Chris Mason: PM Confronted with Tough Questions Over Mandelson Controversy

After decades of covering political developments in Westminster, I still occasionally marvel at how swiftly events can challenge even the most seasoned observers. The recent dispute involving Lord Mandelson and Sir Olly Robbins has thrown up a compelling question: how could such critical information remain hidden from the prime minister during a pivotal appointment? The Guardian’s revelations about Mandelson’s vetting process and Robbins’ removal as the Foreign Office’s permanent under-secretary have sparked this inquiry.

The controversy centers on the timeline of events. In January last year, Sir Olly Robbins was just appointed to his role, following weeks of formal procedures that had already confirmed Lord Mandelson’s Washington posting. As early as December 18th, his predecessor, Sir Philip Barton, had documented the appointment with the King, signaling its finalization. This context suggests the process was already sealed, yet Robbins’ quiet retention of sensitive details has raised eyebrows.

The legal framework underpinning the situation hinges on the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. This legislation assigns the foreign secretary authority over diplomatic matters but explicitly excludes national security vetting from their oversight. Sir Olly is expected to argue that this legal distinction justified his discretion in withholding information, aligning with the conventional expectation that such data should remain confidential.

“The secretary of state has the power to manage the diplomatic service…but they do not cover national security vetting.”

However, the government has since published its own interpretation, asserting that civil servants are permitted to “sensibly flag” security vetting recommendations. They’ve even drawn on the Act’s explanatory notes to bolster their position. The PM may also cite the Civil Service Code, which emphasizes transparency and that advisors should not “deceive or knowingly mislead ministers, Parliament, or others.” This could serve as a shield against accusations of intentional omission.

Within the Labour Party, the atmosphere has shifted from fiery outrage to a more measured tone. While some view the Mandelson saga as a catalyst for renewed criticism, others remain wary of its timing ahead of looming elections. A Conservative source noted that the government hopes the scandal will “hasten squeaky bum time of Labour MPs,” suggesting a strategic move to divert attention from other issues.

Kemi Badenoch has positioned herself to question Labour’s leadership, urging MPs to assess if Sir Keir Starmer is their best option. As the debate intensifies, the focus on Mandelson’s vetting appears to overshadow discussions about the Iran war, inflation, and other major concerns. Meanwhile, Sir Olly’s potential legal challenge looms, given the abrupt manner of his dismissal over an ambassadorship finalized before his arrival at the Foreign Office.

“Let’s be frank, it’s bad this stuff.”

Those who worked closely with Sir Olly describe him as a meticulous professional, dedicated to adhering to protocols. His colleagues suggest he would have acted in accordance with procedures, making his firing seem abrupt. The question now is whether this latest episode will reignite tensions within the Labour Party, as one insider remarked: “It reignites everything so many were furious with him about in the first place.”