Olly Robbins’ evidence to foreign affairs committee – snap verdict
Olly Robbins did not come across as angry or bitter. Instead he came across as hurt and disappointed – but also conscientious, principled, and honest. He seemed to impress members of the foreign affairs committee, and that made his evidence all the more compelling.
Mostly, he did not say anything that directly contradicts what Keir Starmer told MPs yesterday. They both agree Starmer, and No 10 generally, were not told about the reservations UKSV (UK Security Vetting) had about Peter Mandelson. Robbins would not discuss the details of his conversation with PM where the PM told him he was being sacked, but he was passionate, and quite compelling, about the case for protecting the confidentiality of the DV (developed vetting) system. But there is still one hole in this part of the story. While No 10 is saying the UKSV file on Mandelson shows that “the recommendation from the vetting officer had been that DV should not be granted to Peter Mandelson”, Robbins claims he was not told that, at least in those terms. (See 9.56am, 10am, 10.10am and 10.47am.) On this point, the committee did not sound as if it was confident that it had got to the bottom of the story.
Robbins also claimed that knowing that refusing Mandelson’s vetting would cause a colossal problem for No 10 was not a factor in the decision to approve it. (See 11.23am.) Mmm. You can choose to believe that if you want.
But the most important part of Robbins’ evidence was what he said about the pressure he, and the rest of the Foreign Office, were under to push through the appointment. This was not a total surprise; but Robbins’ language was powerful. (See 9.14am, 9.22am and 10.22am.) And Robbins revealed that the Cabinet Office argued that Mandelson did not even need to be vetted. This is new, and highly embarrassing.
Kemi Badenoch is claiming that Robbins’ evidence shows that due process was not followed. (See 12pm.) In fact, it shows the opposite; it is because due process was being follow that Morgan McSweeney was constantly on the phone telling the Foreign Office to speed it all up. Badenoch is pushing this line because she is still trying to land the argument that Starmer lied to MPs, despite having to back down from the extreme version of this claim she was pushing last week.
Ed Davey’s response to the Robbins’ hearing (see 12.05pm) is more astute because he has focused on the one revelation from the hearing that will most shock Labour MPs: that No 10 was trying to find a diplomatic job for Matthew Doyle. The broadcasters have not been making this a key feature of their coverage yet because Doyle, despite being a peer (and independent one, now he has lost the Labour whip), is not really a public figure. But he is very well known to Labour MPs (he has a long history in the party, being a Labour adviser when Tony Blair was PM) and backbenchers will be astounded that Starmer was lining him up for a plum Foreign Office job. The fact that this is now public is bad for Starmer’s reputation with the people who will decide his fate.
Updated at 08.45 EDT
Key events
Show key events only
Please turn on JavaScript to use this feature
What journalists and commentators are saying about Robbins’ evidence
Here is some reaction from journalists and commentators to the Olly Robbins’s evidence.
From Kevin Maguire, the former Daily Mirror political editor
double quotation markHe’s fucked Kev. It’s done.”
Message from Labour MP watching Olly Robbins.
The “He” is, of course, Keir Starmer.
From Kevin Schofield from HuffPost UK
double quotation markLabour MPs selling shares in Starmer after Robbins’ appearance before the Foreign Affairs Committee.
One describes his evidence as “utterly devastating – and truthful”.
“The Burnham train has left the station and everybody will be clambering to get on it,” the MP adds.
Senior party figure says Starmer should set out a timetable for his departure after the May 7 elections.
“Labour can’t make the mistakes the Democrats made. Biden left it too late to go and helped usher in Trump. Keir is helping usher in Farage.”
From my colleague Jessica Elgot
double quotation markThis is the key point. The prime minister says he would have blocked Mandelson had he known about the UKSV concerns. But we know an atmosphere was created at the time which suggested the opposite.
From the Telegraph’s Tony Diver
double quotation markThe principle of the issue aside, you do have to question the political wisdom of Keir Starmer to publicly start a briefing war with one of the only people in the world who knows he tried to appoint Lord Doyle as an ambassador. Was this not an inevitable outcome?
From Bloomberg’s Alex Wickham
double quotation markThe top line of Robbins’ testimony is damning and on the worse end of expectations for the prime minister. He accused Downing Street of having a “dismissive approach” to vetting and creating an “atmosphere of pressure” by pressing ahead with the appointment and announcement before vetting had been completed. That is strong language that Starmer will have to answer.
From Sky’s Sam Coates
double quotation markThe thing I find so surprising about all of this is this is a war Number 10 started and over the next few days prosecuted with vigour. Did they not know the Doyle fact could emerge? Did they not know the cabinet office didn’t suggest vetting at all?
