It is
obvious now, Keir Starmer, that you made a mistake. Reinstate Olly Robbins for
the good of the UK
Simon
McDonald
That is
the inescapable conclusion from all we know. I’m fairly sure that had the PM
initially heard his full account, he would not have sacked him
Simon
McDonald was permanent secretary at the Foreign Office from 2015 to 2020
Wed 22
Apr 2026 08.33 BST
The most
difficult thing in life – any life – is to admit you are wrong. What’s true for
someone in the privacy of their own home is massively more true for the prime
minister. But last Thursday, Keir Starmer made a mistake. That afternoon, the
Guardian reported that Peter Mandelson had failed his security vetting and the
permanent undersecretary at the Foreign Office had overruled the recommendation
of UK Security Vetting (UKSV), a department within the Cabinet Office. Within
the news cycle, the prime minister and foreign secretary announced they had
lost confidence in Olly Robbins and he was forced to resign.
Over the
past few days, No 10 has doubled down on its version of events. On Monday,
Starmer told the House of Commons that, if he had known Mandelson had “failed”
his vetting, he would not have allowed his posting to Washington to proceed.
Before
dawn at JFK airport yesterday, I watched Robbins give evidence to the foreign
affairs select committee on iPlayer while waiting for my flight to Heathrow.
Emily Thornberry, the chair of the committee, and her colleagues were polite,
forensic and steely. Robbins answered in the same spirit. He set out the facts.
He spoke only from his knowledge. He refused to breach the confidentiality of
the vetting process and he continued to support colleagues who cannot defend
themselves in public, despite the fact that he was no longer a civil servant.
The
session made plain that security vetting is an art, not a science. Its sole
objective is to protect national security. Rarely does anyone outright “fail”
the process – although UKSV did take the view that Mandelson should be “denied”
approval because of an overall “high concern”. Nonetheless, decisions are
always a matter of judgment about whether vulnerabilities can be mitigated, not
a matter of filling in a template.
Three
things were clear from the session – and anyone agreeing with those three
things should accept an inescapable conclusion.
First, by
the time Robbins took over as permanent undersecretary on 20 January 2025, the
prime minister’s decision to post Mandelson to Washington was irreversible: the
posting had been publicly announced without caveat, the king had approved it,
and the White House had given agreement. Officials at No 10 had only
reluctantly accepted that security clearance was required at all. Robbins knew
that the problems with the posting had already been laid out to Starmer, whose
enthusiasm for it was undimmed. Vetting was a formality that had to be
delivered.
Second,
Robbins said that the Foreign Office’s director of security reported to him at
their meeting that UKSV “considered Mandelson a ‘borderline’ case, leaning
towards recommending that clearance be denied”. (Such clearance was necessary
for developed vetting, or DV – the level needed by officials in roles that
require them to have “frequent and uncontrolled” access to top secret material
and assets.) The Foreign Office is an intelligent customer that interrogates
the agency’s work. There was a discussion about the agency’s findings and a
decision that, with mitigations in place, Mandelson could have his DV. As
Robbins made clear, nothing was overturned.
Third,
the whole process of security vetting is confidential. Even permanent
undersecretaries see only what they need to know. Like Robbins, the only
completed forms I ever saw as permanent undersecretary were the ones about me.
Ministers need to know only the result. It’s similar to medical clearance.
Everyone posted overseas needs medical clearance; the chain of command needs to
know it’s been granted, they have no proper interest in the detail.
Robbins
did his job, aware of the pressure from across Downing Street but not buckling
to it. And yet misunderstanding about what that job required led the prime
minister to rush to a wrong judgment. I cannot believe that, had he waited
until after the foreign affairs select committee session, the PM would have
sacked Robbins.
The world
is an uncertain place. The Foreign Office and its professional head are dealing
with simultaneous crises in Ukraine, the Middle East and the transatlantic
relationship. Britain cannot afford a gap at the top, nor can it afford to lose
the services of a first-class civil servant whose diligence and thoughtfulness
were on full display yesterday in Portcullis House. There is one immediate
conclusion in my view: the government should reinstate Robbins as permanent
undersecretary.
Lord
McDonald of Salford was permanent secretary at the Foreign Office, 2015-2020,
and is now a crossbench peer
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário