Robbins Testimony Reveals Pressure to Fast-Track Mandelson's Appointment

Lead

Sir Olly Robbins, the former permanent secretary at the Foreign Office, told parliament's foreign affairs select committee on Tuesday that he faced 'constant pressure' from Downing Street to get Peter Mandelson, the then-ambassador-designate to the US, into post 'as quickly as humanly possible'. The testimony, which spanned more than two hours, offered a detailed account of the events surrounding Mandelson's appointment and security vetting, which has become a major political crisis for Prime Minister Keir Starmer.

Robbins, who was sacked by Starmer last week after the Guardian reported that he had cleared Mandelson's appointment despite the UK Security Vetting (UKSV) recommending denial, said the Cabinet Office had initially urged the Foreign Office to bypass the usual vetting process altogether. He said his predecessor, Sir Philip Barton, had to be 'very firm in person' to ensure vetting went ahead.

Coverage Comparison

The testimony, widely covered by the Guardian and other outlets, has been framed in different ways across the media. Left-leaning outlets have focused on the implications for Starmer's leadership, emphasising Robbins's account of 'dismissive' attitudes within Downing Street towards vetting. Conservative-leaning media have focused on Robbins's own role in overturning the initial recommendation, suggesting he bore responsibility for the lapse.

All sources agree on the core facts: that Robbins approved a clearance that UKSV had recommended denying, that he did so without informing No 10, and that he was subsequently dismissed. However, there is nuance in how each outlet treats Robbins's credibility. Some highlight his detailed, 'precisely worded' testimony as evidence of his integrity, while others question his claim that the case was 'borderline' given the clarity of the UKSV recommendation.

Key Claims

Pressure from Downing Street

Robbins said he walked into a situation where there was already a 'very, very strong expectation' that Mandelson should be in post and in America 'as quickly as humanly possible'. He said the pressure came from the prime minister's private office, which he suggested was itself under pressure from above. 'The private office would only have been putting on this pressure if they were under pressure themselves,' he told MPs.

Robbins also said No 10 took a 'dismissive' attitude to vetting. He described an 'atmosphere of pressure' that made it almost impossible to deny clearance for Mandelson, who had already been publicly announced for the role.

His predecessor, Sir Philip Barton, confirmed this, saying there was 'absolutely' pressure to get the vetting done quickly. Barton told the committee that Number 10 seemed 'uninterested' in the vetting process, and that he was presented with the Mandelson appointment 'and told to get on with it'. He denied, however, that he had received a phone call from Starmer's then-chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, pressuring him to approve the appointment.

The Vetting Process

Robbins said that before his appointment, there had been a 'live debate' about whether Mandelson should undergo vetting at all. He said the Foreign Office pushed back against Cabinet Office urgings to waive the process.

When vetting did take place, UKSV submitted its recommendation on 28 January 2025. The vetting file used a traffic-light system, with green for approved, amber for approved with risk management, and red for clearance denied. According to Downing Street, the Cabinet Office, and the Guardian, the vetting officer in Mandelson's case chose the red box, indicating 'clearance denied'.

However, Robbins said he was briefed orally on the findings on 29 January, and was told UKSV considered Mandelson a 'borderline' case, leaning towards recommending denial. He said he was not shown the vetting file itself, which he described as existing in a 'hermetically sealed box'.

Robbins argued that the process involved a 'dialogue' between UKSV and Foreign Office officials, with risk assessments 'shifting up and down a bit' before he was briefed. He said the Foreign Office's security team believed the risks could be managed with mitigations.

Robbins's Decision and Aftermath

Robbins confirmed that he granted Mandelson developed vetting clearance despite the UKSV recommendation, but said he did not inform anyone in No 10 of the initial decision. He said he was not shown the vetting file, and only in 'wholly exceptional circumstances' could senior officials see it.

He also confirmed that senior officials, including himself, had debated whether to withhold vetting documents from parliament. He acknowledged that his department took the view that to open the 'hermetically sealed box' would have 'long-term, damaging and chilling implications for UK national security'.

Robbins said he hoped the leaks to the Guardian would be rigorously investigated, and that prosecutions would result. He said the leak occurred within days of the Cabinet Office briefing No 10 on the vetting issues.

Perspectives

Downing Street's Perspective

Prime Minister Starmer has said he was not told that Mandelson failed his security vetting, and claimed no minister was informed. He said he was only made aware of the outcome this week. Downing Street has emphasised that Robbins was responsible for the decision to grant clearance, and that his dismissal was justified.

Robbins's Perspective

Robbins maintains that he was following due process, and that the system allowed for mitigation of risks. He argues that he informed the foreign secretary, David Lammy, of the situation, and that the pressure from No 10 made it nearly impossible to deny clearance. His supporters, including former colleagues, say he was 'thrown under a bus' and that Starmer should retract his accusations and reinstate him.

Civil Service's Perspective

Former cabinet secretaries and senior diplomats have rallied to Robbins's defence, suggesting that he was scapegoated for a decision that was influenced by political pressure. They argue that the crisis is a symptom of a broader problem: the politicisation of senior diplomatic appointments.

Opposition and Media's Perspective

Critics, including some inside Starmer's own party, argue that the scandal reveals a pattern of disregard for proper process at the heart of government. They question why Starmer proceeded with the appointment before vetting was complete, and whether sufficient weight was given to Mandelson's connections to Jeffrey Epstein.

The Intelligence and Security Committee has expressed frustration at the lack of key documents, and has called for a full review of the vetting process. Some commentators have suggested that the affair could be terminal for Starmer's leadership, though such predictions have yet to materialise.