The former top official at the Foreign Office has hit back at Keir Starmer over the fallout from Peter Mandelson’s security vetting process.
Sir Olly Robbins gave evidence to MPs on the Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee on Tuesday after being sacked by Downing Street last week over the decision to grant Lord Mandelson security clearance as US ambassador despite red flags in his vetting.
The saga has become the latest chapter in a scandal which has overshadowed Sir Keir Starmer’s premiership and prompted concerns over the prime minister’s leadership and judgement.
Sir Olly answered questions about the vetting process – including why ministers were not informed about concerns raised by UK Security Vetting (UKSV) – during a bombshell two-and-a-half-hour session.
Here are the key points from his evidence:
Robbins did not tell Starmer about Mandelson’s failed vetting
Sir Keir Starmer has always maintained that he was not told by the Foreign Office that Lord Mandelson failed his vetting, a claim which has been met with incredulity.
But Sir Olly Robbins backed Sir Keir’s version of events and admitted he had not told the prime minister because he did not think that was the correct process.
Asked whether Sir Keir is right to have expected to be provided with more information on the vetting process, Sir Olly said that is a “dangerous misunderstanding” of confidentiality around the process.
“I’ve been interested, of course, over the last couple of days to read Lord Hague on this today and David Lammy even on Saturday, the former foreign secretary, deputy prime minister, where both have said in different language that they have never had vetting issues discussed with them in all their time as a minister and nor would they expect to,” he said.
“I’m afraid that’s exactly the culture I have been brought up in. It’s supported by guidance. You are not supposed to share the findings and reports of UKSV other than in the exceptional circumstances where doing so allows for the specific mitigation of risk.”
Some parts of government did not want to vet Mandelson at all
The former top mandarin at the Foreign Office said it was not a “given” that Lord Mandelson would be vetted for his appointment, and that there was a “position taken from the Cabinet Office that there was no need” to do so at all.
He said there was a “debate” between the Cabinet Office and the FCDO about how to make sure Mandelson was sent to Washington with appropriate clearance.
“A position taken from the Cabinet Office was that there was no need to vet Mandelson,” he said. “He was a member of the House of Lords, he was a privy counsellor, the risks attending his appointment were well-known and had been made clear to the prime minister before appointment.”
But the Foreign Office “put its foot down” and followed the process, Sir Olly said.
‘Constant pressure’ from No 10 who wanted Mandelson in Washington ‘as quickly as humanly possible’
Sir Olly said that, when he took up his post as the top official in the Foreign Office, he was told that No 10 wanted Mandelson to be in post as “quickly as humanly possible”.
He said this created an “atmosphere of pressure” within the department, and suggested a “dismissive approach” from Downing Street over Mandelson’s vetting. There had been “constant chasing” from the private office at No 10 while vetting took place.
“The very first formal communication of this to my predecessor from No 10 private office, being that they wanted all this done at pace and Mandelson in post before inauguration,” he said.
“So that’s the situation I faced. So I’m afraid what that translated into for my team in the Foreign Office – and certainly the handover briefing I was getting as I arrived at post – was what I felt was a generally dismissive attitude to his vetting clearance.”
He said there was “never any interest, as far as I can recall, in whether, but only an interest in when” the appointment had been cleared.
Denying Mandelson the ambassador role would have ‘damaged’ relations with US
Sir Olly Robbins has told MPs it would have “damaged” relations with the US and “caused quite an issue in the relationship” if the UK had been forced to change its proposed ambassador to Washington after the Mandelson appointment had been announced.
He added that the incoming Trump administration “may well have commented on it publicly”.
He told MPs it would have been better for security clearance to be decided before the peer was public announced as Sir Keir’s pick for the Washington job.
“That’s a very, very sensible position to be in and it’s what I would have advised in this case too,” he told MPs.
Mandelson was a ‘borderline’ case
Sir Olly said he was briefed that UKSV considered Mandelson a “borderline case” and that risks identified did not relate to his relationship with paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein.
The former senior civil servant said: “I was briefed that UKSV considered Mandelson a borderline case and that they were leaning towards recommending that clearance be denied, but that the Foreign Office’s security department assessed that the risks identified as of highest concern by UKSV could be managed and/or mitigated.
“I was also told that the risks did not relate to Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.
“And I was told that UKSV acknowledged, I don’t know in what way, but acknowledged that the Foreign Office might wish to grant clearance with appropriate risk management.”
No 10 pushed for Lord Doyle ambassadorship – and asked Robbins not to tell Lammy
Robbins told MPs that No 10 initiated a number of conversations with him “about potentially finding a head of mission opportunity for Matthew Doyle”, a key aide to Starmer and his former director of communications.
He added that he was under “strict instruction” not to discuss that with the then foreign secretary David Lammy and said the situation made him feel “uncomfortable”.
In February, Labour suspended the former communications chief, who the prime minister elevated to the House of Lords in December, over his links to a convicted paedophile, former councillor Sean Morton.
Lord Mandelson was also asked about the prospect of a diplomatic role in Washington for Lord Doyle, Sir Olly suggested.
Due diligence checks ‘should have coloured PM’s judgment’ over appointment
In his evidence to MPs, Sir Olly suggested the PM had enough information from Cabinet Office to block the appointment.
He highlighted the due diligence process, carried out before the vetting check, which he said “threw up serious reputational risks”. The report, produced by a propriety and ethics team (PET), summarised Mandelson’s reputational risks, including his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.
Mr Robbins told MPs: “I regret that the due diligence process, which threw up serious reputational risks, didn’t colour the PM’s judgement in making the appointment”.
Robbins ‘never saw paperwork’ on Mandelson’s failed vetting
MPs said UKSV had ticked two red boxes on Lord Mandelson’s form, meaning they had “high concern” and recommended “clearance denied or withdrawn”.
But Sir Olly said he had never seen the document. He had, however, been briefed by Foreign Office security staff that the agency was leaning towards recommending clearance be rejected.
“It was briefed to me that they were ‘leaning against’, I think is the phrase I remember,” he said.
He stressed that UKSV’s findings were “recommendations and not decisions” to the Foreign Office.
“What my team will have done, I’m sure, is break that down, go through the specific issues that have led UKSV to their concern and then make an assessment as to whether they can be managed. And that’s what came to me.”
Leak was ‘breach of national security and prosecutions should follow’
Sir Olly said it was deeply worrying that the story of Lord Mandelson failing vetting was given to The Guardian within days of the Cabinet Office briefing Number 10 on the issues.
“I’m not making accusations at anybody, it’s not my business to do so,” he told the committee, adding: “I hope they’re being very rigorously investigated, and that prosecutions will result, because this is a grievous breach of national security.”
