No10 ‘didn’t care’ about vetting and 'pressured' for Mandelson's appointment, says top civil servant sacked by Starmer

'Just f***ing approve' Mandelson, No 10 told Foreign Office

Want LBC stories before everyone else? Set us as your Preferred Source on Google

Former Foreign Office official Sir Olly Robbins said there was a “dismissive approach” to vetting in No 10's handling of Lord Mandelson’s case and an “atmosphere of pressure”.

He told MPs there was a “very strong expectation” from 10 Downing Street that Lord Mandelson should be “in post and in America as quickly as humanly possible”, and that denying Mandelson's nomination would have been a "difficult problem".

Sir Olly was sacked last week after it was revealed that he had not told the Prime Minister that Mandelson had failed security clearance to become the US ambassador.

Sir Keir Starmer said officials made a "deliberate decision" not to inform him that Mandelson had failed the vetting process.

Read more: No10 ‘didn’t care’ about vetting and 'pressured' for Mandelson's appointment, says top civil servant sacked by Starmer

Read more: Starmer ‘exercised wrong judgement’: Donald Trump weighs in over appointment of ‘really bad pick’ Mandelson

On Tuesday, Sir Olly appeared in front of MPs, led by Emily Thornberry, the chair of the Foreign Office Select Committee, to give evidence on the ongoing row.

The former Foreign Office permanent under-secretary told the committee that whilst he was presented with the UK Security Vetting (UKSV) report findings, he did not know the contents of the guidance and its associated concerns about Mandelson.

He said that he had not read the "underlying documentation", had "never seen a UKSV document". He added that only in "wholly exceptional circumstances" would an individual be briefed on the findings of a UKSV process.

In response, Ms Thornberry asked, "This is a wholly exceptional circumstance, surely?", to which he replied: "No."

Sir Olly said that the risks uncovered by Mandelson’s vetting process were not related to the late paedophile billionaire, Jeffrey Epstein.

He said he was told that Mandelson was considered a "borderline case" by UKSV and that they were "leaning towards" suggesting that clearance be denied.

However, he said the Foreign Office concluded that the risks identified could be "managed or mitigated". He maintained that these risks "did not relate" to Mandelson's relationship with Epstein.

Sir Olly maintained that the vetting of Lord Mandelson was completed to a high standard, outlining the extensive process of his selection.

But he added he “walked into a situation in which there was already a very, very strong expectation” coming from the government that Mandelson needed to be “in post, and in America as quickly as humanly possible.”

He said that Number 10 wanted the clearance process completed “at pace” and for Mandelson to be installed as ambassador before the inauguration.

Sir Olly said that denying clearance to Mandelson would have been a “very, very difficult problem” he would have been “landing the foreign secretary with and the prime minister."

He told the committee: "The PM's nominee had been put out there to the public, announced, blessed by the king, agreed by the US government. We were in receipt of formal letters from No 10 telling us to get on with it quickly. We had engineered agreement to arrive just before the inauguration.”

He explained that this restricted his abilities to block Mandelson’s nomination, saying: "All I can do is agree with the premise that, against that backdrop, the Foreign Office saying, ‘Okay, but sorry, we can't grant him clearance', would have been a very, very difficult problem."

He went on: “And a difficult problem I would have been landing the foreign secretary with and the prime minister."

Sir Olly refused to explain whether anything was flagged in the vetting process that wasn't already within the public realm.

Despite being pressed by Thornberry, Robbins said it is important that candidates being vetted understand that the government honours the confidentiality of the process, and declined to answer on the basis that doing so would "lead to a storm of questions".

Comments made at the hearing were met with a furious backlash from the Conservatives, who have pushed for accountability from the PM.

Opposition leader, Kemi Badenoch took to X to accuse Sir Keir of "misleading the house." In a post on X, she wrote: "The evidence from Olly Robbins is devastating to Keir Starmer.

"It is clear that No10 not only made the appointment before vetting was completed, but that Mandelson was already acting as the Ambassador before the vetting - even seeing highly classified documents.

"With this, and the 'constant pressure' No10 applied to the appointment and their 'dismissive attitude' to vetting Mandelson, it is now absolutely clear that 'full due process' was not followed.

"Keir Starmer has misled the House."

Sir Olly expressed contrition around the Mandelson row, and told the committee, "I regret that the due diligence process, which threw up serious reputational risks, didn’t colour the PM's judgement in making the appointment".