Sir Olly Robbins said it was deeply worrying that the story was given to The Guardian.
A “leak inquiry” into information relating to Lord Peter Mandelson failing security checks is under way, the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister said.
Information was given to The Guardian after the Cabinet Office briefed Number 10 on the matter.
Former Foreign Office chief Sir Olly Robbins was sacked by the Prime Minister over the failure to disclose the former peer’s vetting result, with him granted developed vetting (DV) clearance.
Sir Olly said it was deeply worrying that the story was given to The Guardian, telling the Foreign Affairs Committee “it is a grievous breach of national security”.
In the Commons, Darren Jones said he was “concerned” that officials had made the information available to the newspaper, despite feeling “unable to provide this information to ministers”.
“As a consequence of that, I can confirm that a leak inquiry is now under way,” he added.
It came during an emergency debate which had been brought forward by Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch who called for Sir Keir Starmer to “go”.
Earlier on Tuesday, Whitehall veteran Sir Olly had claimed there was a “dismissive approach” on vetting from No 10, with an “atmosphere of pressure” to get the appointment through.
He said he does not “fully understand” the reasons why he was sacked and is “desperately sad” about it.
The Prime Minister told his Cabinet Sir Olly was “a man of integrity and professionalism” who made an “error of judgment” while Downing Street denied claims of a dismissive approach towards the process.
When Sir Olly took over in the Foreign Office on January 20 last year, Lord Mandelson had already gone through the Cabinet Office’s “due diligence” process, approval had been given by the King, the US had agreed to him, he was already allowed in the building and was being granted access to “highly classified briefings” on a case-by-case basis – without his security clearance being confirmed.
“I was very conscious that if we went through the rigour of our process and decided against granting clearance that would have caused a real problem for the Government and a problem for the country,” he said.
However, he insisted the Foreign Office’s civil servants carried out the process as normal.
MPs on the Foreign Affairs Committee said UK Security Vetting (UKSV), the agency responsible for checks on candidates for sensitive posts, had ticked two red boxes on Lord Mandelson’s form – meaning they had “high concern” and recommended “clearance denied or withdrawn”.
Sir Olly said he had never seen that form when making the decision on Lord Mandelson’s clearance, but had instead been briefed by Foreign Office security staff that “UKSV considered Mandelson a borderline case and that they were leaning towards recommending that clearance be denied”.
He said he was told the risks in his case did not relate to Lord Mandelson’s relationship with paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein.
Sir Olly said: “I was told that UKSV acknowledged, I don’t know in what way, but acknowledged that the Foreign Office might wish to grant clearance with appropriate risk management.”
He told MPs:
– The normal vetting process was carried out only because the Foreign Office “put its foot down” after the Cabinet Office suggested Lord Mandelson’s status as a member of the House of Lords and a privy counsellor meant that was unnecessary.
– Dropping Lord Mandelson as the nominee for the Washington post would have caused “quite an issue” with Donald Trump’s incoming administration in January 2025.
– No 10 had considered trying to find an ambassadorial post for Sir Keir’s former communications chief Lord Matthew Doyle.
During a two-and-a-half hour session in the Commons on Monday, Sir Keir said he challenged Sir Olly over why he went against the recommendation of UKSV after finding out about it last week.
“I did ask him and I didn’t accept his explanation,” Sir Keir said. “That’s why I sacked him.”
But Sir Olly insisted that the confidentiality of the vetting process was “designed to protect UK national security”.
Sir Olly received the formal letter confirming he had been fired on Monday and has “sought advice” on it, indicating there could be a legal battle to come.
He told MPs: “I don’t fully understand the reasons that I’m in the position I am in, but that is for a separate process for me to try to get to the bottom of.
“As a human being, I’m desperately, desperately sad about it.”
Mrs Badenoch claimed Sir Olly’s evidence showed the Prime Minister had misled Parliament, claiming the evidence is “devastating” to Sir Keir.
“It is clear that No 10 not only made the appointment before vetting was completed, but that Mandelson was already acting as the ambassador before the vetting – even seeing highly classified documents,” she said.
“With this, and the ‘constant pressure’ No 10 applied to the appointment and their ‘dismissive attitude’ to vetting Mandelson, it is now absolutely clear that full due process was not followed.
“Keir Starmer has misled the House.”
In a readout of the Cabinet meeting on Tuesday morning, No 10 said the Prime Minister had “concluded by saying that Sir Oliver Robbins made an error of judgment, but that he is a man of integrity and professionalism”.
“He said it is wrong that the current Cabinet Secretary and permanent secretary at the Cabinet Office had been attacked despite doing exactly the right thing and sharing the information with the Prime Minister once they had gone through the correct processes to do so,” the readout said.
Asked by reporters about Sir Olly’s characterisation of No 10’s approach, the Prime Minister’s official spokesman denied a “dismissive” approach had been shown.
“There is a distinction clearly between asking reasonably for updates on an appointment process… I would draw a distinction between the idea of pressure and, you know, being kept informed about the process and the progress of the appointment,” he said.
