Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free
Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.
Sir Keir Starmer faces a gruelling Tuesday as key witnesses give evidence to parliament about Lord Peter Mandelson’s appointment as UK ambassador to the US and opposition parties attempt to subject the prime minister to an inquiry over the scandal.
Morgan McSweeney, Starmer’s former chief of staff, and Sir Philip Barton, former Foreign Office permanent secretary, have both been summoned to testify to the House of Commons foreign affairs committee about Mandelson taking up the most sensitive role in the UK foreign service.
The Commons will also hold a debate and vote on whether to refer the prime minister to the privileges committee for an inquiry into claims he misled parliament about the disgraced Labour peer’s appointment.
Starmer mounted a defensive action on Monday evening, addressing the weekly meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party and dispatching Cabinet allies to call and text MPs to rally support.
Downing Street also published a letter from last September by then cabinet secretary Sir Chris Wormald to Starmer, stating that Mandelson’s appointment process “was unusual but not irregular”.
Publishing Wormald’s letter was intended as a riposte to the claim by the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats that Starmer has misled MPs — a serious parliamentary offence — in two substantial ways.
Firstly, the letter speaks to repeated claims in the chamber earlier this year that “full due process” had been followed regarding Mandelson’s vetting to become ambassador.
Last week it emerged that Lord Simon Case, then cabinet secretary, had advised the prime minister in 2024 to conduct vetting before announcing a political appointment as US ambassador. Starmer did not take up the recommendation — Mandelson was publicly nominated for the sensitive position in December 2024 before any vetting took place.
Secondly, the opposition parties argue that Starmer misled MPs when he claimed at Prime Minister’s Questions last week that “no pressure whatsoever” was exerted on the Foreign Office over the appointment.
This was contested by Sir Olly Robbins, the department’s permanent secretary whom Starmer sacked this month for his role in approving security clearance for Mandelson despite issues flagged by the government’s vetting agency.
Robbins told the foreign affairs committee last Tuesday that his department had faced “constant pressure” and an “atmosphere of constant chasing” from Number 10.
Ahead of the oral evidence session on Tuesday the committee published written testimony from Ian Collard, the Foreign Office official who briefed Robbins on the status of Mandelson’s vetting.
Collard confirmed he told Robbins that Mandelson’s case was “borderline” and that the risks could be mitigated, adding that this was what he had been briefed about the matter. It corroborated Robbins’ evidence to the committee — and his insistence that he did not override a firm recommendation against granting security clearance to the peer.
The revelation heaps further pressure on Starmer and undermines his decision to sack Robbins and blame him for the vetting fiasco. Collard also said he “felt pressure to deliver a rapid outcome” but insisted this did not influence his professional judgment.
Starmer has argued that there was no improper “pressure on him [Robbins], essentially, to disregard the security vetting element and give clearance”. He distinguished this type of political pressure from “everyday pressure” within government to get anything “done quickly”.
Recommended
The evidence from Barton and McSweeney, who also quit over the Mandelson saga, will be a dangerous moment for the prime minister. Both are expected to be quizzed about Robbins’ evidence, as well as claims that McSweeney issued a stark verbal warning to Barton, demanding that he “just fucking approve” Mandelson’s appointment.
A protégé of Mandelson, McSweeney was instrumental in pushing the Labour peer for the role, according to government figures.
McSweeney, who has given few public interviews, has been in the Cabinet Office ahead of his grilling by the foreign affairs committee, according to a government official. Downing Street confirmed on Monday that provision was in place for advisers or officials who have left government to re-familiarise themselves with relevant documents before a select committee hearing.
Starmer’s parliamentary majority means that Labour MPs can easily vote down the motion to force him to face an inquiry by the privileges committee. But the debate will be yet another difficult moment for the prime minister at a time when his political authority is severely dented.
If the government feels forced to whip Labour MPs to reject the proposal for a sleaze inquiry, it is likely to be regarded as a fresh sign of how strained Starmer’s relationship with the PLP has become.
Recommended
Labour MPs said they had received calls from party whips urging them to vote against the motion and texts from Starmer loyalists, including housing secretary Steve Reed.
Former Labour prime minister Gordon Brown also intervened, telling Labour MPs to “put the needs of the country first” and give Starmer their “full support”, dismissing the vote as a “parliamentary game” ahead of elections in Scotland, Wales and 136 English councils on May 7.
A spokesperson for No 10 labelled the vote “a desperate political stunt”, adding: “The government is engaging with the two parliamentary processes that are already running on Peter Mandelson’s appointment with full transparency.”
Source:
www.ft.com