Will Olly Robbins’ testimony jeopardise Keir Starmer’s defence?

What questions will sacked head of the Foreign Office be asked, and what might they mean for the PM’s future?

On Monday, Keir Starmer testified in front of the Commons about what he knew about the vetting process behind Peter Mandelson’s appointment as ambassador to Washington.

On Tuesday, Olly Robbins – whom Starmer sacked as head of the Foreign Office last week – will give his side of the story under questioning by MPs on the foreign affairs select committee.

Robbins is said by friends to be upset by the claims ministers are making. But what are the questions he will be asked, and what might they mean for the prime minister’s future?

Why did vetting officials recommend Mandelson be denied clearance?

Robbins is very unlikely to give details of the vetting process or what exactly officials discovered, given this is supposed to be strictly confidential. But MPs are likely to press him on whether anything new was found during the vetting process or whether it only flagged previously known concerns.

If the checks turned up only what was known about previously, Robbins can argue there was no need to pass the decision to No 10. If there was something new, however, Starmer will have an even stronger case to argue he should have been told.

Did anyone explicitly tell Robbins to override the vetting recommendation?

Robbins is likely to argue that he was following established process by taking his own decision on Mandelson’s clearance after receiving the advice from the vetting officials.

But even if this is not a unique circumstance, it is extremely rare to defy the advice of UKSV in this way. And the question remains whether anyone at a political level encouraged or even told Robbins to grant Mandelson his clearance come what may.

Some say Starmer’s aides applied heavy pressure to Robbins’ predecessor Philip Barton to expedite Mandelson’s approval, but so far there has been no evidence that they did the same to Robbins over the vetting process.

Why did Robbins not tell No 10 at any point?

The prime minister said on Monday it was “staggering” that neither he nor any of his ministerial colleagues or aides had been told that Mandelson had not passed his vetting checks. He said there were “repeated occasions” when officials – presumably including Robbins – made “a deliberate decision” not to tell him.

Robbins’ allies say Starmer had made his political preference clear by announcing the appointment before the vetting took place, and so it was Robbins’ job to make sure the appointment went smoothly. They add that it was normal practice not to inform ministers of the recommendations of UKSV, and that doing so could even have broken a law which says ministers should not have control over the vetting process.

Those close to the prime minister however say that while it may have been illegal for Starmer to be involved in the process, it would not have been for him to be informed of it.

One particular question is why Robbins did not tell the former cabinet secretary Chris Wormald, who was his line manager and who conducted a review of the vetting process. 

Is it normal to do vetting after an appointment is announced?

Starmer said on Monday that he announced Mandelson’s appointment before developed vetting could be undertaken because “it was what I understood to be the usual process”.

Documents released as part of the first tranche of releases to the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) show however that the former permanent secretary Simon Case advised the prime minister to carry out the vetting first.

Another related question is why Mandelson appeared to have been given a Foreign Office pass with a green stripe denoting security clearance, weeks before Robbins made a decision on the UKSV advice.

Such a pass gives the holder access to sensitive areas across government, not just in the Foreign Office. On what basis, and on whose authority, was Mandelson given that pass, and who was consulted beforehand? 

Did Robbins resist Mandelson vetting documents being released to parliament?

In recent weeks, officials have been debating whether highly confidential documents pertaining to Mandelson’s vetting could be released to parliament.

As part of a transparency process voted for by MPs, documents deemed prejudicial to national security or international relations were supposed to be referred to the ISC which would decide if the public should see them.

There were concerns about disclosing Mandelson’s vetting file however, as well as a separate Foreign Office document explaining Robbins’ decision.

Some officials argued that disclosure of such files would be “unprecedented” and should be avoided on national security grounds.

Given his personal conflict of interest in the matter, did Robbins recuse himself from those discussions? If not, did he in any way resist the documents being disclosed to parliament?