Kate Whannel
Reporting from the House of Commons

Yesterday, Olly Robbins, the sacked boss of the Foreign Office, told MPs on the Foreign Affairs committee that No 10 considered giving the prime minister's then-director of communications Lord Doyle a diplomat role.

He also said he was asked not to tell the then-Foreign Secretary David Lammy about the idea.

Lammy is sitting directly behind Starmer and maintains a poker face as the PM is questioned about this during PMQs.

Turning to Olly Robbins's comments yesterday that No 10 had considered giving Starmer aide Matthew Doyle an ambassadorial job, Badenoch accuses the prime minister of giving Labour MPs "cronyism and an old boys club".

She says Labour backbenchers know it is "not fair" that Robbins was sacked and asks the prime minister to "take responsibility and go".

Starmer again repeats that he was not being informed about the Foreign Office going against the vetting service's recommendations - which he calls a "very serious error of judgement".

He adds: "Nothing is going to distract me from delivering for our country."

Badenoch replies that she "doesn't know what planet" the prime minister is on.

She says if anybody had brought Mandelson's name to her when she was in government she would have said "no way",

The Tory leader claims Mandelson was given access to classified briefings before he'd received clearance. "How can the prime minister still maintain that full due process was followed?" she asks again.

Starmer says that, as a member of the House of Lords, and as a privy councillor, Mandelson was permitted to have access to certain material before developed vetting.

Continuing her focus on Mandelson, Badenoch asks why the prime minister would want a man with links to Russia's Kremlin as the UK's ambassador to the US.

Starmer says "it was always the case that there would be developed vetting in this case", and any issues of national security are dealt with in that process.

The prime minister repeats that the problem is that he was unaware of the vetting service's recommendations.

Tory leader Badenoch continues, saying she is talking about the advice that was given to the prime minister before Mandelson's appointment - something she calls "a done deal".

She refers to comments made by Olly Robbins yesterday, who said the prime minister's team showed a dismissive attitude to vetting Mandelson and argued he didn't need vetting at all.

Pressing the prime minister again, she asks: "Why was due process not followed?"

Starmer says Robbins could not have been clearer in his evidence yesterday when he said he "didn't feel under pressure personally" in terms of his judgement.

He says that no pressure existed in relation to this case, but adds that it is unacceptable the recommendation from the vetting service was not given to him before Mandelson took up his post.

Nick Eardley
Political correspondent

The Labour benches are fairly quiet during this exchange between Starmer and Badenoch - the latest sign of frustration that this story rumbles on.

The Conservative front bench on the other hand is very animated.

Badenoch says the prime minister received advice in November 2024 from Simon Case, the then-cabinet secretary, who said any appointment would require security clearance before an individual was confirmed for the role.

She claims this advice was ignored and questions whether Mandelson's appointment followed the "full due process" - as Starmer has previously said.

The prime minister responds, saying former cabinet secretary Chris Wormald confirmed appropriate processes were followed and that it was normal for clearance to occur after appointment when the individual is joining from outside the civil service.

• For context: Lord Mandelson was announced as the UK's ambassador to the US in December 2024, before undergoing in-depth vetting to obtain his required security clearance for the role. The former Labour minister was then sacked in September last year, after new details emerged about the extent of his friendship with the late convicted child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. He has since said he regretted ever having known Epstein.

Image source, House of Commons

Kemi Badenoch begins by asking if the prime minister stands by his statement on 10 December, where he said that that "full due process" was followed when appointing Lord Mandelson as the UK ambassador to the US.

Starmer says he stands by this statement, and reiterates previous comments that the appointment was a mistake.

He says Foreign Office officials granted security clearance to Mandelson against the recommendation of UK Security Vetting.

Starmer says Olly Robbins yesterday gave a clear answer that he had not shared that decision with No 10 - something the prime minister calls a "serious error" - and Mandelson wouldn't have been appointed if he'd known.

Nick Eardley
Political correspondent

It seems Olly Robbins was right - that the prime minister’s communications chief, Matthew Doyle, was discussed as a possible candidate for an ambassador role.

The PM says there are often conversations when people leave - but nothing came of this one.

Conservative MP Mike Wood asks the prime minister if he can deny Olly Robbins's claim that Downing Street considered appointing Starmer's aide Matthew Doyle to a diplomatic position.

Starmer says Doyle held a number of positions in government, both for him and other ministers.

