Robbins’ admission fuels parliament row over mandelson vetting

Former UK Foreign Office civil servant Olly Robbins has conceded that government officials seriously considered withholding crucial vetting documents related to Peter Mandelson’s appointment, sparking renewed tensions with Parliament and raising questions about potential obstruction.

Secret vetting files held back?

Robbins, dismissed last week by Keir Starmer, revealed in testimony that a ‘debate’ occurred amongst senior figures across multiple departments regarding the disclosure of the file, which existed in a ‘hermetically sealed box’ – a decision he deeply regretted. The Guardian initially reported the deliberations surrounding the withholding of the sensitive materials.

Parliamentary demand ignored?

The controversy stems from a request by Labour MP Alan Gemmell, who inquired about a potential ‘cover-up’ following the Cabinet Office’s acquisition of the vetting file in March. Robbins steadfastly refused to address the allegation directly, focusing instead on the perceived long-term security implications of releasing the information. Lord Beamish, chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, expressed ‘dim view’ of any attempts to suppress full disclosure, stating that both the committee and the government share this sentiment.

Jones’ denial under scrutiny

The revelation directly contradicts statements made by the Prime Minister’s Chief Secretary, Darren Jones, who previously asserted that all documents were progressing through a ‘humble address’ process. Robbins’ account effectively dismantles this claim, highlighting a significant discrepancy in the government’s narrative and further fueling speculation about a deliberate attempt to mislead the public.

Security concerns and a ‘debate’

The debate, spanning nearly three weeks and involving figures like Antonia Romeo and Cat Little, centered on the complexities of the ‘humble address’ motion, which required the government to release all relevant papers – including those pertaining to UK Security Vetting (UKSV). Robbins emphasized the motion’s ‘inconclusive’ language regarding the precise scope of Parliament’s request, leading to a protracted internal discussion. He described the deliberations as a ‘debate about whether the Cabinet Office open their own safe,’ recalling concerns about a potential cover-up from officials within the department.

Leaks and a call for investigation

Robbins vehemently condemned the leaks to the Guardian, describing them as a ‘grievous breach of national security’ and urging a rigorous investigation with potential prosecutions. The government maintains that delays were justified by an ‘expedited checks’ process aimed at informing the Prime Minister promptly. However, the admission has significantly amplified the pressure on Downing Street and underscored the gravity of the situation. The document, reportedly shared with the ISC, was initially intended for release but faced internal resistance.

Conclusion

This episode represents a troubling glimpse behind the scenes of government decision-making, exposing a potentially deliberate attempt to obfuscate a critical aspect of Peter Mandelson’s appointment and raising serious questions about transparency and accountability.