Sir Keir Starmer has admitted a 'mistake' in appointing Lord Mandelson as Britain's US ambassador, as conflicting accounts of the vetting process face parliamentary scrutiny this week. The prime minister's political judgment is under stress test at the foreign affairs select committee, where competing versions of events could crystallize unfavorably for Downing Street.
The first witness will be Sir Philip Barton, former top civil servant at the Foreign Office, who reportedly had reservations about approving the peer. Sir Philip was in post when the appointment was announced, and his evidence could be crucial in determining whether Downing Street exerted undue pressure. Sir Keir told MPs last week that 'no pressure existed whatsoever,' but he has since qualified the statement by arguing that pushing for speed does not constitute pressure.
Sir Keir's former chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, allegedly told Sir Philip to 'just fucking approve it.' McSweeney's evidence is expected to involve either a categorical denial or a partial concession, with smart money on the former. The contrasting accounts may expose further inconsistencies. Last week, Sir Olly Robbins, who succeeded Sir Philip and was later dismissed, testified alongside Cat Little, the head civil servant in the Cabinet Office. While both agreed on how the system should work, Ms Little revealed that there were no records explaining Sir Olly's decision to clear Lord Mandelson with 'mitigations.' An unresolved dispute exists over which office pushed for security checks, and Ms Little's revelation that Sir Olly directly refused to share vetting documents was arguably the most damning part of her testimony.
The key figure is Ian Collard, the Foreign Office's head of security, who briefed Sir Olly on the assessment of the peer's vetting. However, Collard will not attend in person, instead providing a written statement. Questions remain over whether he described the Mandelson case as 'borderline' or as effectively denying clearance, and why mitigations were considered sufficient. It seems bizarre for the one person with first-hand knowledge not to be questioned, at least for now.
The narrative from Tuesday's session could be bad for Downing Street. If Sir Philip describes sustained pressure from No 10, McSweeney concedes that escalating urgency was communicated, and Collard says the vetting was not clear-cut, the story would be that Sir Olly approved Lord Mandelson despite knowing the risks under political heat. This would reinforce the 'scapegoat' narrative and shift responsibility back to the prime minister.
Voters are aware that Sir Keir admitted a 'mistake' in appointing Lord Mandelson despite knowing that he maintained a friendship with Jeffrey Epstein after the financier was convicted for child sexual abuse offences. Darren Jones, the prime minister's chief secretary, claimed to the BBC that this settled the matter. But while the prime minister treats it as closed, many—including within the cabinet and on the Labour backbenches—see it as ongoing and about his judgment.
