Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment

Alex Ballinger Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

I have come from the Foreign Affairs Committee sitting this morning, where we had the opportunity to speak to Sir Olly Robbins as our witness. I want to use my speech to pull out some of the pertinent points that we heard that I think are relevant.

Before I start, I absolutely agree with Members across the House who say that Lord Mandelson was a completely inappropriate and terrible choice for our ambassador, and that there has clearly been a failure in the process that ended up in his appointment and in the vetting. However, it is important that we look at what Sir Olly said in the witness statement today, because some of that contradicts what has been said in the House.

The first important thing that Sir Olly said is that no Minister—not the Prime Minister, not the Foreign Secretary, nor any other Minister—or any official in No. 10 was given sight of the fact that UKSV had declined Mandelson’s security vetting. They had no sight at all of any details of that vetting. He said that, justified that and defended that. No officials or Ministers should have sight of that vetting, because it is extremely personal and sensitive information. I went through that process myself when I worked at the Foreign Office, and we do not want to create any conditions that make people afraid to share sensitive information in the vetting process, thinking that at some point in the future it might be leaked, whether to politicians, to others in the line management chain or, as we have seen, to the press, because that undermines the integrity of the process as a whole. That reinforces what the Prime Minister said yesterday.

Secondly, Sir Olly disputed the characterisation that UKSV had failed Peter Mandelson’s vetting: that it was in some way a binary choice inside the Foreign Office. It is important that we explain—or that I try to justify—what Sir Olly was saying, because the FCDO has a slightly different process from that of other parts of Government. It is an overseas Department—a bit like the Ministry of Defence, for example—so people with seriously long careers and all sorts of different interests come into those roles. I am not suggesting that Peter Mandelson should have passed vetting, not at all, but it is not unusual for the FCDO rather than UKSV to make a decision on a borderline case. According to Sir Olly’s evidence, that is a normal process. It is important that we hold to that in future.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I am really surprised that the hon. Gentleman is swallowing this guff about this being a borderline case. It was quite clear that security vetting put this case in the red box, which meant “fail”. Sir Olly is being lauded to the skies now because he is the victim of ruthless prime ministerial politics, but he also has an angle on this: he massaged, shall we say, his own judgment because he knew the pressure on him from the Government. There was nothing borderline about this; he is saying that it was borderline only because he needs an excuse for having overridden it when he should not have done.

[Alex Ballinger]

I can speak only to what the witness told us in the inquiry this morning. Many Members made the same case that the right hon. Gentleman is making now: that it was a red box case, as we have seen in the evidence submitted. However, Sir Olly was clear that this was a borderline case, and it is usual for the Foreign Office to conduct such cases. The right hon. Gentleman can make up his own mind about whether to believe Sir Olly or other people.

[David Davis]

I came in to watch the Committee. Sir Olly actually said that the advice he was given by his director of intelligence was “borderline”. One issue that was not clear was whether the pressure from No. 10 was simply on him or on all members of the channel, down to lower levels.

[Alex Ballinger]

I had a different interpretation. Sir Olly also said—we can look back at the transcript—that, yes, there was pressure from No. 10 to get the appointment done quickly. It could be interpreted that the Government wanted to get the appointment done before President Trump’s inauguration—there was an important timeline by which to do it—because there was a risk that any new ambassadorial appointments after that might be interfered with. Again, these are the words of Sir Olly; I am not bringing this up from nowhere.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Alex Ballinger]

Let me finish.

The other important point is that it was not just the UK Security Vetting system that put a borderline process through, which the FCDO then approved; it was also the intelligence agencies. It is equally concerning that Peter Mandelson was given STRAP clearance. I asked Sir Olly directly whether any concerns were raised by intelligence agencies on the process of obtaining STRAP clearance, which is a higher level of security that gives someone access to the country’s most classified secrets. No one from the intelligence agencies raised any concerns during that STRAP process. There are serious concerns about that.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

I say gently to my hon. Friend, and to others who seek to make the same argument, that at the heart of this matter is a toxic and dismissive culture at No. 10—we cannot get away from that point. That dismissiveness has led us to this place. This is not a small administrative breach; it is a matter of national security. The British public is not buying it. Surely, there needs to be a full, transparent and independent inquiry on this whole situation that uncovers the truth and leads to consequences, including for the Prime Minister. That is what the British public want.

[Alex Ballinger]

That is not my experience of No. 10. I am pleased to see that there will be a review of the vetting system, because this process has uncovered serious problems within it.

I have a number of takeaways from this morning’s evidence. I agree that Peter Mandelson was a terrible pick for ambassador, even before the things that came out about him later, and it was the wrong decision to pick him. However, there have clearly been failures in developed vetting, in the process at the FCDO and in the STRAP vetting process. I am pleased that the Government have announced two reviews—one to be led by Sir Adrian Fulford and a separate Cabinet Office review—to consider those vetting processes and ensure that, in relation to Peter Mandelson’s vetting and to the UK vetting system more generally, such mistakes do not happen again.

I am slightly concerned that the Government have suspended the ability of overseas Departments to operate discretion in granting developed vetting. That is a sensible response in the short term, but I hope that as the reviews are carried out, the Minister will consider the reasons why those Departments have that discretion.

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I have listened carefully to his speech. Given what he heard at the Committee this morning and his background and experience, does he regret Olly Robbins’s sacking?

[Alex Ballinger]

I feel very sympathetic to Olly Robbins. Olly Robbins—

[Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

Sir Olly Robbins.

[Alex Ballinger]

Sir Olly Robbins will have an opportunity to account for himself, but he gave a very good account of himself at the Committee this morning, and it is not for me to make that judgment.

I can think of several good reasons why the FCDO and the MOD might need to use that discretion in the future. I am also really concerned that details about Peter Mandelson’s vetting were leaked to the press in September. Even considering Peter Mandelson’s misconduct, the integrity of that process is really important, and Sir Olly also raised concerns about that issue.

I hope that the reviews announced by the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister the other day will look at the leaks to the press, because it is unacceptable that such vital personal information about the vetting process has been released in that way. Most importantly, Sir Olly’s evidence rubbishes some of the accusations that Members made in the House and, indeed, in the media yesterday that questioned the Prime Minister’s honesty about the situation, because he categorically ruled out any suggestion that the Prime Minister knew anything about it, for good reason. The Members who made those accusations and were rightly thrown out of the House should correct the record and apologise.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Alex Ballinger]

I will take one more intervention, and then I will finish.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. It is important that the hon. Member winds up, because I said seven minutes, and he has now taken 10 minutes.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

Does the hon. Member realise that to people outside, this argument—these fine details of process—morphs into a defence of ignorance and then into a defence of incompetency? That is actually doing the Prime Minister as much harm as all these arguments about his honesty.

[Alex Ballinger]

We have heard real concerns about the process, and I am glad that the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister has announced reviews into that process, because we really need to make sure we get it right in the future.