A former top U.K. official gave Parliament fresh details about the process that led to scandal-tainted politician Peter Mandelson being approved as Britain’s ambassador to Washington, testifying that he faced strong pressure from Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s office to move quickly even as security vetting remained incomplete. The testimony, delivered by Olly Robbins, comes as the fallout from the ambassador appointment continues to reverberate in British politics and as lawmakers renew questions about Starmer’s judgment and adherence to procedure.
Robbins, who was fired by Starmer last week over his role in approving Mandelson for the top diplomatic post despite concerns raised during security screening, told the Foreign Affairs Committee that Downing Street’s expectations focused on speed. He said there was “very, very strong expectation” from the prime minister’s office that Mandelson “needed to be in post and in America as quickly as humanly possible,” and he said the approach from Downing Street amounted to a “dismissive attitude” toward the security vetting.
Robbins also described the timeline of how the approval process played out after Mandelson’s appointment was announced in December 2024. He said that when he took up the job about two weeks after the appointment was announced, security vetting was underway but not yet complete, and that the U.S. government had accepted the nomination. He said Mandelson was then granted access to classified briefings, even as the U.K. security checks were still being carried out.
As Starmer publicly responded to the controversy, Robbins told lawmakers that confidentiality rules limited what he could disclose to the prime minister. The government has said Starmer only learned last week that U.K. Security Vetting advised against granting Mandelson clearance, and Robbins said Foreign Office confidentiality rules prevented him from telling Starmer that he had approved Mandelson despite the team’s advice. Robbins said the vetting process was so secretive that even he was not shown the panel’s report on Mandelson, and he described a system in which recommendations are recorded on a document with three boxes—green, yellow and red—without specifying what those boxes indicated for Mandelson.
Robbins told the committee that he never saw that document but said he had been briefed that the vetting officials considered Mandelson a “borderline case” and were “leaning towards recommending that clearance be denied.” He said Foreign Office officials nevertheless decided that any risks could be managed or mitigated, a point that critics have seized on as evidence that due process was compromised by political pressure.
Robbins also addressed the central allegation driving public anger over the appointment: that Mandelson’s close ties to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein should have been a determinative factor. He said the concerns raised in Mandelson’s security screening had nothing to do with his ties to Epstein, even as other documentation made the Epstein relationship part of the wider reputational concerns flagged during the earlier due diligence process. Robbins’ account drew a further line between the content of the security objections and the reputational risk concerns highlighted in a due diligence report released to Parliament last month.
That due diligence report, according to the description provided in the testimony, cited the Epstein relationship and also outlined Mandelson’s business ties to Russia and China. It also referenced Mandelson’s resignations from two previous Labour governments linked to scandals involving money and ethics. The government, in turn, said Starmer apologized and blamed Mandelson for lying about the extent of his ties to Epstein after earlier documents suggested Mandelson had maintained closer relationships with the convicted sex offender than previously thought.
The testimony escalated political scrutiny of Starmer’s leadership and renewed calls for him to defend the appointment more directly. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch said it was “inconceivable” that nobody in Starmer’s office knew Mandelson had flunked security clearance, and she accused Starmer of misleading Parliament. Badenoch said, “The evidence from Olly Robbins is devastating to Keir Starmer,” and she added that “It is clear that No. 10 not only made the appointment before vetting was completed, but that Mandelson was already acting as the ambassador before the vetting, even seeing highly-classified documents. … It is now absolutely clear that ‘full due process’ was not followed.”
Polling specialists said the new details could further shape public views of Starmer. Keiran Pedley, director of politics at Ipsos, said the latest revelations could entrench negative perceptions of Starmer’s leadership, adding that earlier questions about his response to the Iran war might have put his political future “on the back burner,” but “That may no longer be the case.”
With local elections approaching in England, Scotland and Wales, the politics around the Mandelson appointment is poised to remain in focus. Pedley said the fallout could become a clearer referendum on Starmer’s leadership if the electoral results are, as expected, especially bad for the Labour Party.