- Former top official describes pressure over Mandelson appointment
- His defence puts Starmer under further scrutiny
- Starmer put blame firmly on officials
- Mandelson scandal has rumbled on for months
DOWNING STREET applied constant pressure on civil servants to approve the appointment of Peter Mandelson as UK envoy to Washington and seemed to brush off security concerns, a sacked official told MPs on Tuesday (21).
Prime minister Sir Keir Starmer's office had a "dismissive attitude" towards the security vetting for its US envoy pick, said Olly Robbins, the foreign office’s most senior official before being fired last week.
He made the comments in front of the foreign affairs select committee, as Starmer remained mired in the scandal over Labour grandee Mandelson's appointment.
The Foreign Office subsequently green-lit Mandelson - who had long been known to have close ties to the late US sex offender Jeffrey Epstein - despite the government now confirming independent vetting officials had recommended security clearance be denied.
That revelation, first reported by the Guardian last Thursday (16), prompted fresh calls for Starmer to resign, after he previously insisted all "due process" had been followed.
The prime minister blamed officials for deliberately keeping him in the dark about the security clearance issue, and on Monday (20) denied misleading parliament with his previous statements on the scandal.
In his much-anticipated testimony, Robbins provided a more nuanced assessment, insisting he formally approved Mandelson after vetting officials - housed in another government department - concluded he was a "borderline" case.
"I was briefed that ... they were leaning towards recommending that clearance be denied, but that the Foreign Office security department assessed that the risks ... could be managed and/or mitigated," Robbins told MPs.
"I was also told that the risks did not relate to Mandelson's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein," he added.
Media reports said the concerns surrounded the links of Mandelson's now-shuttered lobbying firm to Chinese companies.
Robbins recalled when he became the foreign office’s top official in January 2025 there was a "very strong expectation ... coming from Number 10 (Downing Street) that he needed to be in post and in America as quickly as humanly possible".
"I'm afraid what that translated into for my team in the Foreign Office... was what I felt was a generally dismissive attitude to his vetting clearance," he said.
"My office, the foreign secretary's office, were under constant pressure, there was an atmosphere of constant chasing."
Mandelson was named to the coveted top diplomatic post in December 2024, just weeks before US president Donald Trump was inaugurated the following month, and took up the job in February 2025.
Asked about the possibility of denying Mandelson security clearance, Robbins conceded that would have been a "difficult problem I would have been landing the foreign secretary with and the prime minister with".
But he insisted "that was not what was on my mind as we took this decision" while also noting a denial would have "damaged" UK-US ties.
Starmer sacked Mandelson in September 2025, seven months after he took up the post, following new details emerging about the depth of the ex-envoy's ties to Epstein, who died in a US prison in 2019 while facing sex-trafficking charges.
UK police are now investigating allegations of misconduct in office by Mandelson, 72, when he was a Labour minister more than 15 years ago.
He was arrested and released in February and has not been charged. Mandelson denies criminal wrongdoing.
Overnight, Trump, who has criticised Starmer over a perceived lack of support for his Iran war, waded into the controversy.
He agreed on his Truth Social platform that Mandelson "was a really bad pick" for the Washington job.
Starmer said Monday he has instigated a review of the security vetting process. But former civil servants have accused him of scapegoating Robbins.
Conservative party leader Kemi Badenoch said there remained "serious questions about what he (Starmer) knew and when".
(Agencies)
