The The ” ” Sir Sir ” ” Sir ” ” ” ” ” No It

Key points from sacked official in Mandelson vetting disputeJust nowKate WhannelPolitical ReporterPA MediaSir Olly, the former top civil service at the Foreign Office is giving evidence to the MPs on foreign affairs committee about the role he played in vetting the peer security clearance for the role of the UK’s Ambassador to the US. Sir Olly Robbins, the former top civil servant at the Foreign Office, is giving evidence to MPs on the foreign affairs committee about his role in vetting Lord Mandelson to be the UK’s ambassador to the US. This comes after he was effectively sacked by his department last week when it was revealed that his department had granted peer security clearance for this role in January 2025 against the recommendation of the security officials who vetted the person. No 10 had a “dismissive” approach to vetting. In a letter published at the same time as his oral testimony, Sir Olly stated that Lord Mandelson’s nomination had already been announced by the US when he took up the role in the Foreign Office. He also noted that Lord Mandelson was already granted access to the Foreign Office and given a “highly classified briefing, on a case-bycase basis”. He said that these factors “resulted” in a dismissive attitude from Downing Street towards developed vetting – the process necessary to obtain security clearance. Downing Street is under ‘constant pressure’ Sir Olly said that Downing Street had a “strong expectation”, that Lord Mandelson should “be in America and in his post as soon as humanly possible”. He said that his office was “under constant pressure” to complete the vetting. He said later that “I think the department felt pressured, but we were proud that we hadn’t bowed to this pressure.” “Mandelson’s concerns did not pertain to Epstein. In his letter, he said that he had never seen the documentation of UK Security Vetting, the government’s internal vetting unit. It contained their vetting evaluation of Lord Mandelson. He said that, instead, he received an oral briefing during which he learned that the vetting agency regarded Mandelson as a “borderline” case and that they “were leaning towards recommending clearance be denied”. He said UKSV acknowledged the Foreign Office may “want to grant clearance with appropriate risk management”. “The risks were not related to Jeffrey Epstein,” said he. Sir Olly refused to answer questions from Labour MP Emily Thornberry who chairs the committee. Sir Olly said that blocking Mandelson would have created problems with the US. He advised the government to conduct Lord Mandelson’s background check before announcing his appointment. He said that former US President Joe Biden agreed to the appointment near the end of his tenure in office. He added that if the nomination changed after this point, the incoming government would have commented publicly on it and it could have caused a problem in the relationship. Starmer’s Mandelson Statement: Key Points Officials withheld Mandelson’s vetting results from me, Starmer claims.Sign up for the Politics Essential newsletter and read top political analyses, gain insight across the UK, and stay up-to-date with the big moments. It will be delivered to your inbox each weekday.Keir Starmer

Sacked civil servant to speak out in Mandelson vetting row23 minutes agoChris Mason,Political editorandNick Eardley,Political correspondentGettyThe former lead civil servant at the Foreign Office, sacked by the prime minister and foreign secretary last week, will give his side of the story in Parliament this morning.Sir Olly Robbins, who had been the permanent under secretary at the Foreign Office since January 2025, was removed from his post last Thursday evening after the prime minister discovered he had not been told by Sir Olly that Lord Peter Mandelson had failed his vetting process to be the UK’s ambassador in Washington.Sir Olly is expected to defend his decision not to tell Sir Keir Starmer and is understood to be bruised and upset at both losing his job and the loud, repeated and personal criticisms of his conduct.A friend of Sir Olly told the BBC, in apparent contrast with how he feels he has been treated: “Olly doesn’t do personal. He “He is likely to set out to the Foreign Affairs Committeethe context in which his initial decision was taken – that Lord Mandelson’s appointment as ambassador had already been publicly announced and his interpretation of the law, the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act, 2010, was that he was not authorised to share the conclusions of the UK Security Vetting process.PA MediaThe prime minister’s allies maintain this morning, as Sir Keir set out in the House of Commons on Monday, that their interpretation of the law is very different and Sir Olly could and should have shared that information with ministers.Supporters of Sir Keir struggle to understand why Sir Olly, having initially decided against sharing the information, remained of that view after Lord Mandelson’s sacking and when questions returned about the process surrounding his appointment.The chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, Dame Emily Thornberry, is furious with Sir Olly for failing to disclose what he knew to the committee when they asked specifically about Lord Mandelson’s vetting.A key question in advance of the committee’s questioning is whether Sir Olly acknowledges sharing what he knew with anyone else and, if so, who and what it was he chose to tell them and not tell them.The prime minister will hope the former senior civil servant’s testimony will strengthen their argument that there were repeated opportunities for him to be informed and these were not taken.After the committee’s session with Sir Olly, there will be another debate on the issue in the Commons, secured by the Conservatives.Reflecting last night on suggestions the entire British state was being brought to bear against Sir Olly, an ally said: “That’s exactly how it feels. Chris

Star Lord He Sir ” This This The The Sir

Star The He He