The disclosure on Thursday led to the resignation of Olly Robbins, the top official in the Foreign Office, and increased pressure on Keir Starmer, amid claims from the prime minister and other Cabinet colleagues that no ministers were aware Mandelson had failed vetting.
According to multiple sources, the government plan to appoint Adrian Fulford to lead a formal review of the vetting process. Discussions were under way earlier this week on the terms of reference, which are yet to be completed.
Fulford, a former appeals court judge, has recently finished chairing the inquiry into the knife attack at a children’s dance club in Southport two years ago. He sits as chair of the security vetting appeals panel, which has powers to reconsider failed applications for security clearance.
Mandelson’s failed application for developed vetting clearance did not go to the panel as officials in the Foreign Office employed the rarely used power to overrule the recommendation from security officials in United Kingdom Security Vetting (UKSV).
That decision has led to fury and confusion in Whitehall over whether Robbins, only weeks into the role of Foreign Office permanent secretary, would have unilaterally overruled UKSV. Without clearance, Mandelson would not have been able to take up his role as ambassador in Washington, risking embarrassment to Starmer who had selected him as a political appointee.
Since the Guardian’s revelations, ministers have announced they had suspended the right of the Foreign Office and other departments to overturn UKSV recommendations.
A further review of the national security vetting processes is expected to be under way soon. Darren Jones, the chief secretary to the prime minister, said on Friday morning that he had asked for an “urgent review” into any other decisions to overrule UKSV recommendations.
Jones said this urgent review would form part of a “broader, independent review of the vetting process” which he was due to announce. The Cabinet Office did not respond to questions about whether the government would commit to publishing Fulford’s terms of reference or the findings of his review.
In February, Jones indicated in statements to parliament that the review of the national security vetting system would ensure government can “learn the lessons from the policy and process weaknesses related to Peter Mandelson’s case”. He also told MPs that the government would changing the security vetting processes for other political appointments, including ambassadors.
Jones said: “In cases where the role requires access to highly classified material, the selected candidate must have passed through the requisite national security vetting process before such appointments are announced or confirmed.”
The government may hope that such changes will avoid a repeat of the problems surrounding Mandelson’s political appointment, where the security vetting process only began after he had been publicly announced by Starmer as his pick for the ambassador in Washington.
Comment