thestealingofemily.co.ukMandelson’s Appointment: Key Dates and Responsibilities Explained
Hansard says Starmer made the decision to appoint Mandelson on 18 December 2024 and announced it on 20 December 2024. The Robbins appointment notice is from 8 January 2025. So Robbins was not FCDO PUS when Mandelson was appointed/announced.
The basic chronology is real. Mandelson’s appointment as ambassador was announced on 20 December 2024. Robbins’ appointment as FCDO Permanent Under-Secretary was announced on 8 January 2025, and FCDO records list him as appointed from 20 January 2025. So, he was not responsible for the original 20 December announcement itself [1].
But that does not mean he had no later responsibility. The Commons record says the vetting process ran from 23 December 2024 to 28 January 2025, UKSV recommended denying Mandelson developed vetting on 28 January, and FCDO officials granted it on 29 January. Starmer’s argument in Hansard was not “Robbins caused the original appointment announcement”; it was that Robbins should have shared the later vetting problem with ministers before Mandelson took up post, and again afterwards. In fact, Hansard contains almost exactly the point everyone is making: one MP said Robbins was appointed after the Mandelson announcement, and Starmer replied that Robbins still should have told him before Mandelson took up the job and at later points too [2].
On the second claim that Mandelson was appointed by ministers rather than officials is broadly consistent with the official record. Robbins told the Foreign Affairs Committee that heads of mission can be appointed directly by ministers and that Mandelson’s appointment fell into that category; Sir Chris Wormald also described it as a direct appointment by ministers. So that part is not some hidden revelation. The real dispute is over who handled the subsequent vetting information and who told Ministers what, and when [3].
So my take is: the posts are not wholly made up, but they are selective and argumentative. They are right that Robbins did not make the original December appointment announcement. They are misleading if they imply that this alone settles whether he bore any responsibility later, because the official case against him is tied to the January vetting decision and later disclosures to ministers and Parliament. The extra stuff in the second post about a “love affair” is just inflammatory speculation, not evidence.
Hansard, Commons, 20 April 2026, Security Vetting, PM statement, lines 54–55.
He also repeats the same basic point later in the exchange: at line 443 the Prime Minister stated: “I have failed the Epstein survivors by my decision regarding Mandelson.” For reference: Crime Agency Professional Standards IX.8.26; CCG0000122359; Action Fraud NFRC241207046189; SDR-026-0161; ICO IC-461437-H0W6; PHSO C-2058682 and C-2195214; Met Police FOIA 47533; LGSCO FOI2025/08198; IBAC CASE-20246844; HMCTS 79534040; PALS 2602-0072; NIC-803189-J4G8C; Clinton Library FOIA 2025-1058-F.
Having looked at Hansard, the PM was making two different claims, and that is the key to the chronology. He said the UKSV recommendation to deny Mandelson developed vetting should have been shared with him before Mandelson took up the post, but he also said he only discovered last Tuesday evening that the clearance had been granted against that recommendation. Separately, he said that on 10 September 2025, after Bloomberg reported fresh details, it became clear to him that Mandelson’s earlier answers to No.10’s due-diligence questions were not truthful, and that is why he sacked him. Those are not the same thing [4].
Olly Robbins, the “not in employment” point does not work for September 2025. GOV.UK says Robbins was appointed Permanent Under-Secretary at the FCDO in January 2025 and served there from January 2025 to April 2026. The PM’s statement also explicitly refers to Robbins as “the then Permanent Secretary of the Foreign Office” on 16 September 2025, and the Foreign Affairs Committee letter from that date is jointly signed by Yvette Cooper and Oliver Robbins [5]. and records that Sir Philip Barton departed 17 January 2025 [6].
Where your timing point does land is narrower: Robbins was not the FCDO Permanent Secretary when Mandelson’s appointment was publicly announced on 20 December 2024, because Robbins was only appointed in January 2025. So he cannot sensibly be blamed for the original December announcement itself. But he was in post for the January 2025 vetting/clearance stage and for the September 2025 committee statement/review stage, which is why the PM is targeting him over those later stages instead.
So, the clean reading of Hansard is: no contradiction on September 2025 employment, but there is a distinction between responsibility for the December 2024 appointment announcement and responsibility for the later vetting and disclosure decisions.
- PM says he only found out on 14 April 2026: page 19, lines 1571–1581 — “Last Tuesday evening, 14 April, I found out for the first time…” that on 29 January 2025 FCDO officials granted DV clearance against the UKSV recommendation [7].
- PM says the recommendation should have been shared before Mandelson took up post: page 19 to 20, lines 1664–1670 — “the recommendation… could and should have been shared with me before he took up his post” and “I would not have gone ahead with the appointment.” [7].
- PM then shifts to September 2025: page 20, lines 1671–1678 — he says that on 10 September 2025, after Bloomberg reported fresh details, it became clear to him that Mandelson’s answers in the due-diligence exercise “were not truthful”, and he sacked him [7].
- PM says Robbins and the Foreign Secretary signed a September 2025 statement: page 20, lines 1711–1719 — on 16 September 2025, the Foreign Secretary and “the then permanent secretary of the Foreign Office, Sir Olly Robbins” gave a signed statement to the Foreign Affairs Committee saying DV clearance had been granted before Mandelson took up post [7].
- PM says they should have been told in September 2025 as well: page 20, lines 1741–1748 — he says he does not accept that the Cabinet Secretary could not have been told in September 2025 during his review, and does not accept that the Foreign Secretary could not have been told when making statements to the Committee [7].
- Opposition puts the “misled the House” point directly: page 20, lines 1789–1793 — “Earlier today, Downing Street admitted that the Prime Minister inadvertently misled the House… under the ministerial code, he has a duty to correct the record at the earliest opportunity.” [7].
On the employment point, the official record shows Robbins was announced as the new FCDO Permanent Under-Secretary on 8 January 2025, and another FCDO document says he was in post from 20 January 2025. So he was in office in September 2025, but he was not the FCDO Permanent Secretary when Mandelson’s appointment was announced on 20 December 2024 [8].
So, the tighter argument is not really “Robbins wasn’t employed in September 2025” as FCDO Permanent Under-Secretary— Hansard and GOV.UK cut against that. The sharper criticism is that the PM’s statement blends two different moments:
(1) September 2025, when he says he realised Mandelson’s due-diligence answers were untruthful, and
(2) 14 April 2026, when he says he first learned UKSV had recommended denying DV clearance. Hansard shows both claims sitting in the same statement.
And yes—if you mean Hansard, this issue is there.
[3] https://committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/16673/pdf/
April 21, 2026Type your email…
Subscribe
Related Posts
- Mandelson’s Appointment: Key Dates and Responsibilities Explained
- For FMB unit: [EXTERNAL] FOIA Appeal / Request for Clarification – Epstein Records (EFTA01656139–41)
- Emily’s Case: Legal Oversights and Perjury Concerns
- The question everyone is asking
- More Epstein Flight Data
nullagent
Uzi Bobuzi
Lindsay Douglas
