Starmer faces Commons showdown over Mandelson vetting scandal

Keir Starmer will deliver a high-stakes statement to MPs on Monday as he struggles to overcome fears inside his government that the Peter Mandelson vetting scandal could yet cost him his leadership.

In what is set to be a dramatic showdown, the prime minister will set out how Mandelson was able to take up his role as UK ambassador without the Foreign Office revealing it had overruled the decision to fail his vetting.

The scandal, first revealed by the Guardian last week, has already led to the sacking of the top civil servant at the Foreign Office, Olly Robbins, who is expected to appear before MPs on Tuesday in what could be another moment of grave peril for Starmer.

Ministers spent the weekend trying to shore up Starmer’s position after opposition party leaders called for him to quit over the affair, arguing he would not have gone ahead with sending him to Washington had he known.

But senior government figures are concerned that this week could be make or break for the prime minister – despite him being bolstered by his handling of the Iran crisis – if more damaging information should emerge or sceptical Labour MPs finally lose faith.

“We just don’t know how it will all play out, but all roads lead back to the original sin: Keir’s decision to appoint Peter Mandelson to Washington even though everybody knew it was high risk. This week could go either way,” one said.

Starmer said on Sunday he would make it “crystal clear” to MPs he was in the dark over Mandelson’s vetting – and said it was “unforgivable” the Foreign Office failed to tell him after he had told MPs due process had been followed.

The prime minister will set out the facts on Mandelson’s security vetting after he instructed officials to urgently establish them when he was finally informed about the decision last Tuesday.

Downing Street also sought to demolish the argument from Robbins’ allies that he was prevented by law from telling ministers that Mandelson had failed vetting, arguing that there was a difference between being involved in the decision and being informed about it.

It published an explanatory document which said: “No law stops civil servants sensibly flagging UK security vetting recommendations, while rightly protecting detailed sensitive vetting information, to allow ministers to make judgements on appointments or on explaining matters to parliament.”