We're about to hear from Olly Robbins - the former top civil servant at the Foreign Office who's at the centre of the story around the Lord Mandelson vetting row.

He'll be appearing in front of MPs on the Foreign Affairs Select Committee at 09:00 BST to give his side of the story.

Robbins was removed from his post last Thursday, with the prime minister saying he should have been told that Mandelson failed his vetting process to be the UK's ambassador in Washington.

We'll bring you the latest updates and you can watch live at the top of the page.

We have now also heard from Ed Miliband on BBC Radio 4's Today programme, where he says the procedure for appointing Lord Mandelson was "self-evidently a bad process".

Miliband says "big painful lessons" had been learned by the government and maintained that Starmer was taking responsibility for Mandelson's appointment.

He also says it seems "extraordinary" that neither Starmer nor former cabinet secretary Chris Wormald were told about security concerns regarding Mandelson when questions were raised previously.

There's still a lot we do not know about what to expect from Robbins in front of MPspublished at 08:44 BST

08:44 BST

Henry Zeffman
Chief political correspondent

We have at least a partial sense of what Olly Robbins will say to MPs later, from what his allies have been saying publicly and privately over the past few days.

Remember, the fact that Robbins did not tell Sir Keir Starmer about the recommendation of the security vetting agency is not in dispute.

Robbins will argue that he was forbidden under government rules from informing the PM about the judgement formed by the vetting agency on the path to Lord Mandelson ultimately being approved as US ambassador.

That is now challenged by the government which has published a different interpretation of the rules.

We also think he will say that his decision to put mitigations in place - but give Mandelson clearance - was a reasonable one in the circumstances.

But there’s a lot more that we do not know.

We do not know what precise explanation Robbins will give for not having told Starmer or fellow senior officials about this element of the vetting process afterwards, once the appointment had unravelled and they were facing repeated public questioning about it.

We do not know if he will argue that he felt pressured into approving the appointment of Mandelson given he had already been publicly appointed.

On a related note, we do not know what he might have to say about one of the big questions of yesterday: whether the vetting should have been conducted before Mandelson’s appointment was announced.

We don’t know if he will strike a different tone to his appearance before the same committee in November when he said the government had “ample time to assess and decide” on the vetting agency’s verdict on Mandelson.

And finally we don’t know how personal or otherwise he will be.

Yesterday the prime minister spent a long time in the House of Commons attacking his judgement. That’s quite a position for a senior civil servant to find himself in. Will he respond in kind? Not long to find out now.

Badenoch is asked what the point of today's debate is, when the prime minister may not be there.

The Conservative leader says she imagines Olly Robbins may "contradict" some of the things Starmer has said.

"This is not about making mistakes - it's about the cover-up," she goes on to say.

The Tory leader is also asked if her party is making political capital over a mistake the PM has admitted.

"My job as leader of the opposition is to hold this government to account," Badenoch replies.

Kemi Badenoch tells BBC Breakfast she stands by her claims that the prime minister is lying.

"There are still things that I know are not true," Badenoch says as she says "the most important thing is this is an issue of national security".

The Tory leader adds: "National security is not something a prime minister should be playing with."

Conservative leader, and Leader of the Opposition, Kemi Badenoch is about to speak to BBC Breakfast.

We will bring you the key lines from her on the Lord Mandelson row ahead of Olly Robbins' appearance before MPs later this morning. You can watch live at the top of this page.

Lord Mandelson's appointment as the UK's ambassador to Washington has been a "very damaging episode" for the government, says Ed Miliband.

The energy secretary tells BBC Breakfast that Keir Starmer "feels that himself" and "lessons obviously have to be learnt about who gets appointed to top jobs and indeed the process of vetting".

He also tells the programme prime ministers are "fallible" and make mistakes, and goes on to say he does not think Starmer should resign over the row.

He says the PM "felt the pressure" as Donald Trump was coming into office, and he was "conscious" that he needed to try and form a good relationship with the White House.

