When it comes to olly robbins says he faced ‘constant pressure’ to get mandelson in post, oliver Robbins, the recently sacked senior civil servant, testified that he encountered relentless pressure upon his arrival at the Foreign Office regarding the swift appointment of Peter Mandelson as the UK's ambassador to the US. According to Robbins, the Cabinet Office strongly urged that Mandelson be granted his position without the customary vetting process. However, the Foreign Office resisted this push, insisting that the appropriate vetting eventually took place.
Robbins, who was removed from his role by Labour leader Keir Starmer last week following revelations from the Guardian regarding his decision to override a ruling from UK Security Vetting (UKSV), shared details during his testimony to parliament's foreign affairs select committee on Tuesday. He made it clear that he had not informed anyone at Number 10 about the initial clearance ruling. Starmer's appointment of Mandelson occurred prior to Robbins stepping into his role as Foreign Office chief and before the vetting process was completed. Senior officials indicated to the Guardian that it was evident that Downing Street was intent on placing Mandelson in Washington, regardless of the associated risks. Originally reported by The Guardian.
Understanding Olly Robbins Says He Faced ‘constant Pressure’ To Get Mandelson In Post
During his testimony, Robbins articulated that before his own appointment, there had been an ongoing debate regarding whether Mandelson should undergo any vetting at all. He revealed that his predecessor, Philip Barton, had to take a firm stance to ensure that the vetting process was conducted. Robbins noted that Downing Street displayed a "dismissive" attitude towards the vetting requirements. Despite the lack of formal clearance, Mandelson was granted access to the Foreign Office premises and received both low and higher-classification briefings.
Robbins stated, "I walked into a situation in which there was already a very, very strong expectation" regarding Mandelson's speedy appointment. He referenced communications from Number 10 indicating a desire for the process to be expedited, emphasizing that they wanted Mandelson in place before the inauguration. He identified the prime minister's private office as the main source of pressure, suggesting that the office was acting under its own pressures.
Concerns Over Security Recommendations
In a letter to the committee prior to his testimony, Robbins disclosed that he received an oral briefing on the UKSV findings in January, reportedly from Ian Collard, the department's chief property and security officer. He claimed that no documents related to the vetting results were presented to him. According to Robbins, UKSV viewed Mandelson as a "borderline" case and was leaning towards denying him clearance. However, the Foreign Office's security team believed that any risks associated with Mandelson's Appointment could be mitigated.
Robbins explained that UKSV acknowledged the Foreign Office's intention to grant clearance, provided that certain risk management strategies were put in place. When pressed by committee chair Emily Thornberry on why he didn't request the vetting documents, Robbins maintained that he preferred oral briefings to ensure confidentiality. He mentioned having considered requesting the UKSV recommendations after Mandelson's subsequent dismissal but ultimately chose against it, despite being informed that a national security justification existed.
Implications for Starmer's Leadership
Robbins expressed deep concern over the rapid dissemination of information regarding Mandelson's Vetting issues, particularly noting that details leaked to the Guardian shortly after the Cabinet Office briefed Number 10. He firmly asserted that he did not inform anyone at Number 10 about the UKSV recommendations, supporting Prime Minister Starmer's claims that neither he nor his staff were aware of the vetting concerns.
When asked if he had ever been tempted to disclose information to figures such as the then cabinet secretary, Chris Wormald, or Morgan McSweeney, the prime minister's chief of staff, Robbins emphatically replied, "No, absolutely not." He emphasized the importance of maintaining confidentiality within the vetting process. Robbins acknowledged that denying Mandelson security clearance would have posed significant challenges, particularly since the prime minister's nomination had already been publicly announced and endorsed by both the king and the US government.
With formal letters from Number 10 demanding swift action, Robbins noted the pressures involved in the situation. He stated, "The PM's nominee had been put out there to the public.. All I can do is agree with the premise that against that backdrop, the Foreign Office saying 'OK but sorry, we can't grant him clearance' would have been a very, very difficult problem." As the investigation unfolds, the ramifications of Robbins' testimony may play a crucial role in the political landscape surrounding Starmer's leadership.
Originally reported by The Guardian. View original.