The core of Sir Olly’s argument is that when he became head of the Foreign Office in January 2025 the department was being put under serious pressure to expedite the process for Lord Mandelson’s security clearance, but regardless of that pressure giving him the clearance was the right call.
Downing Street’s position is the exact opposite. They argue that there was not undue pressure on the Foreign Office, but that Sir Olly nevertheless made the wrong call at the end of the vetting process to give Lord Mandelson security clearance.
Sir Olly acknowledged that the pressure was not exerted personally on him and was communicated to the Foreign Office by No 10 officials rather than political figures – although he said they, in turn, must have come under pressure from higher up the Downing Street chain.
But given his contention that the pressure he was under from No 10 did not affect the decision he made, then why does Sir Olly’s description of the atmosphere around Lord Mandelson’s pending appointment in January 2025 matter?
One reason why it matters is that it calls into question the prime minister’s claim that if he had known at the time what he now knows about the concerns raised by UK Security Vetting (UKSV), then he wouldn’t have pressed ahead with the appointment.
That’s because Sir Olly’s implicit claim – contested vigorously now by No 10 – is that the political team in Downing Street were determined that Lord Mandelson would become the ambassador come what may.
And of course it is worth remembering, as the committee discussed at length, that by this point the appointment of Lord Mandelson as ambassador had already been publicly announced.