Ex-Foreign Office boss refused to give Cabinet Office Mandelson's vetting file forcing No10 to contact firm directly
Officials even discussed whether Mandelson would need any vetting whatsoever, as he was a member of the House of Lords
The Foreign Office refused to share key files about Lord Mandelson’s vetting, according to one of Britain’s most senior civil servants.
Listen to this article
Cat Little, the Cabinet Office permanent secretary, confirmed she was forced to request the information from security officials, which she described as “very unusual”.
Sir Olly Robbins reportedly refused to give her the information, which would eventually reveal that he gave Mandelson security clearance despite his failing vetting.
Little said that the information was required to comply with the Conservative-driven “humble address”, which required the government to share information concerning Mandelson’s appointment as UK ambassador to Washington, as well as his links to the late paedophile, Jeffrey Epstein.
Read more: Starmer 'could face sleaze probe' over Mandelson vetting row as Cabinet turns on Prime Minister
Read more: Starmer denies No10 put ‘pressure’ on civil service to appoint Mandelson despite him failing vetting
She told the Foreign Affairs Committee: “I took the very unusual judgment that I should directly request the information from UK Security Vetting, and I did that because I go back to my responsibilities to discharge the humble address, which is a responsibility that is unique to me, and I take very seriously.
“I felt that I needed to see some relevant documentation so that I could advise the prime minister as to whether we had fully complied and gathered the information that was available and within scope.”
Little refused to explain why Robbins didn’t hand over the details, adding, “I can only talk about my judgments and decisions.”
The permanent secretary was also questioned Robbins’ claims that he was unable to access full details of Mandelson’s file when he applied last September.
He previously told the committee that he considered requesting it from UK Security Vetting, but was informed that he needed a national security justification before doing so.
She told the committee: “On September 15 last year, the Foreign Office security team requested access to a number of documents relating to the vetting file, and on the same day, the documents requested were sent to the Foreign Office.
“I don’t know who, beyond the individual requesting that information, saw those documents, but my point being that any anyone within the security chain can request to see information if they feel it is necessary, because they are ultimately one of the owners of that document.”
She said: “I have obviously looked at what Olly has said, and I can’t at this stage see the audit trail for that request, and I don’t know who Sir Olly made that request to.”
Last week, the Prime Minister was informed by Little that Mandelson had been given high-level security clearance despite vetting officials advising against it.
She discovered sensitive information linked to Mandelson’s vetting on March 25 and claims she acted as “swiftly and effectively” as she could in flagging it to the prime minister. However, she said it took time to obtain expert legal advice on handling such sensitive information.
Little went on to reveal that there had been an initial discussion about whether Mandelson required any security vetting whatsoever, as he was also a member of the House of Lords.
She explained that “the presumption had been that, given Peter Mandelson had been a member of the House of Lords, the longstanding convention that he didn’t require developed vetting was assumed, and they wanted to get proper policy advice from experts on whether that was the case.”
She added that she had not seen evidence of Downing Street pushing the Foreign Office to expedite the vetting process, so that Mandelson could take up his post as US ambassador.
When questioned on Robbins’s claims of such pressure, she said: “I can’t comment on events that I wasn’t privy to. I wasn’t involved at all, as I stated up front.
“As part of the humble address information-gathering process, I’ve not seen any documentation that would formally confirm that level of pressure.
She added: “But I must repeat, I’m only looking at information in the audit trail and the documentation that I’ve been given in relation to the humble address. I can’t comment on the atmosphere at the time. I wasn’t involved.”