Miliband also says he didn't want Mandelson "in my orbit" when he became Labour leader in 2010 "for a range of reasons".

Labour support for Starmer seemed to drain away as Badenoch spoke yesterdaypublished at 07:49 BST

07:49 BST

Henry Zeffman
Chief political correspondent

Image source, House of Commons

I was in the House of Commons press gallery yesterday for the prime minister’s statement on Lord Mandelson’s security vetting, and it felt like it went worse for him than anticipated.

Labour MPs arrived in a reasonably bullish mood, and that lasted for most of Sir Keir’s opening statement.

But that support seemed to drain away during Kemi Badenoch’s response (for which - I am told - she received advice in her Commons office shortly beforehand from David Cameron).

It’s important to say that she and other opposition leaders have dropped their suggestion from the back end of last week that the prime minister must have known about the vetting issue. That is what initially gave this story so much charge, and it is clear now that is simply not the case.

Instead, Badenoch painted a picture of a prime minister who was culpably incurious. The silence of Labour MPs as they listened, barely heckling her, actually reminded me of sitting in that same gallery during some of Boris Johnson’s bleakest moments as he was prosecuted — to silence from his side — by a certain Keir Starmer.

Speaking to ministers and backbench MPs who know the mood of the parliamentary Labour Party afterwards, the consensus was this feels like a serious moment for the prime minister.

There is still no ultra short-term jeopardy for Starmer. Labour MPs do not want to cause too much of a public stink before the elections on 7 May.

But, this has poisoned the mood at a bad time for the prime minister, given those MPs will form a judgement on whether to keep him in post after 7 May.

Image source, House of Commons

Today's committee appearance by Robbins comes after the prime minister spent yesterday afternoon taking questions from MPs on the row.

Keir Starmer told a packed House of Commons on Monday that "a deliberate decision was taken to withhold" recommendations from the UK's security vetting agency (UKSV) on Lord Mandelson, despite there being multiple opportunities for the information to be shared with him.

Among other things, the PM said he found out "for the first time" on 14 April that Mandelson had been granted clearance against the recommendations on 29 January 2025.

Stamer also said the reason Robbins did not tell him about the vetting was because the civil servant "took the view this process did not allow him to disclose to me the recommendation of UKSV".

The government has published legal advice this week suggesting it would have been OK to pass on the recommendation

The statement was met with criticism from opposition parties, a number of whom have called on the PM to resign.

Questions over who knew what and when about the appointment of Peter Mandelson as US ambassador continue to be asked, seven months after his sacking from the top job in Washington.

Let's go back to how this all started.

US President Donald Trump has suggested that Lord Mandelson was a "really bad pick" as the UK's ambassador to the US.

In a message on his Truth Social platform overnight, Trump says: "Prime Minister Keir Starmer of the United Kingdom acknowledged that he “exercised wrong judgement” when he chose his Ambassador to Washington.

"I agree, he was a really bad pick. Plenty of time to recover, however!"

Image source, Reuters

Sacked civil servant to give his side of the story in Parliamentpublished at 06:45 BST

06:45 BST

Chris Mason and Nick Eardley
Political editor and political correspondent

Image source, Reuters

The former lead civil servant at the Foreign Office, sacked by the prime minister and foreign secretary last week, will give his side of the story in Parliament this morning.

Olly Robbins, who had been the permanent under secretary at the Foreign Office since January 2025, was removed from his post last Thursday evening after the prime minister discovered he had not been told by Robbins that Lord Mandelson had failed his vetting process to be the UK's ambassador in Washington.

Robbins is expected to defend his decision not to tell Starmer and is understood to be bruised and upset at both losing his job and the loud, repeated and personal criticisms of his conduct.

A friend of Robbins told the BBC, in apparent contrast with how he feels he has been treated: "Olly doesn't do personal. He never has and he never will."

