2 hours ago
9
It is telling that the person who first floated the idea of Peter Mandelson as the next UK ambassador to America was probably himself. He seems to have looked at his global contacts and thought: this is why I’m useful. Whitehall’s security vetters, UKSV, looked at the same contacts and thought: this is why he’s not. The latest revelations illustrate something rotten about modern politics. What the wealthy and connected think makes them an asset is exactly what makes them a risk.
In late 2024, Lord Mandelson was announced as the UK’s ambassador to Washington by Sir Keir Starmer. That posting ended in disgrace last year after US files exposed the depth of his links to the sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. But UKSV advised against giving security clearance to Lord Mandelson, flagging concerns over links to China’s finance minister, a sanctioned Russian oligarch, a former Israeli military intelligence chief and a British individual described as potentially compromising, as well as a £1m loan connected to an Israeli startup investment.
Despite these associations, the top civil servant at the Foreign Office, Sir Olly Robbins, granted him clearance with “mitigations”, claiming that he understood the peer’s case was “borderline” rather than a clear refusal. That led to Sir Olly’s sacking by a prime minister who had publicly declared Lord Mandelson the man for the job before he was vetted. This meant the process was not neutral. Refusal would not merely have blocked an appointment; it would have embarrassed the prime minister. Yet once exposed, the whole process appears a charade. The problem is not only that Lord Mandelson had sensitive contacts in China, Russia and Israel. It is that being US ambassador is a job in which those three files are obviously unavoidable.
This was the point made by Sir Richard Dearlove, the former MI6 chief. He says such mitigations would have been operationally absurd. As he says, it would be “totally impossible” for a UK ambassador in Washington not to have access to such files. The reason is obvious: those are the main theatres of US-UK foreign, defence and intelligence policy. If MI6 had been told not to share papers with an ambassador, Sir Richard says he would have escalated the matter to the foreign secretary or prime minister. Was Lord Mandelson seen as a safe recipient of material? If not, the posting would essentially be compromised before it began.
In the Commons, the Conservative MP Sir John Hayes has been quietly probing the issue of mitigations. The key question is not whether some safeguards existed, but whether each security concern had a specific control. In reply, the Cabinet Office minister Darren Jones appeared to cite commercial-conflict protections – such as not meeting former clients privately. But that is not the same as managing national security issues. If no risk control document exists, then “mitigations” may be little more than a thin layer of conflict-of-interest restrictions being passed off as proper security-risk management.
Parliament has compelled the government to release all papers relating to the peer’s appointment. Extraordinarily, a powerful parliamentary committee tasked with reviewing the Mandelson files accused ministers of withholding vetting documents or applying redactions unrelated to national security or international relations. Mr Jones has defended the government. It is time for Sir Keir and his team to come clean. Anything less would suggest that ministers are not withholding documents to protect the public interest, but to protect themselves.
