Olly Robbins ‘thrown under bus’ by No 10, says ex-Foreign Office chief – as it happened

Former senior civil servant Sir Olly Robbins has been widely criticized for being unfairly scapegoated by Downing Street following the controversy over Peter Mandelson’s appointment as UK ambassador to the United States. The appointment sparked a major diplomatic scandal after it emerged Mandelson had failed the official vetting process, yet was still approved for the role. Lord Simon McDonald, a former permanent secretary at the Foreign Office, described Robbins as a “scalp” sacrificed by the government to quickly contain the fallout, calling the situation the “biggest diplomatic crisis” in over 40 years. The controversy intensified when The Guardian revealed that Mandelson’s vetting had been unsuccessful, raising questions about the integrity and transparency of the appointment process. Robbins, who was involved in the vetting procedures, resigned soon after the story broke, with McDonald suggesting that Robbins was not afforded due process or a chance to defend himself. The Cabinet Office later released a template from the UK Security Vetting (UKSV) summary document, which outlined the vetting assessment framework, including risk levels and clearance decisions, but the full details of Mandelson’s vetting remain undisclosed. The fallout has led to significant political repercussions, with calls for accountability reaching the highest levels. John Swinney, deputy first minister of Scotland, publicly stated that Labour leader Keir Starmer should resign over the handling of the Mandelson appointment. Despite this, political analysts expect Starmer to maintain his position amid internal party dynamics and broader concerns about government transparency and diplomatic credibility. This episode highlights ongoing challenges within the UK government’s vetting and diplomatic appointment processes, raising concerns about political interference and the potential undermining of established security protocols. The incident has sparked debate over the balance between political expediency and safeguarding national interests, underscoring the importance of rigorous and impartial vetting in maintaining the integrity of diplomatic posts.