This is (in part) the consequence of not having a stable, functional, long term team around the PM providing institutional memory and helping with medium term judgement
Throwing people under the bus is the short term and the long term cause of what we are seeing
From the Times’ Steven Swinford
double quotation markThere are parallels between Keir Starmer turning on Olly Robbins and Boris Johnson turning on Dominic Cummings
In both cases Starmer and Johnson believed they could assert their authority and use their position to take on and ultimately bury their former employees
In both cases Cummings and Robbins have used devastating appearances before select committees to drop a welter of extraordinary and damaging revelations about their former bosses
From Robert Colvile, the Sunday Times columnist
double quotation markThe irony is that the Robbins letter shows there is a credible case Starmer/No 10 could have made in its own defence (that the Guardian report wasn’t accurate), which it blew up by firing/starting a briefing war with Robbins…
From the Sun’s Jack Elsom
double quotation markWe have today witnessed one of the most brutal demolition jobs in modern political history.
It may have been couched in Whitehall jargon. It may have been done with unflappable politeness and charm.
But over the course of two hours, Sir Olly Robbins successfully steamrollered Sir Keir Starmer’s version of events surrounding the appointment of Peter Mandelson.
ShareStarmer says Robbins made ‘error of judgment’ in not telling him about Mandelson concerns
Keir Starmer has restated his claim that Olly Robbins was wrong not to tell him about the UK Security Vetting concerns about Peter Mandelson. Downing Street has sent out a readout from today’s cabinet, and it is all about the Mandelson appointment – mostly just restating what Starmer told MPs yesterday.
It concludes:
double quotation markThe prime minister concluded by saying that Sir Olly Robbins made an error of judgment, but that he is a man of integrity and professionalism. He said it is wrong that the current cabinet secretary and permanent secretary at the Cabinet Office have been attacked despite doing exactly the right thing in sharing the information with the prime minister once they had gone through the correct process to do so. He said that there are thousands of hard-working civil servants across the country who are full of integrity, doing excellent work every day with a profound sense of public duty.
It is not entirely clear who Starmer was referring to when he talked about people attacking the cabinet secretary, Antonia Romeo, and the permanent secretary at the Cabinet Office, Catherine Little. During his evidence, Robbins did implicitly criticise these two officials, because he said that once they told the PM and others in No 10 about the Mandelson file, the news soon leaked. (See 11.18am.)
But Robbins made this point after well today’s cabinet meeting would have started.
ShareHow Starmer sidestepped question about other potential politicial diplomatic appointments, day before Doyle revelation
Christopher Hope from GB News points out that the Lib Dem MP Edward Morello, who is a member of the foreign affairs committee and who was one of the MPs questioning Olly Robbins this morning, also asked Keir Starmer yesterday if he had proposed other political diplomatic appointments. This suggests Morello may have known about the Matthew Doyle proposal. Starmer sidestepped the question, saying there were many appointments and he would need to check.
ShareSNP’s Westminster leader Stephen Flynn says Starmer should resign ‘today’ in light of Olly Robbins’ evidence
Stephen Flynn, the SNP leader at Westminster, has said that Keir Starmer should resign today in the light of the Olly Robbins revelations.
During the hearing Flynn posted this on social media.
double quotation markI wrote to Keir Starmer warning him not to appoint Matthew Doyle to the Lords due to his connection with a convicted paedophile.
He ignored those warnings.
And it now turns out he had even higher hopes for Doyle.
Just extraordinary.
And, after the hearing was over, Flynn released this statement.
double quotation markThe evidence from Olly Robbins this morning was devastating and definitive – Keir Starmer’s short and sorry time as prime minister is finished. He should now do the only decent thing and resign before the day is out.
Updated at 08.16 EDT
Reeves extends windfall tax being extended for energy firms, partly to get them to switch to better pricing model
In the Commons Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, has just confirmed that she is extending the windfall tax for energy companies. She said this would generate more money for the Treasury, helping to pay for “government to support businesses and families”, and encourage electricity producers to move on to new contracts, which should lead to lower prices for consumers.
Jillian Ambrose wrote a preview of this announcement here.
Today Reeves told MPs:
double quotation markI am announcing that I will extend the electricity generator levy past its scheduled conclusion in 2028. And ahead of that, I am increasing the rate of the electricity generators levy from 45% to 55%.
This ensures that a larger proportion of any exceptional revenues from high gas prices are passed back to government, providing a vital revenue stream so that money is available for government to support businesses and families with the impacts of the conflict in the Middle East.
But, crucially, it will encourage older, low carbon electricity generators, which supply about a third of our power, to move from market pricing to fixed price contracts for difference.
Under new proposals set out by [energy secretary Ed Miliband] today, that will further weaken the link between high gas prices and the price paid for our electricity, and limiting the spikes in energy prices from driving up inflation and costs for households and for businesses.
Reeves also said she publishing new rules for “tiebacks”, which allow North Sea oil and gas producers to extend drilling into areas adjacent to existing fields that can be accessed via rigs already in place. She said these rules could lead to “tens of millions more barrels of oil and gas being available for UK supply”.
And she said she was removing barriers to investment in renewables too.
