Mandelson Vetting Dispute: Process Defended

A Permanent Secretary at the Cabinet Office has defended the security vetting process followed for Peter Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador. This defense has led to increased scrutiny regarding the Prime Minister’s decision to dismiss Olly Robbins, the former Foreign Office mandarin.

Civil Servant Confirms Protocol Adherence

Cat Little, the Permanent Secretary of the Cabinet Office, testified before the Foreign Affairs Committee, stating her belief that established protocols were followed during the vetting process. This testimony comes amid speculation about a potentially substantial severance package for Sir Olly Robbins, who was removed from his £240,000-a-year position.

Potential Severance Costs

Estimates suggest the potential cost to taxpayers could reach £1 million, though sources indicate it is too early to determine the final financial implications. The controversy stems from the Prime Minister’s assertion that Sir Olly committed a “serious error of judgment” by not informing him about vetting officials’ advice against Mandelson’s appointment.

Robbins' Account and Information Sharing

Sir Olly Robbins previously confirmed receiving a formal dismissal letter on Monday and stated he was not authorized to disclose vetting information to the Prime Minister. He also maintained his authority to make decisions regarding Developed Vetting (DV) clearance.

Document Review and Compliance

Ms. Little has been reviewing documents related to Mandelson’s appointment, as requested by Parliament. She confirmed that all relevant ministers and officials have submitted messages exchanged with Mandelson, complying with MPs’ demands.

Vetting Process Explained

Ms. Little clarified that UK Security Vetting (UKSV) provides a recommendation regarding Developed Vetting status, but the Foreign Office ultimately decides whether to grant it. She emphasized this is the established and agreed-upon procedure.

Timeline of Information Disclosure

Ms. Little informed the Prime Minister last week that Lord Mandelson had been granted high-level security clearance despite recommendations against it from vetting officials. She had been aware of this information since March 25th and stated she acted “swiftly and effectively” in informing the Prime Minister.

Unusual Information Request

Notably, Ms. Little revealed that Sir Olly had declined to share vetting information with her, prompting her to directly request it from UKSV – a “very unusual” step taken to fulfill her responsibility to address the Commons’ request for information. An initial discussion also occurred regarding whether Mandelson even required security vetting, considering his membership in the House of Lords.

Prime Minister's Stance

The Prime Minister reiterated his belief that the outcome of the security clearance process should have been brought to his attention, stating he would not have appointed Mandelson had he been informed. He underscored that Sir Olly explicitly chose not to share this information, a decision he deemed incorrect.

Precedent for Severance Packages

Past dismissals of officials have resulted in significant severance packages, including a £260,000 (potentially higher) payout to Chris Wormald and a £75,000 payment to Mandelson after his removal as US ambassador due to his association with Jeffrey Epstein.