The Cabinet Office suggested there was no need to vet Peter Mandelson before he was appointed as US Ambassador
In damning evidence to the The former permanent secretary to the Foreign Office also told MPs that No 10 showed a “dismissive approach” to Mandelson’s vetting processsaid that No 10 applied ‘constant pressure’ on to approve Mandelson’s appointment and took a ‘dismissive’ attitude to vetting
He also revealed that Peter Mandelson was given access to the FCDO building, to low classification IT and to ‘higher classification briefings’ before he was granted security clearance
Robbins said that No 10 showed no interest in the actual vetting process and that the entire focus was on getting Mandelson to Washington as quickly as possible
Sir Keir Starmer tried to get his then director of communications Matthew Doyle an ambassadorship.
Robbins was told not to inform David Lammy, the then foreign sec. Robbins resisted on grounds that Doyle did not have the credentials to become an ambassador. Doyle was subsequently found to have given public support to a sex offender
The former Secretary directly contradicted Starmer’s claim that he would not have appointed Mandelson if he had known he failed his vetting. Robbins says that it would have been ‘very difficult’ to block him given the pressure from No 10
He also pointed to the fact that the appointment had been announced, the King had been informed, agrement had been secured with the US – all before the vetting had taken place and added that blocking Mandelson’s appointments would have ‘damaged US-UK relations’ and caused issues with Donald Trump and his administration
Robbins said:
“I regret that the due diligence process, which threw up serious reputational risks, didn’t colour the PM’s judgement in making the appointment”
No 10 has hit back over the claims made this morning denying applying “constant pressure”, saying “there is difference between asking for updates on an appointment process and the idea of being dismissive about vetting”
On the claim that the Cabinet Office didn’t think any vetting was needed, No 10 says there were discussions at the time with Cabinet Office and Foreign Office officials around security clearance for members of the House of Lords, but these talks concluded there did need to be vetting
No 10 also denies the claim that UKSV were only “leaning against” clearance for Mandelson, saying the vetting body “clearly recommended against” and that this should have been communicated to the PM
They also refuse to deny Robbins’ claim that he was told find an ambassadorship for Starmer’s then comms director Matthew Doyle, simply saying “he left his role at No 10, he didn’t take up a role at the Foreign Office, [but] not able to get into personnel questions”
Opposition leader Kemi Badenoch said
“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.”
