Ever since the Guardian revealed last month that Peter Mandelson was given security clearance against the advice of the UK government’s vetting agency, one question has dominated in Westminster.
What were the concerns that led United Kingdom Security Vetting (UKSV) to tell the Foreign Office that his clearance should be denied in late January 2025, weeks before he was due to take up his post as ambassador to Washington?
On Wednesday, the Guardian revealed several areas that multiple sources say contributed to that decision.
UKSV identified concerns about associations Mandelson had with the Chinese finance minister, Lan Fo’an, the Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska and a former Israeli military intelligence general, Tamir Hayman, the sources said. The agency also flagged a very close relationship with a fourth individual, who is British, that it believed could be compromising, they said.
According to the sources, officials additionally flagged a £1m loan used by Mandelson to buy shares in an Israeli startup, the sources added, and the officials noted he appeared naive to the risks that his historical relationships with other individuals could be exploited.
The revelations raise fresh questions for those involved in the growing scandal around Mandelson’s appointment, including Keir Starmer, who opted to make him ambassador, and senior civil servants involved in granting him clearance.
-
1. Was it right to give Mandelson security clearance?
On 28 January 2025, UKSV concluded the vetting process and decided Mandelson was a “high” overall concern and recommended clearance not be given. The following day, Olly Robbins, the then permanent secretary at the Foreign Office, granted him clearance anyway.
Robbins did not see UKSV’s nine-page summary of Mandelson’s vetting file, relying on an oral briefing from another senior Foreign Office official, Ian Collard, who had not seen it either. (He also relied on an oral briefing, from another member of his team.) A third official, Corin Robertson, then the Foreign Office’s chief operating officer, was also involved.
Given the wide-ranging concerns identified by UKSV, was the decision by Robbins, Collard and Robertson to grant Mandelson clearance with “mitigations” a reasonable one?
-
2. What were the ‘mitigations’ and where are the documents recording them?
Robbins told MPs last month that his decision to grant clearance was subject to mitigations that were put in place to manage the risks identified by UKSV. What exactly were those mitigations? Did they adequately deal with his links to individuals in China, Russia, Israel and the UK, as well as the £1m loan?
Last week the MP John Hayes, a member of the intelligence and security committee, which has had early sight of the most sensitive Mandelson files, made a curious intervention on this point in the House of Commons. He asked a government minister, Darren Jones, to confirm that “there was no document or any communication” related to the mitigation of any risks related to Mandelson.
In his response, Jones referenced mitigations dealing with commercial interests. However, these would be separate and not deal with all the risks identified by UKSV.
Can it really be true that no government documents exist recording the mitigations that Robbins and Collard say were put in place?
-
3. Was national security compromised during the seven months Mandelson was in post?
The government has said a review is under way to establish whether any security concerns were raised during Mandelson’s tenure as the UK’s ambassador in Washington.
That audit may now look into whether his associations with Lan, Deripaska and Hayman, and other issues raised by UKSV, posed any conflicts of interest. Did Mandelson’s relationships influence any official discussions relating to China, Russia or Israel when he was ambassador?
While the vetting process was under way in January 2025, Mandelson is understood to have received sensitive Foreign Office briefings on China. Were officials briefing him aware of his links to Lan? And was Mandelson involved in any way in meetings between Lan and Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, in early 2025?
-
4. Why didn’t Mandelson declare a £1m loan to the House of Lords register of interests?
In July 2019, Mandelson declared in the House of Lords register of interests that he had a shareholding worth more than £50,000 in Moon Active. He did not declare a £1m loan that, according to sources, UKSV noted had been given to him by a British businessman in order to buy shares in that company.
Peers are required to disclose all relevant financial interests “which might be thought by a reasonable member of the public to influence a member’s parliamentary conduct”. So why was the loan not declared?
-
5. Why did Robbins say Mandelson’s case was ‘borderline’?
Robbins said he was briefed by Collard that UKSV believed Mandelson’s case was “borderline”. Collard told MPs he recalled it was a “borderline case”, but he noted that those directly involved “cannot remember with certainty exactly what phraseology was used”. The term “borderline” has not been used by anyone else who has seen the UKSV documents.
So was Mandelson’s case, involving associations with two senior figures enmeshed in the power structures of hostile states, really “borderline”? Who exactly made that observation and when and where was it noted down?
