'Leak inquiry' launched after Mandelson’s security vetting information disclosed to press
The Prime Minister's Chief Secretary has announced that a leak inquiry will be launched into information being “made available” to The Guardian about Lord Peter Mandelson’s security vetting.
Listen to this article
On Tuesday, Darren Jones told the Commons: "I’m sure the House will be as concerned as I am that, whilst officials felt unable to provide this information to ministers, this information was made available to The Guardian newspaper.
"As a consequence of that, I can confirm that a leak inquiry is now under way."
This comes as Sir Keir Starmer faces a political storm over the vetting process of former US Ambassador Peter Mandelson, after the peer left his post after links to China, Russia and paedophile Jeffrey Epstein came to light.
Sir Keir said officials made a "deliberate decision" not to inform him that the Labour grandee had failed the vetting process.
On Tuesday, Former Foreign Office official Sir Olly Robbins appeared in front of MPs, led by Emily Thornberry, the chair of the Foreign Office Select Committee, to give evidence on the ongoing row.
The top civil servant told the committee that whilst he was presented with the UK Security Vetting report findings, he did not know the contents of the guidance and its associated concerns about Mandelson.
He said that he had not read the "underlying documentation", had "never seen a UKSV document".
He added that only in "wholly exceptional circumstances" would an individual be briefed on the findings of a UKSV process.
In response, Ms Thornberry asked, "This is a wholly exceptional circumstance, surely?", to which he replied: "No."
Sir Olly said that the risks uncovered by Mandelson’s vetting process were not related to the late paedophile billionaire, Jeffrey Epstein.
He said he was told that Mandelson was considered a "borderline case" by UKSV and that they were "leaning towards" suggesting that clearance be denied.
However, he said the Foreign Office concluded that the risks identified could be "managed or mitigated".
He maintained that these risks "did not relate" to Mandelson's relationship with Epstein.
Sir Olly maintained that the vetting of Lord Mandelson was completed to a high standard, outlining the extensive process of his selection.
But he added he “walked into a situation in which there was already a very, very strong expectation” coming from the government that Mandelson needed to be “in post, and in America as quickly as humanly possible.”
He said that Number 10 wanted the clearance process completed “at pace” and for Mandelson to be installed as ambassador before the inauguration.
Sir Olly said that denying clearance to Mandelson would have been a “very, very difficult problem” he would have been “landing the foreign secretary with and the prime minister."
He told the committee: "The PM's nominee had been put out there to the public, announced, blessed by the king, agreed by the US government. We were in receipt of formal letters from No 10 telling us to get on with it quickly. We had engineered agreement to arrive just before the inauguration.”
He explained that this restricted his abilities to block Mandelson’s nomination, saying: "All I can do is agree with the premise that, against that backdrop, the Foreign Office saying, ‘Okay, but sorry, we can't grant him clearance', would have been a very, very difficult problem."
He went on: “And a difficult problem I would have been landing the foreign secretary with and the prime minister."
Sir Olly refused to explain whether anything was flagged in the vetting process that wasn't already within the public realm.
Despite being pressed by Thornberry, Robbins said it is important that candidates being vetted understand that the government honours the confidentiality of the process, and declined to answer on the basis that doing so would "lead to a storm of questions".
Comments made at the hearing were met with a furious backlash from the Conservatives, who have pushed for accountability from the PM.
Opposition leader, Kemi Badenoch took to X to accuse Sir Keir of "misleading the house."
"It is clear that No10 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," she wrote.
"With this, and the 'constant pressure' No10 applied to the appointment and their 'dismissive attitude' to vetting Mandelson, it is now absolutely clear that 'full due process' was not followed.
"Keir Starmer has misled the House.
Lib Dem leader Ed Davey said Starmer's reasoning was "unbelievable".
"When is the Prime Minister finally going to take some responsibility?" he asked.