Olly Robbins, recently dismissed by Prime Minister Keir Starmer from his role as the Foreign Office’s senior civil servant, stated during a session on Tuesday that government officials had discussed the possibility of not sharing Peter Mandelson’s confidential vetting records with parliament. This confirmation aligns with a Guardian report indicating that high-level officials pondered keeping sensitive materials from lawmakers, which showed the vetting body deemed Mandelson unsuitable for clearance.
Labour MP Alan Gemmell questioned Robbins on whether there was resistance to releasing the vetting file, possibly as part of a concealment effort, after the Cabinet Office received it in late March. Robbins avoided directly addressing the concealment claim but admitted to internal discussions across departments about the need to disclose the document. He likened the file to one stored in a completely secure container, warning that accessing it could have lasting negative effects on national security. He noted that his department, including himself, held this perspective during those talks.
Lord Beamish, who leads the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) tasked with examining the vetting procedure, expressed strong disapproval of any efforts to block complete access to pertinent records. He emphasized that parliament’s directive via a humble address requires full cooperation, and he viewed Robbins’ comments as evidence of officials attempting to hinder the committee’s work. He welcomed the Cabinet Office’s decision to prevent such obstruction.
Robbins’ statements could heighten conflicts with parliament, which in February mandated the government to provide all documents related to Mandelson’s appointment, including vetting materials. This also prompts scrutiny of whether Darren Jones, the chief secretary to the Treasury and a Starmer ally, provided inaccurate information when he rejected the Guardian’s account. On a BBC program last Friday, Jones denied that officials had considered withholding information, asserting that all documents were being processed through the humble address mechanism under his department’s oversight.
Nevertheless, Robbins confirmed that senior officials from various departments, including the Cabinet Office and Foreign Office, evaluated whether to release the documents to comply with the February motion. That motion demanded all relevant papers on Mandelson’s role, specifying inclusions from entities like UK Security Vetting (UKSV), but allowed exceptions for items harming national security or foreign ties, which would go to the ISC for review.
Robbins described the motion’s language as somewhat unclear regarding government obligations on vetting matters, leading to ongoing debates among top officials. Sources indicate that Cabinet Office leaders always planned to share the document with the ISC, and a copy has reportedly been provided. Robbins portrayed the deliberations as a discussion on whether the Cabinet Office should access its own secure storage, noting concerns among staff there. Ultimately, they proceeded, though Robbins expressed regret, citing broader security implications rather than personal consequences.
The discussions lasted nearly three weeks and involved figures like Cabinet Secretary Antonia Romeo and Cabinet Office permanent secretary Cat Little. Starmer was not initially informed and learned of the vetting denial only last Tuesday. The Cabinet Office insists there was no unnecessary postponement, as officials conducted accelerated reviews to brief the prime minister promptly. A source aware of the talks mentioned concerns among some officials about potential attempts to withhold information.