He says when people leave roles in organisations, there are often conversations about other roles they want to apply for, but nothing came of this.

• For context: Doyle, Starmer's former director of communications, was suspended from the parliamentary Labour Party in February after it was revealed he campaigned for Sean Morton in 2017, after Morton was charged with child sex offences. Doyle apologised, saying it was an "error of judgement". Yesterday, following claims from Olly Robbins that No 10 had considered an ambassadorial job for Doyle, he said in a statement that he had "never sought" such a role.

The prime minister begins by delivering a statement to the House of Commons.

He says: "We will do everything in our power to keep British Jews safe", after a series of of "despicable" antisemitic arson attacks in recent days.

• For context: It was announced yesterday that seven people had been arrested over an alleged plan to commit an arson attack targeting the Jewish community. Since late March, there have been a series of arson attacks, including Jewish community ambulances that were targeted in Golders Green, two synagogues and a former Jewish charity. Another incident involved a drone which was flown near the Israeli embassy.

Image source, House of Commons

Keir Starmer is on his feet, which marks the start of this week's Prime Minister's Questions.

You can watch live at the top of this page, and we'll bring you the key lines and analysis here.

Nick Eardley
Political correspondent

The prime minister has just arrived in the Commons to fairly enthusiastic cheers.

There is a strong showing of cabinet ministers on the front bench.

The chancellor, home secretary, foreign secretary and deputy PM are all here - as are figures often touted as possible replacement leaders, like Health Secretary Wes Streeting.

Plenty of unanswered questions ahead of this week's PMQspublished at 11:52 BST

11:52 BST

Nick Eardley
Political correspondent

PMQs is due to get under way shortly - you can watch live at the top of the page from 12:00 BST.

We’re now onto day seven of this chapter of the row over Lord Mandelson’s appointment. But there are still plenty of questions that remain either partially answered or unanswered.

It seems highly likely the prime minister will face more questions about Lord Mandelson’s vetting. Was there pressure on the Foreign Office? Were No 10 trying to rush the appointment through? Was the message from the top that this appointment was happening and needed to be processed quickly?

Then there’s the treatment of Sir Olly Robbins. Was Keir Starmer wrong to sack a distinguished civil servant? A string of former senior civil servants have said so in public.

Does that damage the PM’s reputation as 'Mr Rules'? Who in No 10 wanted to give former communications chief Lord Doyle a role as an ambassador, despite his lack of diplomatic experience?

Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch has already gone in hard on the prime minister - calling him a liar and saying he should resign. Some of her own MPs think she actually went too hard, too soon. But you can expect her to keep up the pressure.

The bigger question might be what Labour MPs do.

Do any stand up and ask awkward questions? Who will turn up? And will there be much vocal support for the prime minister? That appeared to be lacking on Monday when Sir Keir was last in the Commons.

Image source, Reuters

It all goes back to the announcement of Lord Mandelson's appointment as the UK's ambassador to the US on 20 December 2024.

It's a role he formally took up on 10 February 2025, following the completion of the security vetting process.

But later that year - on 11 September - he was sacked, after emails released by the US Department of Justice revealed new information about the extent of his friendship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

On 11 March 2026, government documents were released revealing details about Mandelson's initial appointment - a process that one senior adviser said had been "weirdly rushed".

Then on 16 April 2026, the Guardian reported that the Foreign Office went against recommendations from vetting officials that Mandelson should not be given security clearance to take up the role.

The same day, the top civil servant at the department, Olly Robbins, was sacked. The prime minister said he hadn't been told about the vetting recommendation, something he has said was a "deliberate decision".

Speaking yesterday, Robbins said Downing Street took a "dismissive" approach to the vetting process, and that there was "a very, very strong expectation" from No 10 that Mandelson "needed to be in post" as quickly as possible.

Henry Zeffman
Chief political correspondent

Are cabinet ministers abandoning Keir Starmer over the latest chapter of the Peter Mandelson saga?

No, that feels overblown.

There are interesting elements to how different ministers have answered questions this week, though.

On Tuesday morning the Energy Secretary, Ed Miliband - who banished Mandelson from frontline Labour politics when he became Labour leader 16 years ago - was remarkably forthright about the concerns he had had about Mandelson’s appointment as ambassador.

He even suggested that the then-Foreign Secretary, David Lammy, had held similar concerns.

