Ex-official Defends Mandelson Security Clearance Handling
The former civil servant responsible for approving Lord Peter Mandelson's security clearance has defended his management of the peer's vetting process and accused No 10 of adopting a "dismissive attitude" towards the checks.
Sir Olly Robbins was effectively removed from his position as Foreign Office head last week after it was revealed that his department had granted Lord Mandelson clearance despite concerns raised by officials during the vetting procedure.
However, during a committee hearing with MPs, Sir Olly maintained that he acted appropriately when approving the clearance and was correct not to inform the prime minister at the time.
Sir Keir Starmer described it as "incredible" that he was not informed about the outcome of the vetting assessment.
Background on Mandelson's Appointment and Vetting
Lord Mandelson was announced as the UK's ambassador to the US in December 2024. Subsequently, he underwent developed vetting (DV) to obtain the necessary security clearance for the role.
He formally assumed the position the following month but was dismissed seven months later after additional details emerged regarding his past friendship with the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
Sir Olly stated that his department faced "constant pressure" from Downing Street to formally approve the appointment, with a "strong expectation" that the former cabinet minister needed to be "in post and in America as quickly as humanly possible."
Having only started in the role two weeks before the security clearance was granted, Sir Olly said his predecessor had briefed him that Downing Street considered vetting "might be unnecessary" for someone of Mandelson's stature.
"A position taken from the Cabinet Office was that there was no need to vet Mandelson,"
he told the MPs.
"He was a member of the House of Lords, he was a privy councillor, the risks attending his appointment were well known, and had been made clear to the prime minister before appointment,"
he added.
"In the end the FCDO insisted and put its foot down, I understand my predecessor had to be very firm in person."
Although he declined to identify individuals making these calls, Sir Olly said there was clearly a "dismissive approach" to the process but he was "confident that we were handling it well" and had not "bowed to pressure."
Sir Olly informed MPs that the concerns raised by UK Security Vetting (UKSV), the government agency responsible for Lord Mandelson's vetting, did not relate to his previous relationship with Epstein, but he did not specify what the concerns were about.
Borderline Case and Parliamentary Statements
Sir Keir told MPs in the Commons on Monday that he had not misled the House when stating that "full due process" had been followed during Lord Mandelson's appointment.
However, the prime minister insisted he would have acted differently if he had been informed at the time about the results of the UKSV vetting.
Defending his actions, Sir Olly asserted that the Foreign Office had acted properly when approving the clearance.
"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 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."
Sir Olly also argued that informing the prime minister about any details of the vetting, other than the outcome, was against established rules.
"I believe very strongly I had an obligation not to do that,"
he told MPs.
"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."
He added that he had not personally seen the UKSV document recommending that clearance not be granted, instead receiving a verbal briefing about it.
"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,"
he added.
