A former high court judge is set to assess the vetting procedures concerning Peter Mandelson, as well as the broader national security vetting framework in the UK.
This review, initiated by Downing Street, follows a report by The Guardian that revealed security officials had recommended against granting Mandelson developed vetting clearance, a decision that was subsequently overturned by the Foreign Office, allowing him to assume the role of ambassador to the United States.
The information disclosed on Thursday resulted in the resignation of Olly Robbins, the senior official at the Foreign Office, and intensified scrutiny on Keir Starmer.
The Prime Minister and other members of the Cabinet have stated that they were not informed of Mandelson’s failed vetting attempt.
According to several sources, the government intends to appoint Adrian Fulford to spearhead a formal investigation into the vetting procedures. Discussions regarding the review’s terms of reference were ongoing earlier this week and have not yet been finalized.
Fulford, a former appellate court judge, recently concluded his chairmanship of the initial phase of an inquiry into a knife attack at a children’s dance club in Southport that occurred two years ago. He also serves as the chair of the security vetting appeals panel, which has the authority to re-evaluate applications for security clearance that have been denied.
Mandelson’s application for developed vetting clearance did not progress to the appeals panel, as officials within the Foreign Office utilized a seldom-used authority to override the recommendation made by the United Kingdom Security Vetting (UKSV).
This action has sparked anger and uncertainty within Whitehall regarding whether Robbins, who had just assumed the role of Foreign Office permanent secretary, acted alone in overruling UKSV. Had Mandelson not received clearance, he would have been unable to accept the ambassadorial position in Washington, potentially causing embarrassment for Starmer, who had appointed him.
In light of the information brought to light by The Guardian, ministers announced that they have suspended the ability of the Foreign Office and other departments to overturn recommendations made by UKSV.
A comprehensive review of the national security vetting processes is anticipated to commence shortly. Darren Jones, the chief secretary to the Prime Minister, indicated on Friday morning that he had requested an urgent examination of any other instances where UKSV recommendations were overruled.
Jones stated that this urgent review would be part of a larger, independent evaluation of the vetting procedures, which he plans to announce soon. The Cabinet Office has not responded to inquiries regarding whether the government will commit to making Fulford’s terms of reference or findings from his review publicly available.
In February, Jones indicated in parliamentary statements that the review of the national security vetting system would facilitate learning from the shortcomings in the policy and procedures related to Mandelson’s situation. He also mentioned that changes would be implemented in the security vetting processes for other political appointments, including ambassadors.
Jones remarked, “In cases where the role necessitates access to highly classified information, the selected candidate must have successfully completed the relevant national security vetting process before such appointments are announced or confirmed.”
The government likely hopes that these adjustments will prevent a recurrence of the complications surrounding Mandelson’s political appointment, where the security vetting process only commenced after he had already been publicly designated by Starmer as the ambassadorial nominee for Washington.
