In a striking revelation today, the former top official at the Foreign Office has alleged a 'dismissive approach' to security vetting from Sir Keir Starmer's Number 10, specifically concerning Peter Mandelson's clearance process. Sir Olly Robbins, who was dismissed by the Prime Minister for not disclosing Mandelson's failed security checks, testified before MPs that there was intense pressure from Downing Street to approve the appointment.
Pressure from Downing Street
Sir Olly detailed that there was a 'very, very strong expectation' from Number 10 that Mandelson 'needed to be in post and in America as quickly as humanly possible'. This urgency, he argued, led to a compromised approach to the developed vetting (DV) clearance, which is a high-level security check required for access to classified information.
Background of the Vetting Process
When Sir Olly assumed the role of permanent secretary at the Foreign Office in January 2025, the DV process for Mandelson was already in motion. He noted that 'due diligence had been completed by the Cabinet Office', and Mandelson was being granted access to highly-classified briefings on a case-by-case basis. However, this arrangement, according to Sir Olly, fostered a dismissive attitude toward the full vetting requirements from Number 10.
National Security Concerns
The allegations raise significant questions about the government's commitment to national security protocols. Sir Olly's testimony suggests that political expediency may have overridden standard security procedures, potentially putting sensitive information at risk. This incident has sparked a broader debate on whether Sir Keir Starmer's administration prioritises security or political appointments.
Public Opinion and Polling
In light of these developments, a new poll invites readers to weigh in: 'Do you think Sir Keir has such an approach to national security?' This follows yesterday's poll, where Mail readers were asked about theatre etiquette. Out of over 3,000 votes, 72% disagreed with Lesley Manville's claim that taking photos during curtain calls insults actors, while 28% agreed.
The ongoing scrutiny highlights the delicate balance between governmental efficiency and rigorous security measures, with implications for future appointments and public trust.
