Elliot Burrin
Live reporter

Image source, House of Commons

A couple of hours-long Parliamentary sessions have dominated UK politics today.

Tuesday opened with a two-and-a-half hour long Foreign Affairs Select Committee, where former top Foreign Office official Olly Robbins gave evidence over the vetting process for Lord Mandelson.

Robbins, who was appointed to the role in January last year, said when he took over there was "already a very, very strong expectation" from No 10 that Mandelson "needed to be in post and in America as quickly as possible".

He said No 10 had a "dismissive" attitude over Mandelson's security clearance, but that vetting had been completed to the "normal high standard" - more on that in our earlier summary.

Downing Street denied showing a "dismissive" approach to the vetting, and said Robbins made an "error of judgement".

Then, this afternoon, the Commons took part in an emergency debate on Mandelson's appointment. That session has just finished, and you can read more on the key lines in the post below.

We're ending our live coverage. You can read more in our new story here.

Image source, House of Commons

The emergency debate over Peter Mandelson's appointment process has finished, with a number of MPs calling for the prime minister to resign.

• Tory leader Kemi Badenoch, who tabled the debate, accused the PM of appointing a "known security risk" and said he used Olly Robbins - the top Foreign Official who was effectively sacked over this - as a "human shield"
• She also agreed with a call from the SNP's Stephen Flynn for a no confidence vote in the prime minister
• Lib Dem leader Ed Davey asked why Starmer was "so determined" to appoint Mandelson in the first place - claiming it was to "appease Trump"
• Green MP Ellie Chowns accused Starmer of "willful ignorance over Mandelson" and called on the PM to resign, while Reform UK's Danny Kruger said Starmer's position is "untenable"
• Liz Saville Roberts, from Plaid Cymru, said the discussion over the "fine details" of the appointment process is a defence of "ignorance and incompetency"

• Delivering the government's response, Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister Darren Jones said the decision to appoint Mandelson was "the wrong one", but denied a number of accusations about how the process played out

Responding to Jones, Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch praises MPs for what she calls "powerful" contributions and statements during the debate.

She says those who took part know the government's "story does not add up".

Badenoch talks about Jones's statement, and says there were a number of questions that he couldn't answer.

"He couldn't answer because only one man can - that man is not here today," Badenoch says, a reference to the prime minister.

"I do not know whether he thinks he is above answering these questions, we will try again tomorrow," she says.

"But what I do know, is the prime minister has put the country's national security at risk. He is not fit for office. It is time for him to go."

That's the end of today's debate - we'll bring you a recap of the key lines shortly.

Image source, House of Commons

More from Darren Jones, who says the government is "proceeding at pace" to process the outstanding documents relating to Mandelson's appointment as US ambassador.

He says a number of those are being reviewed by the Intelligence and Security Committee, with the aim of publishing them "as a matter of urgency" - shouts of "when?" can be heard in the chamber.

Jones says there have been accusations during the debate that the Cabinet Office had suggested that developed vetted status, or the process to seek that, wasn't necessary.

"Those accusations are inaccurate," he says, adding that the Foreign Office had asked the Cabinet Office whether further developed vetting was required - given Mandelson was already a peer and in the Privy Council.

"That then subsequently took place," he says.

Jack Fenwick
Political correspondent

Within the chamber, criticism from the Labour benches towards the prime minister has been restricted to MPs firmly on the left of the party.

Most Labour backbenchers have chosen not to turn up to the emergency debate called by the Conservatives. But in private there’s further frustration about today’s events.

When asked where Sir Olly Robbins’s appearance at the committee this morning left things for the prime minister, one senior Labour MP simply says: “Dodgy!”

And the news that Robbins was asked to look for an ambassador job for Matthew Doyle hasn’t gone down well either.

One Labour MP tells me: “The Doyle thing is just a joke and probably the last straw for some.” That message is accompanied by a meme of a man saying “oh yeah it’s over”.

Delivering the government's response, the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, Darren Jones, says: "The government has been and remains committed to keeping the house informed."

At the heart of this debate, he says, is the decision to appoint Mandelson as US ambassador. Jones says the prime minister apologises for the decision and extends an apology to Jeffrey Epstein's victims.

"I don't come here to defend that decision," he says. "It was the wrong one, but I'm here however to account for the government's accountability on the process that followed."

Jones gives way to Lib Dem leader Ed Davey, who asks whether Starmer followed due process. Jones says the processes in place were followed.

