Olly Robbins responded to a question about an alleged \u201ccover-up\u201d on Tuesday by confirming that government officials had considered withholding Peter Mandelson\u2019s secretive vetting documents from parliament.<\/p>\n
Robbins, who was sacked by Keir Starmer as the Foreign Office\u2019s top civil servant last week, appeared to confirm a report in the Guardian<\/a> that senior officials were debating whether to withhold from parliament sensitive documents that revealed the vetting agency did not believe Mandelson should get clearance.<\/p>\n Robbins was asked by Alan Gemmell, a Labour<\/a> MP, about whether officials had resisted sharing Mandelson\u2019s vetting file \u201cpotentially as part of some cover-up\u201d after the Cabinet Office obtained the document in late March this year.<\/p>\n Robbins did not address the cover-up allegation but acknowledged there had been a \u201cdebate\u201d among senior officials in multiple departments about whether or not the document needed to be shared with parliament.<\/p>\n He described the file as existing in a \u201chermetically sealed box\u201d, adding: \u201cTo open that box is to do something that has long-term, damaging and chilling implications for UK national security. I will not hide from the fact that my department, including me, took that view in those internal discussions.\u201d<\/p>\n Lord Beamish, the chair of the intelligence and security committee (ISC), which has been asked to review the vetting process, said he took \u201ca dim view\u201d of any attempt to stop full disclosure of all the relevant papers.<\/p>\n He said: \u201cParliament has given the ISC a clear task, set out in the humble address. Both we \u2013 and I think they \u2013 take a dim view of any attempt to withhold documents.<\/p>\n \u201cOliver Robbins \u2026 appears to have suggested that he, and other officials, tried to stand in the way of the ISC doing its job. It is welcome the Cabinet Office has prevented this happening.\u201d<\/p>\n Robbins\u2019 admission risks inflaming tensions with parliament, which in February required the government to release \u201call papers\u201d relevant to Mandelson\u2019s appointment, including some related to vetting. It also raises questions about whether Darren Jones, the prime minister\u2019s chief secretary, misled the public when he flatly denied the story.<\/p>\n Jones, a close ally of Starmer, was asked on the BBC\u2019s Today programme on Friday to comment on the Guardian\u2019s report<\/a> that \u201cofficials have toyed with the idea at least of not revealing all of this to parliament\u201d. He replied: \u201cThat\u2019s not true. All of these documents are going through what\u2019s called the humble address process, which my department is responsible for.\u201d<\/p>\n However, according to Robbins, it was true that top officials in multiple departments were weighing whether the documents should be disclosed to a parliamentary committee to comply with a motion known as a \u201chumble address\u201d.<\/p>\n That motion, passed in February, required the government to release \u201call papers\u201d relevant to Mandelson\u2019s appointment. The wording of the motion referenced documents \u201cincluding but not confined\u201d to various branches of government, including UK Security Vetting (UKSV).<\/p>\n The motion made an exception for papers prejudicial to national security or international relations. It said these should be released to the ISC, which would determine whether they should be made public.<\/p>\n In his testimony, Robbins said the wording of the motion was \u201ca bit inconclusive about exactly what parliament wanted of the government in connection with vetting\u201d. He said there was \u201clive conversation\u201d and \u201cdebate\u201d among top officials at the Cabinet Office, Foreign Office and other departments about disclosure.<\/p>\n Government sources have told the Guardian that it was always the intention of top civil servants at the Cabinet Office to release the document to the ISC. A version of the document is understood to have been shared with the committee.<\/p>\n UKSV is an agency within the Cabinet Office. Robbins described the discussions as a \u201cdebate about whether the Cabinet Office open their own safe\u201d, and recalled being briefed that officials in that department were \u201cvery worried\u201d about doing so.<\/p>\n \u201cIn the end they chose to do so,\u201d he said in reference to the opening the safe analogy. \u201cI would still have wished that they didn\u2019t, not because of what has happened to me but because of all of the factors I\u2019ve tried to lay out to you this morning.\u201d<\/p>\n The debate among officials about whether to release the document occurred over almost three weeks. Others who were party to the discussions included Antonia Romeo, the cabinet secretary, and Cat Little, the top civil servant in the Cabinet Office. Starmer was initially left in the dark about the debate and was informed that security officials had denied Mandelson clearance only on Tuesday last week.<\/p>\n The Cabinet Office maintains there was no undue delay because the civil servants were engaged in a process of \u201cexpedited checks\u201d aimed at informing the prime minister as quickly as possible.<\/p>\n According to one source familiar with the debate, there were fears among at least some officials that there might be an attempted \u201ccover-up\u201d<\/a> and the document would never see the light of day.<\/p>\n However, after the Guardian revealed the details of UKSV\u2019s advice that Mandelson should not get developed vetting clearance on Tuesday, there appears to have been a decision to share materials with the ISC.<\/p>\n In reference to the leaks to the Guardian, Robbins said: \u201cI hope that they\u2019re being investigated very rigorously and that prosecutions will result, because this is a grievous breach of national security.\u201d<\/p>\n Jones\u2019s spokesperson did not provide a response to questions about his claim that the Guardian story was \u201cnot true\u201d.<\/p>\n Asked last week if he had misled the public, a source close to Jones insisted that his answer was \u201cclearly focused on the official government response to the humble address, which he makes clear later in his answer\u201d.<\/p>\n Get in touch<\/p>\n Contact our investigations team<\/p>\n The best public interest journalism relies on first-hand accounts from people in the know. If you have something to share on this subject, you can contact us confidentially using the following methods:<\/p>\n Secure Messaging in the Guardian app<\/p>\n The Guardian app has a tool to send tips about stories. Messages are end to end encrypted and concealed within the routine activity that every Guardian mobile app performs. This prevents an observer from knowing that you are communicating with us at all, let alone what is being said.<\/p>\n If you don\u2019t already have the Guardian app, download it (iOS<\/a>\/Android<\/a>) and go to the menu. Select \u2018Secure Messaging\u2019. <\/p>\n SecureDropIf you can safely use the tor network without being observed or monitored you can send messages and documents to the Guardian via our SecureDrop platform.<\/a><\/p>\n