The Guardian view on Peter Mandelson: the government must come clean on vetting
The first mistake was appointing the peer despite his links to Jeffrey Epstein. The next would be claiming his security risks were properly managed
TL;DR
- Lord Mandelson's appointment as UK ambassador to America was announced by Sir Keir Starmer.
- UK security vetters (UKSV) advised against granting security clearance due to concerns over links to China, a sanctioned Russian oligarch, former Israeli military intelligence, a potentially compromising British individual, and a substantial loan.
- The Foreign Office's top civil servant, Sir Olly Robbins, granted clearance with "mitigations" despite the case being described as "borderline."
- Sir Olly Robbins was sacked by the prime minister, as the process was seen as not neutral and potentially influenced by the prime minister's prior declaration of Mandelson as the preferred candidate.
- Former MI6 chief Sir Richard Dearlove stated that "mitigations" would be operationally absurd, as an ambassador in Washington inevitably deals with sensitive files related to China, Russia, and Israel.
- Conservative MP Sir John Hayes is probing the issue of "mitigations," questioning whether specific controls existed for each security concern.
- Cabinet Office minister Darren Jones cited commercial-conflict protections as mitigations, which are distinct from national security risk management.
- A parliamentary committee accused ministers of withholding vetting documents or applying unrelated redactions, with Mr. Jones defending the government.
- There are calls for Sir Keir Starmer and his team to be transparent, suggesting that withholding documents may be to protect themselves rather than the public interest.