oversight. It was a decision taken not to share that information on repeated occasions.”

The prime minister said it was “frankly staggering” he was not told. While he accepted “sensitive, personal information” provided during the vetting process should be protected, he rejected the idea that ministers could not be told the overall recommendation.

Olly Robbins speaking at a session of the foreign affairs select committee last November. Photograph: Parliament TV

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

Starmer had appointed Mandelson before Robbins even took up his role as Foreign Office chief, and also before security vetting had taken place, with senior officials telling the Guardian that it was clear to them that No 10 wanted Mandelson in Washington whatever the risk.

The Labour MP Emily Thornberry, who is chair of the FAC, told MPs that security appeared to have been a “secondary consideration” for Downing Street during the appointments process.

“Doesn’t this look like, for certain members of the prime minister’s team, getting Peter Mandelson the job was a priority that overrode everything else?” she asked. Starmer replied that had he known, he would have blocked Mandelson going to Washington.

Robbins is expected to argue on Tuesday morning that he was following established practice when he gave his approval to Mandelson’s security clearance, and that he could have broken the law by telling No 10 about it.

Sources close to him say he is not planning to drop any bombshells in front of the committee but will answer the questions asked of him honestly. He will push back on the fact that Mandelson “failed” his security vetting, arguing the final decision on clearance was his to make.

Senior Whitehall officials have criticised Starmer’s decision to sack Robbins for – in their view – following the rules, and suggested the move had sent a chill through the civil service.

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

“The Foreign Office will be feeling very bruised by this and typically what happens when ministers lose the confidence of their officials, those officials tend to spend the rest of the time leaking like billy-o,” they added.

Labour MPs told the Guardian they did not believe that Starmer’s performance had “moved the dial” in favour of a leadership challenge that many are convinced will come before the next election, but not imminently.

“I think we are in broadly the same place – that there are significant questions over the prime minister’s judgment here that it will be hard to overlook, but also that the situation in the world right now means that he’s safe for now,” one former minister said.

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

Allies of the prime minister said they believed Starmer would weather this particular scandal. “I think we’ve learned that candour is our friend at these moments, and you can see his obvious frustration that he can’t even be as candid as he wants to be,” one adviser said.

But several MPs said they were sceptical of any real remorse from the prime minister after receiving a series of planted suggested questions from whips – including several invoking quotes from Jeffrey Epstein’s victims. “Absolutely grotesque to pretend that they gave a fuck about the victims at any point,” one MP said.