A tense silence descended on the Foreign Affairs Committee room, broken only by the stunned reaction to a shockingly blunt directive. The words, delivered with unmistakable force, echoed through the live broadcast: “Just f*ing approve it.” The outburst, attributed to a previous official, instantly prompted apologies from news channels scrambling to address the unexpected language.
The moment unfolded during questioning of Sir Olly Robbins, focused on the controversial appointment of Lord Mandelson as ambassador to the US. Robbins was pressed on whether the atmosphere surrounding the vetting process felt pressured, and whether the message reflected the reality of the situation. His response hinted at a culture where concerns were brushed aside.
Robbins acknowledged that Philip, a previous holder of his position, had contributed to his sense of pressure regarding the vetting process. While he couldn’t confirm the exact phrasing, he suggested the language wasn’t entirely out of character for the environment, adding with a touch of wryness that Philip “probably not the sort of person to report them verbatim.”
The core of the inquiry centered on revelations that the UK’s vetting agency had advised against granting Mandelson “developed vetting” – a thorough security clearance. Despite this recommendation, the Foreign Office proceeded with the appointment, a decision that ultimately led to Mandelson’s dismissal last September following the surfacing of his links to Jeffrey Epstein.
The fallout has reached the highest levels of government. Prime Minister Keir Starmer has publicly stated he would have halted the appointment had he been aware of the vetting agency’s concerns. The committee’s investigation seeks to uncover the full extent of the decision-making process and the pressures that may have influenced it.
The incident highlights a growing scrutiny of vetting procedures and the potential for political considerations to override security recommendations. The bluntness of the revealed message has ignited a debate about transparency and accountability within the Foreign Office, raising questions about the safeguards in place to ensure proper due diligence.
The committee’s hearing continues to unravel a complex web of political maneuvering and security concerns, revealing a potentially troubling disregard for established protocols. The implications of this case extend beyond a single appointment, prompting a wider examination of the vetting process for high-profile diplomatic roles.
