A former top official at the Foreign Office has labeled the security clearance controversy involving Peter Mandelson as the most significant challenge for Britain’s diplomatic corps in many years. Simon McDonald, who served as the department’s permanent under-secretary until 2020, defended Oliver Robbins, stating that the civil servant was unfairly scapegoated by Prime Minister Keir Starmer following his dismissal last Thursday. Robbins lost his position shortly after a report disclosed that Mandelson did not pass his security evaluation in January 2025, amid efforts to name him as the UK’s ambassador to the United States. Sources indicate Robbins was aware of the failed UK Security Vetting assessment but did not relay it to government ministers. Starmer maintains he only learned of the vetting results this week. Robbins reportedly feels mistreated and believes he adhered to proper procedures. McDonald concurred, affirming on a BBC radio program that Robbins was indeed scapegoated. He noted the rapid sequence of events: the story emerged Thursday morning, and Robbins was forced to step down within hours. McDonald argued this reflected a demand from the prime minister’s office for a quick resolution without due process or fairness, allowing Robbins no opportunity to defend himself. He described the situation as the gravest issue in the diplomatic service since he began his career in 1982. Robbins is set to share his perspective next week, having been called to testify before the House of Commons foreign affairs committee on Tuesday. Government officials worry he might challenge the official narrative, potentially harming Starmer’s position. McDonald implied the administration distorted details of the vetting to deflect responsibility, asserting that the choice to appoint Mandelson despite civil service reservations came directly from the prime minister. He explained that by the time Robbins assumed his role, the appointment was already public, and the prime minister was determined to send his preferred candidate to Washington, with the bureaucracy facilitating it. Multiple sources confirm the vetting outcome was a outright denial due to high-level concerns, documented accordingly. On Friday, the Cabinet Office shared a sample form from the UK Security Vetting summary, which includes options for low, medium, or high concern levels, followed by decisions of approval, approval with conditions, or denial. In Mandelson’s instance, it reportedly indicated high concern and denial, a recommendation overridden by the Foreign Office using an uncommon override power. McDonald commented that if the process truly resulted in denial, that key detail should have reached political leaders, and its absence suggests complexities the government prefers to downplay. The prime minister expressed outrage this week, while his office attributed fault to the Foreign Office, claiming repeated requests for information went unanswered. When questioned if this constituted concealment, the spokesperson did not deny it, emphasizing the prime minister’s shock at not being informed. Further reporting indicates Starmer was also not told about related details by two other senior officials, Cabinet Secretary Antonia Romeo and Cabinet Office Permanent Secretary Catherine Little, who learned of the matter last month but delayed notifying him.
