The appointment of Peter Mandelson as the UK’s ambassador to Washington has ignited a significant political controversy, stemming from allegations of undue pressure from Downing Street, a “dismissive approach” to security vetting, and a subsequent disagreement between Prime Minister Keir Starmer and the former Foreign Office permanent secretary, Sir Olly Robbins. Robbins, who was sacked by Starmer, revealed details of the intense atmosphere surrounding Mandelson’s posting and the broader implications for diplomatic appointments.

Sir Olly Robbins testified to MPs at parliament’s foreign affairs select committee that he faced “constant pressure” and an “atmosphere of constant chasing” from Number 10 to get Mandelson in post “as quickly as humanly possible.” He noted that Downing Street displayed a “dismissive approach” to the developed vetting (DV) process. The UK Security Vetting (UKSV) agency had initially recommended denying Mandelson clearance, categorizing it as a “high” overall concern and concluding “clearance denied.” However, Robbins controversially overruled this decision, granting Mandelson security clearance without having seen the full UKSV file, which he described as existing in a “hermetically sealed box.”

Robbins maintained that he acted based on oral briefings, which presented Mandelson as a “borderline case” with UKSV “leaning towards recommending that clearance be denied,” but also indicated that the Foreign Office “may wish to grant” clearance with mitigations. He argued that it was standard practice to take oral briefings for confidentiality and that he was advised he would require a national security justification to view the detailed UKSV file, which he did not pursue. He also expressed regret that the appointment was announced by the prime minister in December 2024 before the vetting process was complete, though he stated this would not have changed his final decision. Robbins emphasized the immense difficulty of denying clearance given that Mandelson’s nomination had been publicly announced, “blessed by the king,” and agreed by the US government.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer, however, rejected Robbins’s reasoning, stating that he was “deliberately” kept in the dark about UKSV’s recommendation. Starmer asserted that if he had known the clearance was denied, he would not have proceeded with the appointment. He disagreed with Robbins’s belief that disclosing UKSV findings to the prime minister was inappropriate, arguing that such crucial information “could and should have been shared.” Starmer also refuted the idea that pressure from No 10 was a valid reason not to disclose the vetting outcome, or to override it. Their contrasting views extend to the timing of vetting, with Starmer suggesting it was usual for vetting to occur after an announcement but before taking post, while Robbins regretted the pre-vetting announcement.

Concerns about Mandelson’s appointment were not limited to the vetting process. Energy Secretary Ed Miliband revealed he and then-Foreign Secretary David Lammy had discussed worries that the appointment could “blow up” due to Mandelson’s past links with child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and his lobbying firm’s business ties with Chinese and Russian companies. Mandelson was eventually sacked after nine months in the role, following new disclosures related to his relationship with Epstein. Miliband openly stated that Mandelson should never have been appointed.

Adding another layer to the controversy, Robbins also disclosed that Downing Street had pushed the Foreign Office to find a diplomatic role for Matthew Doyle, who was then the prime minister’s director of communications. Robbins stated he was under “strict instruction” not to discuss this with David Lammy and felt “quite uncomfortable” about the request, noting it was “hard to find something that I thought might be suitable.” Doyle himself was later suspended as a Labour peer after reports emerged of his campaigning for a friend charged with possessing indecent images of children. Robbins highlighted these incidents as part of a worrying “creep of senior diplomatic roles going to non-career diplomats,” expressing concern about talented career diplomats leaving while less credentialed individuals were placed in important positions.

The revelations from Robbins’s testimony have intensified scrutiny on Keir Starmer’s political judgment and the processes within Downing Street for senior appointments. The debate also encompasses the confidentiality of security vetting and the extent to which political expediency influenced critical national security decisions, leaving Starmer under significant pressure from within his own party and opposition MPs.