Every revelation from Olly Robbins’ evidence over Mandelson’s appointment as Starmer clings on

The former top Foreign Office official has hit back at Keir Starmer over fallout from Peter Mandelson’s vetting process.

Sir Olly Robbins gave evidence to MPs on the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee on Tuesday after he was sacked by Downing Street last week over his decision to give Lord Mandelson security clearance as US ambassador despite red flags in his investigation.

The saga was the latest chapter in a scandal that has overshadowed Sir Keir Starmer’s premiership and raised concerns about his leadership and decisions.

Sir Olly answered questions about the review process – including why ministers were not informed of concerns raised by the UK Security Review (UKSV) – during a bombastic two-and-a-half hour session.

Here are the highlights from their evidence:

Robbins didn’t tell Starmer about Mandelson’s botched investigation

Sir Keir Starmer has always maintained that he was not told that Lord Mandelson had failed the review, a claim that has been met with skepticism.

Sir Olly Robbins appeared to support the prime minister’s version of events. But Sir Olly also insisted he did not withhold the information because he was never made clear that Mandelson had failed his security clearance and that he had never seen the forms.

Asked whether Sir Keir was right to expect more information about the review process, Sir Olly said it was a “dangerous misunderstanding” of the confidentiality surrounding the process.

“Of course, I have been interested to read Lord Hague on this issue over the last few days, and even former foreign secretary and deputy prime minister David Lammy on Saturday, where they both said in different language that they had never discussed matters of review with them during their time as ministers, nor did they expect to do so,” he said.

“I’m afraid that’s exactly the culture I was raised in. It’s supported by guidance. You shouldn’t share UKSV’s findings and reports except in exceptional circumstances that allow for specific mitigation of risk.”

Some parts of the government never wanted Mandelson to be investigated

The former senior Foreign Office official said it was “not a given” that Lord Mandelson would be vetted for appointment and that there was a “view from the Cabinet Office” that there was no need for it at all.

He said there was a “discussion” between the Cabinet Office and the FCDO about how to ensure Mandelson was sent to Washington with the appropriate leave.

“The view from the Cabinet Office was that there was no need to examine Mandelson,” he said. “He was a member of the House of Lords, a privy counsellor, and the risks involved in his appointment were well known and made clear to the prime minister before his appointment.”

But Sir Olly said the Foreign Office was “putting its feet on it” and following the process.

‘Continued pressure’ from No 10 to bring Mandelson to Washington ‘as quickly as humanly possible’

Sir Olly said he was told when he took over as the senior official at the Foreign Office that No 10 wanted Mandelson to take office “as quickly as humanly possible”.

He said this created an “atmosphere of pressure” within the department and claimed there was “constant chasing” from the private office at number 10 while the investigation was carried out. Sir Olly claimed Downing Street had taken a “condescending approach” to the process.

“The first official communication of this from the No 10 private office to my predecessor was that they wanted all this to be done quickly and to have Mandelson in place before the inauguration,” he said.

“So that’s what I’m faced with. I’m afraid what that means for my team at the Foreign Office – and certainly the handover briefing I received when I came into office – I felt was a generally dismissive attitude towards his review warrant.”

He said that as far as I can remember there was no interest in whether the appointment was confirmed, only when the appointment was confirmed.

Denying Mandelson’s role would ‘damage’ relations with US

Sir Olly Robbins told MPs that if the UK had to replace its proposed ambassador to Washington after Mandelson’s appointment was announced, it would “damage” relations with the US and “cause a huge problem in the relationship”.

He added that the incoming Trump administration “may have commented publicly on this.”

He told MPs that it would be better if the security clearance was decided before that precedent was made public that Sir Keir had been chosen for the Washington job.

He told MPs: “That’s a very, very sensible position and that’s what I would recommend in this case.”

Mandelson was a ‘borderline’ case

Sir Olly said he was informed that UKSV considered Mandelson a “borderline case” and that the risks identified were not related to his relationship with pedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein.

The former senior civil servant said: “I have been informed that UKSV regards Mandelson as a borderline case and that they are inclined to recommend that permission be refused, but that the Foreign Office security department has assessed that the risks identified by UKSV as being of highest concern can be managed and/or reduced.

“I was also told that the risks were not related to Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.

“I’m told UKSV has accepted this, I don’t know in what way, but it has accepted that the Foreign Office may want to allow it with appropriate risk management.”

Number 10 pressed for Lord Doyle’s ambassadorship and asked Robbins not to tell Lammy

Robbins told MPs that No 10 had initiated a series of discussions with him “about potentially finding a head of duty opportunity for Matthew Doyle, who was then working as Starmer’s director of communications”.

He added that he was “strictly instructed” not to discuss the request with David Lammy, the foreign secretary at the time. He said the situation made him feel “uncomfortable.”

Sir Olly claimed that Lord Mandelson was also asked about the possibility of Lord Doyle taking up a diplomatic post in Washington.

Doyle did not receive an ambassadorial post but was elevated to the House of Lords in December. In February, Labor sacked its former communications chief over his links to former councilor Sean Morton, a convicted pedophile.

Due diligence checks ‘should have colored PM’s judgment’ on appointment

In his evidence to MPs, Sir Olly claimed the Prime Minister had received sufficient information from the Cabinet Office to block the appointment.

He emphasized that the due diligence process carried out before the due diligence check “poses serious reputational risks”. The report, prepared by the compliance and ethics team (PET), outlined Mandelson’s reputational risks, including his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.

Mr Robbins told MPs: “I regret that the due diligence process, which posed serious reputational risks, did not influence the Prime Minister’s decision to make the appointment.”

Robbins ‘never saw paperwork’ on Mandelson’s botched investigation

MPs said UKSV had ticked two red boxes on Lord Mandelson’s form, meaning they were “very concerned” and advised “permission refused or withdrawn”.

However, Sir Olly said he had never seen the document. However, he had been informed by State Department security personnel that the agency was inclined to recommend denying the permit.

“I was told he was ‘leaning on’, I think I remember that phrase,” he said.

He emphasized that UKSV’s findings were “a recommendation, not a decision” to the Foreign Office.

“What my team will do, I’m sure, is to break them down, examine the specific issues that concern UKSV and then make an assessment of whether they can be managed. That’s what I’m getting.”

Leak ‘was a breach of national security and cases must be pursued’

Sir Olly said it was extremely worrying that the story of Lord Mandelson’s failure to vet was given to The Guardian just days after the Cabinet Office briefing on No 10 matters.

He told the committee: “I’m not accusing anyone, it’s not my job to do that,” and added: “I hope these are investigated very rigorously and prosecutions come to fruition, because this is a serious breach of national security.”