The prime minister's allies maintain this morning - as Starmer set out in the House of Commons on Monday - that their interpretation of the law is very different and Robbins could and should have shared that information with ministers.

Image source, Getty Images

We are bringing back our coverage, as former top Foreign Office official Olly Robbins is due to face MPs this morning, amid continued questions over the government's appointment of Lord Mandelson as the UK's ambassador to the US.

Olly Robbins will be appearing before MPs at the Foreign Affairs Select Committee at 09:00 BST on Tuesday.

He was sacked last week after it was reported that his department didn't tell Keir Starmer that Mandelson had failed his vetting process to be the UK's head diplomat in Washington.

The former chief civil servant for the Foreign Office will get the opportunity to present his side of the story, after the PM said on Monday a "deliberate decision" was taken to withhold information about Mandelson's vetting from him.

Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has secured an emergency debate on the issues in the Commons, expected later today.

We are also due to hear from Energy Secretary Ed Miliband and Badenoch on the BBC this morning.

We will be bringing you all of the latest updates here on this page.

Rachel Flynn
Live reporter

Keir Starmer once again came under fire this afternoon for his appointment of Lord Mandelson to the highest diplomatic position, as UK ambassador to the US.

Those 213 days Mandelson was in office have left the PM with a serious headache. Fellow Labour MP - and Foreign Affairs Select Committee Chair - Emily Thornberry accuses the PM's team of putting Mandelson's appointment over security considerations.

Starmer rejects this - he says a "deliberate decision" was taken to withhold information about Mandelson's vetting from him, despite multiple opportunities to do so.

He repeated throughout the session that had he known Mandelson's security vetting by the United Kingdom Security Vetting (UKSV) was denied, he would not have been appointed.

As for Olly Robbins - former top Foreign Secretary official - Starmer says Robbins "took the view this process did not allow him to disclose to me the recommendation of UKSV".

While friends of Robbins say an Act legally prevented him from passing on the information, Starmer says although information provided to the review must be protected, the recommendation itself does not.

That will undoubtedly be discussed as Robbins faces MPs at the Foreign Affairs Committee tomorrow morning.

We're ending our live coverage shortly, but we'll be back early for Robbins' turn to provide answers. For the top lines from today's statement you can read our news story.

When should Mandelson’s vetting have been carried out?published at 18:38 BST 20 April

18:38 BST 20 April

By Tamara Kovacevic

It’s now known that security vetting was carried out after Mandelson's appointment was announced by the prime minister. He told MPs this afternoon: “For a direct ministerial appointment, it was usual for security vetting to happen after the appointment but before starting in post. This was the process in place at the time.”

He then went on to quote Chris Wormald, formerly the UK's top civil servant, who said in a letter in October last year, external “the usual ambassadorial appointments process was followed” which “included the National Security Vetting process” after Mandelson’s appointment was announced.

He added: “The National Security Vetting process […] will usually happen after a job offer and before an individual takes up post.”

However, government documents show that in November 2024, external - a month before Mandelson’s appointment - then-Cabinet Secretary Simon Case told Starmer that if he wanted to make a political appointment “you should give us the name of the person you would like to appoint and we will develop a plan for them to acquire the necessary security clearances and do due diligence on any potential Conflicts of Interest or other issues of which you should be aware before confirming your choice".

Hannah Keenan from the Institute for Government think tank says that since the Mandelson case, the government has changed the system so that vetting now needs to be carried out before announcements are made in similar cases.

Image source, House of Commons

We've heard from a range of political parties in response to Starmer's address.

Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch asked Starmer six questions and accused him of breaching the ministerial code by not correcting the record at the earliest opportunity. In response, Starmer said that proper process was followed - and reiterated that nobody in No 10 was informed about the UK security vetting agency's recommendation.

Meanwhile, Lib Dems leader Ed Davey accused Starmer of blaming his officials rather than taking responsibility for appointing Mandelson. Davey also repeated his call for Starmer to resign.

