No 10 took ‘dismissive approach’ to Mandelson vetting, says sacked Foreign Office official

Former Foreign Office official Olly Robbins has claimed that Number 10 had a “dismissive approach” to the vetting of Peter Mandelson and said there was an “atmosphere of pressure” to have him in post as US ambassador as quickly as possible.

Robbins, who was sacked last week, gave evidence to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee after Keir Starmer told MPs yesterday that officials had made a “deliberate decision” not to tell him that Mandelson had failed his security vetting.

Robbins told the committee that the Foreign Office was under “constant pressure” from Number 10, with an “atmosphere of constant chasing” in January 2025.

He also revealed in a letter to the committee that the Cabinet Office had suggested that Mandelson would not have to go through security vetting, something which Robbins insisted was a requirement before Mandelson took up his post.

While Robbins said he never saw explicit documents from the vetting team that advised against granting Mandelson clearance, he was briefed in person and was told that Mandelson’s case was “borderline” and that the team were “leaning towards recommending that clearance be denied”.

While Mandelson’s vetting procedure was prioritised amid calls to have considerations on Mandelson taken “at pace” with a decision to be made in advance of Donald Trump’s inauguration, Robbins said that the process was taken in the usual way and not rushed.

Become a friend of LabourList and join our community. Our friends support our vital non-factional work and get access to exclusive content and events. 

Robbins also revealed that Number 10’s private office had asked him to “potentially” find an ambassadorial job for Matthew Doyle, the Prime Minister’s director of communications at the time. He told the committee that he was told to not to discuss the proposal with the then Foreign Secretary David Lammy.

“I was under strict instruction not to discuss that with the then Foreign Secretary, which was uncomfortable.”

Robbins also expressed unease at the proposal and said it would be “very hard for the office and… hard for me to personally defend”, questioning his credentials for such a role.

Doyle was later appointed to the House of Lords but has been suspended from the Labour Party over his close links with a convicted sex offender.

Subscribe here to our daily newsletter roundup of Labour news, analysis and comment– and follow us on TikTok, Bluesky, WhatsApp, X and Facebook. You can also write to our editor to share your thoughts on our stories and share your own. The best letters are published every Sunday.

Emma Burnell, editor of LabourList, said: “Everyone has blind spots – things we don’t understand or give enough attention to. The problem comes when everyone in a team has the same blindspot because there is a lack of viewpoint diversity. It is worsened when not interrogating those blind spots becomes a feature – not a bug – of how to advance in politics.

“Much has already been rightly made of the huge error in judgement made when elevating both Peter Mandelson and Matthew Doyle to the House of Lords. But these individual cases reveal bigger flaws in a system where personal connection and factional advantage become bigger considerations than talent and probity.

“Living up to our Labour values means understanding that the equality we strive to promote works both ways. Equality of outcomes and opportunities are essential. But it is just as important to ensure that all are held to an equal standard. We can never have one rule for us and another for everyone else. That is the opposite of equality – the opposite of our values.

“To appoint someone to represent the hopes and aspirations of thousands of Labour members – as a politically appointed diplomat, a Peer or in any other role – it is incumbent on all of us – and particularly those who lead us – to ensure that those appointed are able to both champion and embody those values.”