New testimony from former top civil servant Sir Olly Robbins has ignited a debate over whether he was misled regarding the security vetting of Peter Mandelson. Robbins, who was sacked from his role as permanent secretary at the Foreign Office last week, recently gave evidence to a select committee about the process.
The ‘Hermetically Sealed’ Vetting File
Robbins informed MPs that he never actually viewed the vetting file produced by United Kingdom Security Vetting (UKSV). He described the document as existing within a “hermetically sealed box.”
Instead, Robbins relied on an oral briefing conducted on January 29, 2025, with a senior Foreign Office security official. This meeting took place one day after UKSV had submitted its official recommendation.
Conflicting Accounts of Risk
During his testimony, Robbins stated he was told Mandelson was a “borderline case” and that officials were “leaning towards recommending that clearance be denied.” He claimed the situation was not clear-cut and that the Foreign Office “may wish to grant” clearance if mitigations were implemented.
However, committee members questioned this account, citing a template of the vetting file released on Friday. They asserted the document clearly showed “high concern” and contained ticks beside two key red boxes, signaling that clearance should be denied.
When questioned by Tory MP John Whittingdale, Robbins admitted he did not recall the oral briefing being “that definitive.” He eventually conceded that he granted Mandelson clearance without ever seeing the actual UKSV file.
Cabinet Office Restrictions
Robbins defended his lack of access to the file by stating that such documents are highly confidential. He noted that contents are typically not revealed to officials except in “wholly exceptional circumstances.”
He further explained that his team had consulted the Cabinet Office, but was told he required a “national security justification” to view the UKSV file. Robbins stated he did not pursue the matter further.
Political Fallout and Significance
The controversy has placed Prime Minister Keir Starmer under scrutiny, as Robbins has claimed he felt political pressure from the Prime Minister’s office to rush the appointment. Starmer has described the failure of officials to inform him of security concerns as “staggering.”
The situation may lead to further parliamentary grilling of involved officials. The government could face increased calls for resignations if further evidence emerges regarding who knew about the “red flags” and when.
Frequently Asked Questions
Did Sir Olly Robbins observe the original UKSV vetting report?
No. Robbins testified that he did not see the file, describing it as being in a “hermetically sealed box” and stating he was told by the Cabinet Office that he needed a national security justification to access it.
What did the UKSV template reveal about Peter Mandelson’s vetting?
MPs on the committee stated the document showed “high concern” and had ticks beside two red boxes, indicating that the recommendation was to deny security clearance.
How did Robbins describe the briefing he received?
Robbins stated he was given an oral briefing where Mandelson was described as a “borderline case” and that officials were “leaning towards recommending that clearance be denied,” but the case was not presented as clear-cut.
Should the government change its security vetting protocols to ensure senior officials must view primary reports before granting clearance?