That was echoed by Green Party MP Ellie Chowns, who asked Starmer to take personal responsibility and resign, adding it was "staggering and unforgivable" for the PM to have appointed Mandelson.

And the Scottish National Party's Stephen Flynn accused Starmer of ignoring Epstein victims, and asked whether the PM was gullible, incompetent, or both.

Plaid Cymru MP Liz Saville Roberts said the PM is "hiding behind a thicket of legalese and procedure".

We've not heard from Reform UK leader Nigel Farage - but one of his MPs Lee Anderson was asked to leave after accusing Starmer of lying.

What does the law say about sharing vetting concerns?published at 18:07 BST 20 April

18:07 BST 20 April

By Gerry Georgieva

The prime minister has faced several questions about what conversations he had with Olly Robbins - the top civil servant at the Foreign Office who was sacked last week after it emerged that Peter Mandelson had failed security vetting after being appointed as UK ambassador to Washington.

Starmer, who told MPs that he had not been informed about the vetting outcome, said “when I spoke to him [Robbins] on Thursday, his view to me was that he couldn’t provide this information… because he wasn’t allowed to provide this information to me”.

We have not heard Robbins’ account of what happened but he is due to give evidence about Mandelson’s vetting to MPs tomorrow.

So what does the law say about civil servants disclosing vetting concerns? The Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, external says that civil servants are responsible for the vetting process and that ministers don’t have the power to influence it - but it doesn’t seem to explicitly rule out sharing information.

And the National Security Vetting privacy notice, external says: “In exceptional circumstances where a security risk has been identified", relevant information may be shared.

Jonathan Jones from law firm Linklaters told BBC Verify that ministers could be told something about the process if it was essential such as if “the outcome was such that an individual could not be appointed to a particular post, or had to be removed from one”.

It would be difficult though to imagine any actual details of the vetting being shared, he added.

Your Party MP Zarah Sultana is told by the Speaker to leave the chamber after calling Starmer a "bare-faced liar".

Sultana refers to Starmer's comments that he had no knowledge of the UK security vetting agency's recommendation and points to the "public knowledge" of Mandelson's relationship with Epstein.

"He is gaslighting the nation so let's call this out for what it is - the prime minister is a bare-faced liar [...]" she says.

Sir Lindsay Hoyle calls for order and asks her to leave, threatening to name her otherwise.

When she does not, a vote is taken for her to leave.

The prime minister has said he was first told of issues with Mandelson’s vetting last week. He has described it as “staggering” he wasn’t told before.

Image source, House of Commons

• The prime minister said he found out "for the first time" on 14 April that Foreign Office officials granted Mandelson developed vetting clearance, against the specific recommendation of the UK's security vetting agency (UKSV)
• He said it was usual for security vetting to happen after the appointment of ambassadors, but before they started in their post. He added he since changed this process so that now an appointment can't be made until after security vetting is passed

• Starmer said "a deliberate decision was taken to withhold" the vetting recommendation despite multiple opportunities to do so

• He also said top civil servant Olly Robbins' defence for not telling the him about Mandelson's vetting was that the process did not allow him to do so. But the government has published legal advice this week saying it would have been OK to pass on the recommendation
• The prime minister said he "did not mislead the House of Commons" in previous statements about the appointment process. Earlier No 10 suggested Starmer inadvertently misled Parliament over Mandelson vetting

Scottish Conservative MP John Lamont asks Starmer whether he accepts that he "inadvertently misled the House of Commons", after having said various things "that have now turned out not to be true" about Peter Mandelson's vetting process.

"No I did not mislead the House of Commons. I accept that information that I should have had, and information that the House should have had should have been before the House, but I did not mislead the House," Starmer replies.

Earlier No 10 suggested Starmer inadvertently misled Parliament over Mandelson vetting.

Image source, House of Commons