Image source, House of Commons

Green Party MP Dr Ellie Chowns says the prime minister has displayed "terminal professional incuriosity" and "wilful ignorance" over Mandelson - which she calls "totally unacceptable".

Chowns says No 10 put in place a culture that established - citing Olly Robbins's comments earlier - a "very, very strong expectation that vetting would be passed".

The Green MP says there was no culture of paying attention to due process - only of getting Mandelson in post "as quickly as possible".

She accuses Starmer of having a "temper tantrum" and sacking Robbins, and says "the country is furious" with him. "He should resign," she says.

Reform UK's Danny Kruger says "the prime minister is now trying to dump the entire scandal on one official for acting within a position that Downing Street itself had signed off".

He says: "That is not accountability, that is a stitch up."

Continuing, Kruger says it's time to "drop the pretence this was some neutral pristine process" derailed by one official that made a mistake, claiming that Mandelson's appointment was "politically driven from the top and forced through in an atmosphere of pressure".

The Reform MP concludes by saying that he believes the prime minister's position is "untenable".

Image source, House of Commons

The urgent debate on Mandelson's appointment as the US ambassador is still ongoing - here's a recap of what has been said so far.

• Both Tory leader Kemi Badenoch and the SNP's Westminster leader Stephen Flynn called for a vote of no confidence in the prime minister
• Badenoch says Starmer "has put the country's national security at risk" and must now "take responsibility" - she also accused him of using the former top official at the Foreign Office, Olly Robbins, as a "human shield"
• We've not heard from a senior Labour figure in the Commons - but Labour MP Matt Western says the prime minister wanted to "bring order" to the UK's trade arrangements, which is why he was "persuaded" to appoint Mandelson in the first place

• Lib Dem leader Ed Davey accuses Starmer of trying "to appease Trump" and "stroke his ego" through Mandelson's appointment, and says it's "utterly depressing" that MPs are having to debate this over a number of other pressing issues
• Plaid Cymru's Liz Saville Roberts says discussion over the "fine details" of the vetting process has morphed into "a defence of ignorance... and a defence of incompetency"

As a reminder, you can watch live at the top of the page.

Image source, UK Parliament

Stepping away from the House of Commons for a moment.

Earlier, the former top official at the Foreign Office, Olly Robbins, said that in March 2025 he was asked by No 10 to “potentially” find a job as an ambassador for Matthew Doyle.

At the time, Doyle was the prime minister's director of communications, and was subsequently given a peerage. He has since been suspended from the party over his links with a convicted sex offender - which he has apologised for.

Doyle's now released a statement, saying he "never sought" any ambassadorial role.

He says: “I was never aware of anyone speaking to the Foreign Office about such a role for me. My desire after leaving No 10 was to stay in UK politics.”

Image source, UK Parliament

Plaid Cymru's Liz Saville Roberts says discussion over the "fine details" of the Mandelson vetting process "morphs into a defence of ignorance... and a defence of incompetency".

She says that's doing the prime minister "as much harm" as any argument about his honesty.

Labour MP Alex Ballinger responds, saying they've heard "real concerns" about the appointment process during the debate, and that he's glad a review has been announced.

Image source, House of Commons

Labour MP Matt Western says Keir Starmer "wanted to bring order" to the UK's trade arrangements, which is why he was "persuaded" to appoint Mandelson as US ambassador.

If there is "one thing" he can say about the prime minister, it's that "he is absolutely rock solid when it comes to process", Western says.

He adds that he believes Starmer is a man of "utmost decency, and would never, ever lie" - as he knows his credibility rests on that.

Western says it's important to differentiate between the prime minister and the team around him, adding that Starmer had realised "there were problems within his team" when he "sacked" his former chief of staff Morgan McSweeney.

• For context, McSweeney quit the role in February after mounting scrutiny over his role pushing for Mandelson's appointment. He said he did not oversee the vetting but wanted to take "full responsibility" for advising the prime minister to appoint him

Image source, House of Commons

MPs are still taking part in an emergency debate over the Mandelson vetting process - you can watch live at the top of the page.

Next, the House of Commons hears from Liberal Democrats leader Sir Ed Davey, who begins by reflecting on how "utterly depressing it is we are having to have this debate at all".

He says: "Instead of fixing the NHS and social care; instead properly funding our defence or cutting prices at the pumps; here we are having to ask why the prime minister appointed close friend of notorious paedophile sex trafficker to one of most important and sensitive jobs in this government.

• For context, Mandelson was sacked as US ambassador over his ties to the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. He has since said he regretted ever having known Epstein

Davey asks: "Why was he so determined to get Mandelson in post? I think we know a big part of the answer - Donald Trump."