Later on Tuesday, after Olly Robbins had spent two-and-a-half hours in front of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper said that Robbins’s claim that No 10 had sought to make Starmer’s then-director of communications an ambassador without telling Lammy was “extremely concerning”.

And then in various interviews this morning Pat McFadden, the work and pensions secretary who is typically seen as a firm ally of the prime minister, repeatedly resisted saying that Starmer’s decision to sack Robbins was fair.

He did eventually say that he believed Robbins had been treated fairly, but appeared to argue this on the narrow basis that if a prime minister has lost confidence in the head of the Foreign Office, then the fair thing to do is to sack him.

One influential Labour figure interpreted these interviews as a sign that “serious cabinet ministers are not prepared to defend [Starmer] or sully themselves”.

Image source, Reuters

Prime Minister Keir Starmer has just left No 10, as he begins the short journey to the House of Commons for this week's Prime Minister's Questions.

You'll be able to watch liveat the top of this page at 12:00 BST.

Image source, PA Media

Last week, it emerged that Lord Mandelson was appointed as the UK's ambassador to the US despite failing the security vetting process.

Olly Robbins was effectively sacked from his role as the top civil servant at the Foreign Office over it - a move that has faced criticism from those close to the civil service.

What the government has said

• Work and Pensions Secretary Pat McFadden says Robbins "made the judgement" to not tell the prime minister about the vetting decision, and that Starmer "acted fairly" by sacking him

• This echoes the argument made by many of the prime minister's allies in recent days. One former comms director at No 10 argues that Robbins "unilaterally decided to disregard red flags", and the prime minister himself has previously called the withholding of information a "deliberate decision"

What Robbins, and civil servants, have said

• Robbins says he faced "constant pressure" to get Mandelson in post, saying Downing Street took a "dismissive attitude" to the vetting process which he says was still conducted "rigorously"
• Simon Gass, a former senior civil servant, says Robbins was "treated shamefully" and "believed he was following the correct procedure". A former head of the civil service, Lord Sedwill, has called for Robbins to be reinstated

What the opposition have said

• Politicians from opposition parties have repeatedly criticised the government - and the prime minister specifically - over the appointment. Many have called for Starmer to resign or for a vote of no confidence in his leadership to take place
• An hours-long emergency debate was held on the topic yesterday, with those across the political spectrum heavily criticising the prime minister - read more on what was said in that debate here

Leadership challenge questions raised again - but no clear answerspublished at 10:23 BST

10:23 BST

Nick Eardley
Political correspondent

The story around Westminster today is a familiar one.

Keir Starmer is struggling to get away from rows about the appointment of Lord Mandelson. Labour MPs are frustrated. Some ponder whether the prime minister can continue.

But there isn’t a groundswell of pressure, no obvious alternative. And there are still some Labour MPs who are quietly loyal - and want nothing less than the distraction of more leadership chat.

So far, a familiar tale. So what now?

Before the latest Mandelson row blew up last week, it felt like pressure on the prime minister was calming a bit. Talk of a potential leadership challenge in May - after elections in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland - had calmed.

But a May challenge is being discussed again. The prime minister’s future is on the minds of some of his MPs - and it may well be on the minds of more if the elections are as bad as some predict.

But then, there are the caveats we’ve got used to.

There’s no easy and obvious mechanism to remove a Labour leader. There’s no obvious successor. Some are nervous about a leadership focus while the world remains unstable.

Let’s see what happens later at PMQs, in the next few days and indeed in May. But the conversations just now feel quite familiar; frustrated Labour MPs, who don’t really know what to do next.

Image source, PA Media

The fallout from the sacking of Olly Robbins last week has led to harsh criticism from a number of people close to the civil service.

This includes a call from one former head for Robbins to be reinstated, and accusations from a union boss that Keir Starmer is "losing the ability to work with the civil service".

But what exactly is the relationship between the civil service and the government?

Robbins was the permanent secretary at the Foreign Office - the most senior civil servant in that government department.

Civil servants' jobs are to serve the current government, by helping to develop and implement its policies and agenda. They operate within government departments and bodies, but aren't political appointees - and are meant to politically impartial.

Civil servants are technically managed by the prime minister, with politically-appointed ministers heading up departments.

They tend to stay in their jobs regardless of which political party is currently in power. Many work under governments of different parties and leaders, and can move between different departments too.

Robbins, for example, has worked in previous Conservative governments. He has also held jobs in the Home Office, the Cabinet Office and has served as the government's chief Brexit negotiator.