Keir Starmer and senior civil servant Olly Robbins face fresh questions over the appointment of Peter Mandelson as US ambassador, following new revelations about the security vetting process. The Guardian has disclosed that the UK Security Vetting (UKSV) agency raised concerns about Mandelson's associations with Chinese Finance Minister Lan Fo'an, Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska, and former Israeli military intelligence general Tamir Hayman. Additionally, a close relationship with a British individual was flagged as potentially compromising, along with a £1 million loan Mandelson received to buy shares in an Israeli startup. Officials noted that Mandelson appeared naive to the risks that his historical relationships could be exploited.
Key Questions Over Mandelson's Vetting
1. Was It Right to Grant Security Clearance?
On 28 January 2025, UKSV concluded that Mandelson posed a "high" overall concern and recommended against granting clearance. The following day, Olly Robbins, then permanent secretary at the Foreign Office, overruled this recommendation and granted clearance with mitigations. Robbins did not see the nine-page summary of Mandelson's vetting file, relying instead on an oral briefing from senior official Ian Collard, who also had not seen the file. A third official, Corin Robertson, was also involved. Given the wide-ranging concerns, questions remain about whether the decision to grant clearance was reasonable.
2. What Were the 'Mitigations' and Where Are the Documents?
Robbins told MPs that the clearance was subject to mitigations to manage risks identified by UKSV. However, MP John Hayes, a member of the intelligence and security committee, asked the government to confirm that no documents related to the mitigation of risks existed. In response, minister Darren Jones referenced mitigations dealing with commercial interests, but these do not address all risks. It remains unclear whether any official documents record the mitigations that Robbins and Collard claim were put in place.
3. Was National Security Compromised During Mandelson's Tenure?
The government is conducting a review to determine if any security concerns arose during Mandelson's seven months as ambassador in Washington. The audit will examine whether his associations with Lan, Deripaska, and Hayman posed conflicts of interest. While the vetting process was ongoing in January 2025, Mandelson received sensitive Foreign Office briefings on China. Questions arise over whether officials were aware of his links to Lan, and whether Mandelson was involved in meetings between Lan and Chancellor Rachel Reeves in early 2025.
4. Why Was the £1 Million Loan Not Declared?
In July 2019, Mandelson declared a shareholding worth over £50,000 in Moon Active in the House of Lords register of interests. However, he did not declare a £1 million loan from a British businessman to buy those shares. Peers are required to disclose all relevant financial interests that might influence their parliamentary conduct. The omission raises questions about compliance with disclosure rules.
5. Why Did Robbins Describe the Case as 'Borderline'?
Robbins stated that he was briefed by Collard that UKSV considered Mandelson's case "borderline." Collard told MPs he recalled it was a "borderline case" but could not remember the exact phrasing. No other officials who have seen the UKSV documents have used this term. Given the associations with senior figures from hostile states, the characterization of the case as "borderline" is under scrutiny.
These revelations deepen the controversy surrounding Mandelson's appointment and raise serious questions about the decision-making process involving Starmer, Robbins, and other senior officials.
