The Guardian view on Starmer and Mandelson: when process follows power | Editorial

Olly Robbins exposed a deeper failure: when the prime minister’s decision came first, security vetting was left to catch up after the fact

It was a classic Whitehall performance: understated and explosive. Sir Olly Robbins did not bluster in front of MPs. The sacked Foreign Office chief calmly stuck to the language of process. He admitted clearing Peter Mandelson to be US ambassador despite UK Security Vetting (UKSV) – in his own words – “leaning against” approval. But the context was key: Downing Street had already set a “very, very strong expectation” that the peer would be in Washington fast and had a dismissive attitude to vetting. The decision to back the peer had effectively been made before the system could catch up.

On Monday, MPs skewered Sir Keir Starmer over appointing Lord Mandelson. The issue was not what the prime minister knew, but what he chose to do with the knowledge. By December 2024, he had seen Cabinet Office “due diligence” and was aware of the peer’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein after the financier’s child sex conviction. Sir Keir went ahead anyway. Announcement, royal approval and US “agrément” swiftly turned that judgment into policy – before vetting had even begun. Sir Keir insisted that he should have been told Lord Mandelson was, in his words, denied security clearance for the role of US ambassador. Diane Abbott cut through this defence with a single question: “Why didn’t you ask?”