Joe Coughlan
Live reporter

Image source, House of Commons

Keir Starmer faced questions today from MPs as he continued to face pressure over the appointment of Lord Peter Mandelson as the UK's ambassador to the US.

Yesterday in Westminster, the former top civil servant at the Foreign Office, OIly Robbins, who was sacked from his role last week, said No 10 had shown a "dismissive attitude" towards Mandelson's vetting - and there had been pressure from Downing Street that Mandelson "needed to be in post" as quickly as possible.

Those aligned with the civil service have criticised Robbins's sacking - and one former head has publicly called for him to be reinstated.

Today in the Commons, Tory leader Kemi Badenoch repeatedly pressed Starmer on his previous statement that "full due process" was observed during Mandelson's appointment.

The prime minister said he stood by those remarks, and reiterated previous comments that it was a mistake - more on that exchange here.

Starmer also appeared to confirm conversations took place about a potential diplomatic role for his senior aide Matthew Doyle.

As our political correspondent Nick Eardley reports post-PMQs, it's clear that Starmer wants to move on from the Mandelson row, but we haven't heard the last of this story.

And since then it's been reported that the prime minister's former chief aide - who quit over his role pushing for Mandelson's appointment - will be questioned by MPs next week. The chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee says that's due to happen on Tuesday.

We are ending our live coverage for today. Read more on today's PMQs here:

• Starmer admits No 10 asked about job for aide Matthew Doyle

The chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Labour MP Emily Thornberry has confirmed that the prime minister's former chief aide - Morgan McSweeney - will give evidence to MPs next week.

In a post on X, she says: "Following Sir Olly [Robbins]'s evidence, the Foreign Affairs Committee has today requested that Cat Little, Ian Collard, Sir Philip Barton and Morgan McSweeney attend and give evidence.

"Cat Little will give evidence tomorrow at 9am. Morgan McSweeney will attend Tuesday."

As we've just been reporting, PA reports that the prime minister's former chief of staff Morgan McSweeney has been summoned to give evidence to MPs next week.

McSweeney resigned from his job in February, over his role pushing for Lord Mandelson's appointment as UK ambassador to the US.

McSweeney said he did not oversee the vetting but wanted to take "full responsibility" for advising the prime minister to appoint him.

His departure was seen as a big blow to Starmer, with the 48-year-old Irishman having masterminded his successful bid for the Labour leadership in 2020 and the party's campaign for the general election in 2024.

It is understood that the decision to leave was mutual between McSweeney and Starmer, with the latter saying it had been an "honour" to work with him.

What do we know about Mandelson's vetting outcome?published at 13:48 BST

13:48 BST

By Tom Edgington

At PMQs, there were further questions about Lord Mandelson's vetting to get security clearance for the role of US ambassador.

Sir Keir Starmer told MPs “The problem was… I was unaware that UKSV [UK Security Vetting] recommended against clearance.”

Here’s what we know:

• Mandelson’s appointment letter, external, dated 30 January 2025, stated “your security clearance has been confirmed”
• We now know that clearance had been granted by the Foreign Office, not UKSV - the organisation that carries out national security vetting
• Last week the government published a template of the ‘traffic light’ form UKSV uses when deciding whether to recommend clearance. According to Starmer, both red boxes - showing "high concern“ and “clearance denied or withdrawn“ - were ticked in Mandelson’s case, which the prime minister said he wasn’t informed about
• Olly Robbins, the former top civil servant at the Foreign Office, told MPs yesterday that he never saw the paperwork. Instead, he said he was briefed in person on 29 January 2025 that Mandelson’s vetting “was a borderline case and that UKSV were leaning against granting clearance”

Image source, UK Government

Image source, Getty Images

The prime minister's former chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, has been summoned to give evidence to MPs next week, the news agency PA reports.

It says he's been asked to appear before the Foreign Affairs Committee on Tuesday.

McSweeney dramatically quit as Starmer's chief of staff earlier this year, over mounting scrutiny over his role in Mandelson's appointment as the UK's ambassador to the US.

Vicki Young
Politics Live presenter

If you’re struggling to follow the ins and outs of the row over Peter Mandelson’s appointment, I’m sure you’re not alone.

On Politics Live just now, cabinet minister James Murray argued that while the senior civil servant, Olly Robbins, did follow due process in relation to Peter Mandelson’s developed vetting - he should have worked out, given the vetting assessment he received, that he should have told the prime minister.

Should Robbins have been sacked, even though he followed due process? James Murray’s answer – a definitive ‘yes’.

Richard Holden, the Conservative shadow transport secretary, told me the row over Robbins is a sideshow to the real issue – which he argued is Keir Starmer’s judgement in appointing Peter Mandelson as British ambassador to the US in the first place.

