A former top civil servant has accused the government of throwing Sir Olly Robbins “under the bus” after he was sacked for overruling security vetting concerns raised about Peter Mandelson.
Sir Olly left his post as the most senior civil servant in the Foreign Office earlier this week, after it came to light the department granted Mandelson security clearance to take up the role of US ambassador – despite security services recommending against the appointment.
Lord Simon McDonald, ex-permanent secretary in the Foreign Office, has said Sir Olly was a “scalp” for Downing Street, which has faced claims of a “cover up” over the revelation.
Lord McDonald, permanent secretary at the Foreign Office from 2015 to 2020, told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that Number 10 “wanted a scalp and they wanted it quickly”.
He added: “I think this is the biggest crisis in the diplomatic service since I joined it in 1982.”
The government has said the prime minister only found out on Tuesday that Lord Mandelson was cleared for his role as Britain’s representative in Washington against the advice of security officials.
However, Sir Keir has been accused of a “cover-up” after he doubled down on his denial – despite The Independent reporting concerns to No 10 seven months ago.
The Independent originally revealed the story last year – and discussed it with Sir Keir’s then-director of communications, Tim Allan, who responded: “Vetting done by FCDO [Foreign and Commonwealth Office] in normal way.”
Lord McDonald was asked on the BBC programme if he thought Sir Olly “has basically been thrown under the bus”.
He replied: “Yes. This story broke on Thursday morning in a piece in The Guardian – within the news cycle Olly Robbins had been required to resign.
“This shows to me that Number 10 wanted a scalp and they wanted it quickly and I cannot see that there was any process, any fairness, any giving him the chance to set out his case, and that feels to me wrong.”
He took issue with the word “failed” being used to describe the vetting process result because “it is a very black and white word”.
He said: “These things tend to be a bit murkier than that. I mean security vetting will have incomplete information, they will be unhappy about one or two details, they’ll want mitigations to be put in place.
“And all of that happens quite regularly. It means there are hesitations, there are imperfections, but it doesn’t amount to failure.
“If there had been a failure then that fact – that ultimate conclusion – would have to be conveyed to the political level.
“But the fact that it was not indicates to me that the picture was more complicated than Number 10 wished to present.”
Details of a security vetting report “are very closely held” and “would never be shared with Number 10 or the prime minister”, he said.
Sir Olly was required to “maintain confidence” on the details under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, he added.
“The process is set out in law and the top official at the Foreign Office was observing process according to law, and this is a confidential process – like medical records are confidential”, Lord McDonald told the programme.
“Certain things are detail which is not shared at all, this is in that category.
“So I do not know the details of this. What I do know is that it tends to be complicated in this kind of sensitive vetting, and there is judgment involved, and that the PUS (permanent under-secretary) of the Foreign Office (Sir Olly) was following the rules and applying his judgment as far as I can see.”
He added: “I think to lose the top official in these circumstances is a big blow to the Foreign Office.
“Clearly it is a very complicated, difficult, important time internationally – the Foreign Office needs a new head and needs it quickly.
“I think the process to replace Olly needs to be quick and it needs to be internal, because whoever takes his place has to be credible and qualified on day one – fortunately there are a couple of people immediately available.”
