Mandelson scandal is biggest crisis for diplomatic service in decades, says ex-Foreign Office chief

The Foreign Office is facing its most significant crisis in decades following the revelation that Peter Mandelson failed his UK Security Vetting (UKSV) assessment during the process to appoint him as ambassador to the United States. The scandal escalated when Oliver Robbins, the permanent secretary of the Foreign Office, was dismissed shortly after the news broke. Robbins reportedly knew about Mandelson’s vetting failure but did not inform ministers, a claim he disputes, and Labour leader Keir Starmer stated he was unaware of the vetting outcome until recently. Simon McDonald, former permanent under-secretary of the Foreign Office, defended Robbins, asserting that he was unfairly scapegoated and “thrown under a bus” by the government. McDonald criticized the swift demand for Robbins’ resignation, suggesting that the decision lacked due process and fairness. He described the episode as the most severe crisis the diplomatic service has encountered since he joined in 1982. Robbins is expected to present his account before the Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee, where ministers fear he may challenge the official narrative, potentially damaging Starmer’s position. The controversy highlights broader concerns about the handling of Mandelson’s appointment, which was politically sensitive from the outset. McDonald suggested that the government prioritized the prime minister’s desire to have Mandelson posted to Washington over the vetting process, implying that the system was manipulated to facilitate the appointment despite security concerns. The Cabinet Office released a template used in the UKSV process, outlining how vetting officers assess overall risk levels, but details of Mandelson’s specific assessment remain undisclosed. This incident raises questions about transparency and accountability within the Foreign Office and the government’s management of senior diplomatic appointments. The fallout may have lasting implications for trust in the civil service and the political leadership overseeing it.