Starmer wants this story to go away - but there's more to come on Mandelson's appointmentpublished at 13:03 BST

13:03 BST

Nick Eardley
Political correspondent

It’s no surprise that the prime minister wants to move on from the Mandelson row.

He is arguing that the events of recent days show he didn’t know about issues around Lord Mandelson’s developed vetting. He also insists he hadn't put pressure on the Foreign Office to approve the appointment.

But this story is not going away. Opposition leaders are adamant the prime minister is the one who has to carry the can. Labour MPs sat in near silence during today’s exchanges with Kemi Badenoch.

Then there’s Lord Doyle. The prime minister seemed to admit he was being considered as a potential ambassador. That will make many uncomfortable - including Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper who has said it would not have been an appropriate appointment.

As we pointed on earlier, it’s far from clear that Labour MPs frustrated with the prime minister will do anything about it. But I can say with confidence that we haven’t heard the last of this story.

There are important players still to give their accounts - and thousands of documents about the appointment which are still to be published.

PMQs has now finished, so lets briefly turn back to that initial exchange between Tory leader Kemi Badenoch and Prime Minister Keir Starmer.

The row over Peter Mandelson's vetting - and Olly Robbins's sacking - dominated, here's a recap of what was said:

• Badenoch pressed Starmer multiple times over his previous comments that "full due process" was observed during Mandelson's appointment as US ambassador
• Starmer repeatedly said he stands by those remarks, and reiterated previous comments that Mandelson's appointment was a mistake

• Badenoch also referred to comments made by Robbins - who yesterday said a dismissive attitude was shown to vetting Mandelson, with some in No 10 arguing he didn't need vetting at all
• Starmer said Robbins had said no pressure existed in relation to this case - the issue, he says, was he wasn't informed of the vetting recommendations
• The Tory leader also claims Mandelson was given access to classified briefings before he'd received clearance. Starmer says that, as a member of the House of Lords and as a privy councillor, Mandelson would have been permitted to have access to certain material before developed vetting took place

MPs from several parties have been asking the prime minister questions in relation to Olly Robbins's comments at the Foreign Affairs Select Committee session on Tuesday.

Looking back to 1982, Lib Dem MP Richard Foord says Lord Carrington resigned as foreign secretary then in order to take responsibility for the actions of Foreign Office officials.

Foord asks the prime minister if he does not believe in ministerial accountability.

Starmer says that he has already set out the terms he was not told about in relation to the process of Mandelson's security vetting, repeating that it was a "serious error of judgement" for him not to have been told.

Green MP Ellie Chowns says the prime minister took an "extraordinarily incurious" attitude to vetting and, referring to Robbins, says Starmer threw "a civil servant under the bus".

Wouldn't the best way to restore trust be for him to resign, she asks.

The prime minister says there was no "dismissive attitude" toward vetting and again says the "serious error" in the process was him not being informed of the vetting outcome.

"Had I been told the appointment wouldn't have gone ahead," he reiterates.

Image source, House of Commons

After claiming that Starmer "failed to answer my question" on Doyle, Davey moves on to the cost of living crisis.

He says US President Donald Trump's "idiotic war with Iran" has pushed up inflation, and that there's "far worse to come" for Brits.

Davey then asks if the prime minister will follow other countries and use extra revenues from fuel prices to cut rail fares and bring petrol prices down.

Starmer says "everybody" can see that the war is causing "serious economic damage" in the UK around the world.

He claims Davey's argument is "politically misleading and economically illiterate".

Next up is Lib Dem leader Ed Davey, who says he is sure many were shocked by Robbins's comments that No 10 had considered finding an ambassadorial job for Matthew Doyle.

Davey says the prime minister was asked on Monday whether No 10 had proposed any political appointments other than Mandelson.

"Will he confirm today, did he know his office was lobbying for a diplomatic job for Matthew Doyle - and were they doing it on his authority?" he asks.

Starmer repeats comments he made earlier, saying Doyle worked for many years in public service both for him as prime minister and other ministers - and when people leave roles in any organisation there are often conversations about other roles they may want to apply for.

"In this case, nothing came of it", he adds.

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.

Today, 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."

• 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.

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.

• 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. He 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. Mandelson has since said he regretted ever having known Epstein.

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.

Image source, House of Commons

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 an 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. He 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. Mandelson 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, it was my mistake".

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

Starmer says Olly Robbins gave a "clear answer" to MPs on Tuesday that he had not shared that decision with No 10.

"That puts to bed all the allegations levelled at me by those opposite in relation to dishonesty," he says.

The prime minister says that information should have been shared with him - something he calls a "serious error", adding that Mandelson wouldn't have been appointed if he'd known.