He accuses the prime minister of trying "to appease Trump" and "stroke his ego" with the hope that the US president would be nice in return.

"Clearly he thought Mandelson was the man for that job," Davey adds.

Badenoch gives way briefly to the SNP's Stephen Flynn, who asks the Tory leader if she believes there should be a vote of no confidence in the prime minister.

"I think he is right," Badenoch replies. "Because I don't believe the prime minister has the intention of doing the honourable thing himself, even though that is the standard to which he held everyone else."

That decision is ultimately up to Labour MPs, she says.

Concluding, Badenoch says: "This prime minister has put the country's national security at risk. He must take responsibility, it is time for him to go."

Image source, House of Commons

The prime minister is not present in the Commons for today's debate, something which Badenoch says she is not surprised about.

Continuing her opening remarks, Badenoch says the British public deserve to know how this "failure" happened, and accuses the prime minister of using Olly Robbins as a "human shield".

Badenoch claims the sacking of civil servants to "carry the can" for Starmer's failures has cost taxpayers more than £1.5m before the dismissal of Robbins.

Badenoch says that due to factors such as cost of living rises and war in the Middle East, the UK needs a prime minister "who has a grip on national security".

Image source, House of Commons

The Conservative Party leader turns to what she calls this morning's "bombshell" testimony by Olly Robbins.

She mentions his comments earlier that Downing Street put "constant pressure" on the Foreign Office to approve Mandelson's appointment.

Badenoch says "we know that he is giving us the slightest indication of how bad things were".

She says "Mandelson wasn't a one off", pointing to comments from Robbins who said No 10 asked him to “potentially” find a job as an ambassador for Matthew Doyle - more on that here.

"The idea that it is No 10 who are the victims of others not following due process is quite frankly laughable", Badenoch adds.

Kemi Badenoch begins, saying the prime minister "personally decided to appoint a serious, known national security risk" as US ambassador.

She says Mandelson had already been "sacked from government twice for lying", and was known to have a public relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, and links to Russia and China.

The leader of the opposition says Starmer didn't deny knowing about these before appointing Mandelson, in his statement to the Commons yesterday.

"I cannot overstate how serious a matter this is," she says.

Image source, House of Commons

An emergency debate on Peter Mandelson's appointment process has just begun.

Leader of the Opposition Kemi Badenoch stands to speak in the House of Commons, to cheers from her benches.

She tabled the question on Monday - saying at the time there remains "serious questions about what [Starmer] knew and when".

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

Three things we still don’t know after Robbins’s evidencepublished at 14:07 BST

14:07 BST

By Tom Edgington

We’ve been following this morning's session with Olly Robbins - here are some of the questions that remain unanswered:

Who in No 10 was putting“constantpressure” on the Foreign Office over Mandelson?

Robbins described how the Foreign Office was under “constant pressure” throughout January 2025 to approve Mandelson’s appointment.

When pressed, Robbins said the pressure came from the private office in No 10 but said he wouldn’t “scapegoat other civil servants”.

Did the vetting raise any any fresh concerns about Mandelson?

Robbins was asked if the vetting process revealed any fresh concerns about Mandelson that weren’t already public.

He refused to answer saying: “I don't think I can open that box.”

Pressed about this later in the session, Robbins said: “You’re inviting me to say were there risks that were not already known in the public domain and I’m afraid if there’s one thing keeping me sane over the last few days is that I will defend the integrity of this process.”

Image source, ParliamentTV via Reuters

What did the vetting body recommend?

Prime Minister Keir Starmer told MPs yesterday that “UKSV [UK Security Vetting] recommended to the Foreign Office that developed vetting clearance should be denied to Peter Mandelson”.

However, today Robbins suggested it was less clear cut.

He said he was briefed in person on 29 January, where he was told Mandelson’s vetting “was a borderline case and that UKSV were leaning against granting clearance”.

Speaking after the session, committee chair Dame Emily Thornberry said that despite Robbins claiming Mandelson’s case was borderline, “the paperwork - as we understand it - actually shows that the UKSV had recommended that developed vetting be denied”.

More now from Downing Street.

A No 10 spokesman says the prime minister told his Cabinet today that Robbins was a “man of integrity and professionalism” who made an “error of judgement”.

In a readout of the meeting, he says: “[Starmer] concluded by saying that Sir Oliver Robbins made an error of judgement, 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 had been attacked despite doing exactly the right thing and sharing the information with the prime minister once they had gone through the correct processes 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.”