The appointment of Lord Mandelson as US Ambassador ignited a firestorm of controversy, with accusations flying between Downing Street and the Foreign Office. At the heart of the dispute lies a question of vetting – or rather, the perceived lack of it – and a frantic push to install Mandelson before a critical political juncture.
Sir Olly Robbins, recently removed from his post as head of the British diplomatic service, testified before the Foreign Affairs Committee, revealing a “dismissive attitude” towards the necessary security checks. He painted a picture of a process deliberately accelerated, driven by a desire to have Mandelson in place before the inauguration of a new US President.
Robbins detailed how No. 10 initially communicated a singular focus: speed. The directive was clear – get Mandelson appointed, and get him there quickly. This urgency, he explained, translated into a noticeable lack of thoroughness when it came to vetting procedures within the Foreign Office.
The Prime Minister, however, has placed blame squarely on civil servants, claiming he would not have approved the appointment had he known officials recommended denying clearance. Robbins countered this, stating that vetting wasn’t even a certainty, and a debate was ongoing between departments even *after* the announcement was made.
Sir Olly Robbins’ career is steeped in the complexities of government. He served under Tony Blair, then as a key advisor to David Cameron, and most notably, as Theresa May’s lead Brexit negotiator. His return to government in 2025, as the top civil servant at the Foreign Office, ultimately led to this current crisis.
The Cabinet Office, Robbins revealed, argued that vetting was unnecessary given Mandelson’s status as a member of the House of Lords and the Privy Council. However, Robbins emphasized that the risks associated with the appointment were explicitly communicated to the Prime Minister *before* the decision was finalized.
He further clarified that the UK Security Vetting (UKSV) assessment was “borderline,” leaning against recommending clearance. Despite this, Robbins admitted he never saw the full assessment himself, relying on secondhand information regarding its conclusions.
Robbins directly challenged the notion that post-appointment vetting was standard practice. He argued it would have been “very, very sensible” to wait for the process to conclude, especially for someone not already established within the diplomatic corps. The Prime Minister has since stated he’s changed the rules to prevent similar situations.
Beyond the Mandelson affair, Robbins disclosed another potentially troubling incident. He recounted being asked by No. 10 to identify a diplomatic role for Matthew Doyle, formerly Starmer’s head of communications, and instructed *not* to discuss the matter with the then-Foreign Secretary, David Lammy – a request that made him “quite uncomfortable.”
Doyle, who was later given a peerage and subsequently suspended from Labour amidst a separate scandal, highlights a pattern of potentially inappropriate political appointments. The revelations continue to unravel a complex web of political maneuvering and raise serious questions about the integrity of the appointment process.
