A “leak inquiry” has been launched into how sensitive information regarding Lord Peter Mandelson’s failed security checks was disclosed to the press, following the sacking of former Foreign Office chief Sir Olly Robbins over his failure to disclose the peer's vetting result.
Darren Jones confirmed the investigation is now under way after details were given to The Guardian following a Cabinet Office briefing to Number 10.
Sir Olly, who was dismissed by the Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer, described the leak as a "grievous breach of national security" during an appearance before the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Sir Olly was sacked despite Lord Mandelson ultimately being granted developed vetting (DV) clearance. He expressed deep sadness and confusion over his dismissal, stating he does not "fully understand" the reasons for it and has sought legal advice, hinting at a potential legal challenge. He insisted that the confidentiality of the vetting process is "designed to protect UK national security".
The controversy unfolded during an emergency debate in the Commons, called by Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch, who demanded Sir Keir Starmer "go".
Sir Olly told MPs there was a "dismissive approach" to vetting from No 10, coupled with an "atmosphere of pressure" to push through Lord Mandelson’s appointment.
He revealed that when he took over at the Foreign Office in January last year, Lord Mandelson had already completed the Cabinet Office’s "due diligence" process, received royal approval, secured US agreement, and was accessing "highly classified briefings" on a case-by-case basis – all before his security clearance was confirmed.
Sir Olly admitted he was "very conscious that if we went through the rigour of our process and decided against granting clearance that would have caused a real problem for the Government and a problem for the country." However, he maintained that Foreign Office civil servants conducted the process as normal.
MPs on the Foreign Affairs Committee heard that UK Security Vetting (UKSV), the agency responsible for such checks, had marked two "red boxes" on Lord Mandelson’s form, indicating "high concern" and recommending "clearance denied or withdrawn".
Sir Olly stated he never saw this form but was briefed by Foreign Office security staff that "UKSV considered Mandelson a borderline case and that they were leaning towards recommending that clearance be denied".
He clarified that the risks in Lord Mandelson’s case were not related to his association with paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein. Sir Olly added: "I was told that UKSV acknowledged, I don’t know in what way, but acknowledged that the Foreign Office might wish to grant clearance with appropriate risk management."
During his testimony, Sir Olly also told MPs: – The normal vetting process only occurred because the Foreign Office "put its foot down" after the Cabinet Office suggested Lord Mandelson’s status as a peer and privy counsellor made it unnecessary. – Rejecting Lord Mandelson as the nominee for the Washington post would have created "quite an issue" with Donald Trump’s incoming administration in January 2025. – No 10 had considered Lord Matthew Doyle, Sir Keir’s former communications chief, for an ambassadorial role.
Sir Keir Starmer, speaking after a two-and-a-half-hour session in the Commons, said he challenged Sir Olly over why he went against UKSV’s recommendation, stating: "I did ask him and I didn’t accept his explanation. That’s why I sacked him." The Prime Minister later told his Cabinet that Sir Olly was "a man of integrity and professionalism" who made an "error of judgment", while Downing Street denied claims of a dismissive approach to the vetting process. The Chancellor backed Sir Keir’s decision, calling Sir Olly’s failure to inform the Prime Minister of the vetting outcome a "serious mistake".
However, Mrs Badenoch claimed Sir Olly’s evidence was "devastating" for Sir Keir, alleging that No 10 not only made the appointment before vetting was complete but that Lord Mandelson was already acting as ambassador and seeing highly classified documents. She accused No 10 of applying "constant pressure" and showing a "dismissive attitude" to vetting, concluding that "full due process was not followed" and "Keir Starmer has misled the House."
The Prime Minister’s official spokesman denied a "dismissive" approach, distinguishing between "asking reasonably for updates on an appointment process" and applying undue pressure. The ongoing leak inquiry and Sir Olly Robbins’s potential legal challenge ensure the controversy surrounding Lord Mandelson’s security clearance remains a significant political issue.
No 10 ‘secretly pushed Olly Robbins to give ambassador job to disgraced Starmer aide’
Starmer-Mandelson latest: Labour MPs turn on PM over vetting scandal
No 10 put ‘constant pressure’ on Foreign Office to get Mandelson in post
Iran regime able to ‘absorb pain’, says British ambassador to US
Sir Ian McKellen: There’s enough original art around for us not to need AI