ShareYvette Cooper tells MPs she would not have approved of No 10 giving Matthew Doyle ambassador job
During Foreign Office questions in the Commons, Yvette Cooper, the foreign secretary, said she would not have approved of Matthew Doyle being made an ambassador.
Asked by the Lib Dem foreign affairs spokesperson Calum Miller about the revelation that came out when Olly Robbins was giving evidence to MPs this morning, Cooper said:
double quotation markI was the home secretary at the time that I understand this has taken place, so I was not involved and don’t know the circumstances.
I am, of course, extremely concerned at any suggestion that the permanent secretary or permanent undersecretary of the Foreign Office would be told not to inform the foreign secretary.
I can also confirm that the case that he raised, it would not have been an appropriate appointment.
In the Commons Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, is making a statement giving an update on the economic response to the Iran war, and what happened at her IMF meetings in Washington.
This will run for about an hour. Then MPs will open the emergency debate tabled by the Tories on the Mandelson vetting.
ShareOlly Robbins’ evidence to foreign affairs committee – snap verdict
Olly Robbins did not come across as angry or bitter. Instead he came across as hurt and disappointed – but also conscientious, principled, and honest. He seemed to impress members of the foreign affairs committee, and that made his evidence all the more compelling.
Mostly, he did not say anything that directly contradicts what Keir Starmer told MPs yesterday. They both agree Starmer, and No 10 generally, were not told about the reservations UKSV (UK Security Vetting) had about Peter Mandelson. Robbins would not discuss the details of his conversation with PM where the PM told him he was being sacked, but he was passionate, and quite compelling, about the case for protecting the confidentiality of the DV (developed vetting) system. But there is still one hole in this part of the story. While No 10 is saying the UKSV file on Mandelson shows that “the recommendation from the vetting officer had been that DV should not be granted to Peter Mandelson”, Robbins claims he was not told that, at least in those terms. (See 9.56am, 10am, 10.10am and 10.47am.) On this point, the committee did not sound as if it was confident that it had got to the bottom of the story.
Robbins also claimed that knowing that refusing Mandelson’s vetting would cause a colossal problem for No 10 was not a factor in the decision to approve it. (See 11.23am.) Mmm. You can choose to believe that if you want.
But the most important part of Robbins’ evidence was what he said about the pressure he, and the rest of the Foreign Office, were under to push through the appointment. This was not a total surprise; but Robbins’ language was powerful. (See 9.14am, 9.22am and 10.22am.) And Robbins revealed that the Cabinet Office argued that Mandelson did not even need to be vetted. This is new, and highly embarrassing.
Kemi Badenoch is claiming that Robbins’ evidence shows that due process was not followed. (See 12pm.) In fact, it shows the opposite; it is because due process was being follow that Morgan McSweeney was constantly on the phone telling the Foreign Office to speed it all up. Badenoch is pushing this line because she is still trying to land the argument that Starmer lied to MPs, despite having to back down from the extreme version of this claim she was pushing last week.
Ed Davey’s response to the Robbins’ hearing (see 12.05pm) is more astute because he has focused on the one revelation from the hearing that will most shock Labour MPs: that No 10 was trying to find a diplomatic job for Matthew Doyle. The broadcasters have not been making this a key feature of their coverage yet because Doyle, despite being a peer (and independent one, now he has lost the Labour whip), is not really a public figure. But he is very well known to Labour MPs (he has a long history in the party, being a Labour adviser when Tony Blair was PM) and backbenchers will be astounded that Starmer was lining him up for a plum Foreign Office job. The fact that this is now public is bad for Starmer’s reputation with the people who will decide his fate.
Updated at 08.45 EDT
Ed Davey says revelation about No 10 wanting diplomatic job for Matthew Doyle ‘incredibly damning’ for PM
In his response to the hearing, Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, has focused on the revelation about No 10 wanting for find an ambassador’s job for Matthew Doyle. (See 10.29am and 11.03am.)
double quotation markThis is incredibly damning for Keir Starmer.
Not content with appointing Peter Mandelson as US ambassador despite his links to Epstein, he tried to appoint another man with a known friendship with a sex offender.
This is not just a lapse in judgment, it’s a pattern of behaviour.
Every day this scandal gets worse, and it becomes clearer that the only way to draw a line under it is for Starmer to go.
ShareBadenoch claims Robbins’ evidence shows Starmer misled MPs, because ‘due process’ not followed in Mandelson appointment
Kemi Badenoch claims that Olly Robbins evidence shows that “due process” was not followed in the appointment of Peter Mandelson, and that therefore Keir Starmer misled MPs when he claimed it had been.
She has posted this on social media.
double quotation markThe evidence from Olly Robbins is devastating to Keir Starmer.
It is clear that No10 not only made the appointment before vetting was completed, but that Mandelson was already acting as the Ambassador before the vetting – even seeing highly classified documents.
With this, and the ‘constant pressure’ No10 applied to the appointment and their ‘dismissive attitude’ to vetting Mandelson, it is now absolutely clear that ‘full due process’ was not followed.
Keir Starmer has misled the House.