Sir James Cleverly, the former foreign secretary, tells The Independent it is “inconceivable” that his successor, David Lammy, was not informed of the problems with Peter Mandelson’s security vetting after Lord Mandelson was appointed ambassador to the United States.
Sir James recalls that on two occasions when he attempted to make political appointments to minor diplomatic roles, he was informed of the risks by the top civil servant at the Foreign Office.
This adds to the number of questions that the prime minister must answer when he addresses the House of Commons on Monday. Was Mr Lammy told that the security vetting service had advised against Lord Mandelson’s appointment? So far, the line has been that no ministers were told, but if any of them were, why did they not pass this on to Sir Keir Starmer?
These are variations of the key question about the doubts thrown up by Lord Mandelson’s vetting – doubts that were first reported by The Independent in September last year. It simply does not make sense to a layperson that the information that Lord Mandelson had failed his security check would be withheld from ministers, and especially from the prime minister.
If it is true that Sir Keir did not know until Tuesday this week, the key question is: why on earth was he not told? Why did Sir Olly Robbins, the permanent under secretary at the Foreign Office, not tell Mr Lammy or the prime minister? Did Sir Olly tell Sir Chris Wormald, who was cabinet secretary at the time? If so, why did Sir Chris not tell the prime minister?
Why did Tim Allan, who was the No 10 director of communications, not tell the prime minister about the enquiry from The Independent in September, or highlight that the story was on the front page the next day?
Why did Antonia Romeo, the new cabinet secretary, and Cat Little, the permanent secretary at the Cabinet Office, both of whom were aware of it in the last few weeks, not tell the prime minister before Tuesday? Why did they find out only because documents were being prepared for publication, as required by the humble address passed by the Commons in February?
On the face of it, the explanation seems to be a rule set out by Sir Olly in his evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee in September. He said that the national security vetting process was “independent of ministers, who are not informed of any findings other than the final outcome”. Given that the “final outcome” in Lord Mandelson’s case was that Sir Olly overruled the advice of UK Security Vetting to give him security clearance, that was not only all that ministers needed to know: it would have been wrong for Sir Olly to have disclosed anything else to them about the process.
If this is the argument that Sir Olly intends to make to MPs when he gives his account on Tuesday, he should realise how strange it will sound to anyone outside the secret garden of the senior civil service. Nor does it appear to have a basis in law, as the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 simply says that the powers of ministers to make appointments “do not cover national security vetting”. It does not say that ministers shall not be informed about vetting.
The suspicion remains that Sir Olly, who took over at the Foreign Office after the prime minister announced that Lord Mandelson would be Britain’s ambassador to Washington, did not want to obstruct Sir Keir. So he overruled the vetting service’s advice and kept it secret. If that is what happened, it was a mistake: he should have reported the concerns – mostly about Lord Mandelson’s business links to China, it is understood – to No 10, and let the prime minister decide whether or not to cancel the appointment.
If that is what happened, though, it does not get Sir Keir off the hook. He made an error of judgement in appointing Lord Mandelson, and seems to have made it clear that he did not want to hear objections to it. He seems to have shown a strange passivity as the appointment unravelled.
Even when he discovered on Tuesday night that he had – inadvertently – misled parliament by saying that “due process had been followed”, he failed to come to the Commons at the earliest possible opportunity to put the record straight.
By making such a fuss about not knowing, Sir Keir manages to look both incompetent and petulant, and as Morgan McSweeney, his former chief of staff, and Sir Olly lose their jobs, he gives the impression of trying to blame others for his mistake.
On Monday, he must finally take responsibility and explain his own decision-making process.
