Cabinet Office suggested Mandelson did not even need security vetting, Robbins tells MPs

Olly Robbins has told MPs that the Cabinet Office suggested Peter Mandelson did not even need to undergo security vetting before becoming UK ambassador to Washington.

In his letter to the parliamentary committee, Robbins says the Cabinet Office raised whether Developed Vetting (DV) was actually necessary after the appointment was announced. He says he understands the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) insisted that DV was a requirement before Mandelson took up his post in Washington.

Robbins confirmed that the decision about Mandelson's developed vetting was "borderline". He said: "I was told that UKSV were leaning towards recommending against, but accepted it was a borderline case." He added that, although reporting suggests this is a process you pass or fail, that is not how the system works.

The former permanent secretary said UKSV had also considered if the risks could be managed. After they took a view on that, they came to him with a decision. He said there were only two people in that meeting – him and the UKSV director of security.

Robbins said his predecessor had to be "very firm in person" about the necessity of Mandelson to face vetting in the days leading up to Christmas, in the face of arguments from the Cabinet Office that there was no need for Mandelson to face vetting, given he was a member of the House of Lords and a member of the privy council.

He told the committee that in January 2025 his office, and the foreign secretary's office, were "under constant pressure". "There was an atmosphere of constant chasing," he said. He said the pressure was coming "private office to private office".

Robbins said he did not want to name those putting pressure on the Foreign Office. "I didn't come here today to put scapegoats on other civil servants. I came here to make sure the committee understood the circumstances."

He also said that "coming from No 10" there was an expectation that "he needed to be in post and in America as quickly as humanly possible" before security vetting had even started.

When asked about the document released by No 10 showing how UKSV sums up its recommendations after security vetting interviews – which implied UKSV ticked the red boxes – Robbins said, before he had seen the No 10 document, he had never seen a form like that. He said: "I certainly do not recall the way in which the UKSC findings were presented to me as being that definitive. As I say, it was briefed to me that they were leaning against. I think it's the phrase I remember."

Emily Thornberry asked Robbins if the vetting process threw up anything "that wasn't already in the public realm". Robbins said he would not answer that because the whole process relies on confidentiality. "People comply because they know that what they say will not be disclosed," he said.