Sir Olly Robbins' parliamentary testimony on the Peter Mandelson vetting case has drawn praise from fellow civil service knights, but a closer examination reveals stark questions about both his defence and the system itself. The former top Foreign Office official faced a select committee after being sacked by Prime Minister Keir Starmer for granting Mandelson developed vetting clearance against the advice of the UK Security Vetting (UKSV) agency.
Robbins claimed Mandelson's case was 'borderline', yet the vetting file, completed on 28 January 2025, used a traffic-light system where the vetting officer chose the red option: 'clearance denied'. Downing Street, the Cabinet Office and the Guardian have confirmed this, and the BBC reported that MPs were briefed by senior officials to clarify that UKSV recommended denial with 'red flags'.
Robbins, however, gave a different account. He did not see the file, which he described as in a 'hermetically sealed box', and relied on an oral briefing from the Foreign Office's director of security, Ian Collard. According to Robbins, Collard said UKSV considered Mandelson 'borderline' and was only 'leaning towards recommending clearance be denied', and that UKSV indicated the Foreign Office 'may wish to grant' clearance with mitigations.
This raises the question of how Robbins could assess mitigations without seeing the full risk context. He was unable to confirm if a detailed record of the conversation exists. Robbins argued that the process was misunderstood: while UKSV has final say for many civil servants, in the Foreign Office clearance is granted by the department, allowing him to quibble with language suggesting Mandelson 'failed' the assessment.
Robbins described the vetting as a 'dialogue' between experienced professionals, but critics note his account contrasts sharply with the clear red denial in the official file. The testimony has exposed potential flaws in how security vetting decisions are communicated and overridden within government.
