LONDON — Allegations have emerged regarding the vetting process for Peter Mandelson, who is slated to become Britain’s ambassador to the U.S. in late 2024. According to Olly Robbins, a former senior civil servant who was dismissed by Prime Minister Keir Starmer, segments of the government felt there was “no need” for comprehensive security vetting before Mandelson’s appointment.
Robbins, removed from his position amid controversy over the vetting procedures, revealed during a session of the House of Commons’ Foreign Affairs Committee that there was a prevalent attitude of disregard concerning the need to vet Mandelson as the timeline approached Donald Trump’s inauguration in 2025.
Pressure and expectations around Mandelson’s appointment
In his initial public defense since his ousting, Robbins stated, “A position taken from the Cabinet Office was that there was no need to vet Mandelson, he was a member of the House of Lords, he was a privy counsellor.” He emphasized that the potential risks were “well known and had been made clear to the Prime Minister before appointment.”
Robbins noted that the Foreign Office ultimately insisted on a rigorous vetting process, stating, “In the end, the [Foreign Office] insisted and put its foot down.” He acknowledged that his predecessor had to be particularly assertive during this period, highlighting that the issue was a subject of intense debate at the time of the announcement.
During his testimony, Robbins did not provide concrete evidence to support his claims. He took over as the Foreign Office’s permanent under secretary in January 2025, which coincided with the ongoing discussions regarding Mandelson’s appointment.
Robbins mentioned that there was strong pressure from No. 10 Downing Street to expedite Mandelson’s placement in the U.S., reflecting an atmosphere of urgency within the Foreign Office. “Throughout January, my office, the foreign secretary’s office, were under constant pressure. There was an atmosphere of constant chasing,” he explained.
Robbins challenges Starmer’s narrative
Robbins’ statements directly contest Prime Minister Starmer’s claims regarding his knowledge of the vetting situation. Starmer has maintained that he would not have nominated Mandelson had he known about a vetting officer’s recommendation against granting security clearance, a detail Robbins kept private.
“A deliberate decision was taken to withhold that material. This was not a lack of asking. This wasn’t an oversight,” Starmer asserted in response to Robbins’ testimony.
During the committee hearing, Robbins confirmed he did not inform No. 10 about the adverse vetting recommendation, believing it was confidential. He stated that the recommendation he received from UK Security Vetting was delivered orally and indicated that the clearance was in a “borderline case,” with officials leaning toward denying it. Starmer’s office has since claimed to have received a document indicating Mandelson should not have been cleared.
While Robbins acknowledged that he regretted the lack of vetting for Mandelson prior to his public announcement, he defended his decision to approve the former Labour leader’s security clearance. He remarked, “I have no regrets about the work of my brilliant team and the judgment that we came to.”
In a pointed exchange with committee chair Emily Thornberry, Robbins was asked if pressure from No. 10 was evident. He responded, affirming that his predecessor’s handover contributed to his perception of an atmosphere laden with pressure and dismissiveness toward the vetting process.
As the situation unfolds, the implications of the vetting controversy continue to resonate within government circles, underlining the complexities and challenges of security clearances for high-profile appointments.