UK Committee Says Mandelson Vetting File Must Be Disclosed

The UK Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) said on Friday the government does not have the authority to withhold a vetting file linked to Peter Mandelson’s appointment as U.S. ambassador.

The committee said it has completed its review of documents requested by Parliament under a motion known as a humble address, passed in February. That motion ordered the public release of papers related to Mandelson’s December 2024 appointment, with the ISC asked to review material that could affect national security or international relations.

The ISC said it was not provided all the relevant documents, despite the parliamentary directive. It said the “prime example” of material being withheld was a vetting file held by UK Security Vetting (UKSV).

UKSV . The following day, the Foreign Office’s then permanent secretary, Olly Robbins, granted Mandelson “developed vetting” status, allowing him to take up the post.

The committee said it did not believe the terms of the humble address allowed any documents to be withheld from Parliament, regardless of the government’s reasoning. “While government may believe that there is good reason to withhold certain documents, it does not currently have the authority to so do,” the ISC said in its statement.

Dispute centers on redactions and parliamentary authority

The ISC also criticised the government’s approach to redacting documents it has released. Under the terms of the humble address, material can be redacted on grounds of national security or international relations, the committee said.

However, the government applied additional redactions, including for personal data and commercial sensitivity. The ISC said it did not believe the humble address provided scope for those redactions without further parliamentary approval, and warned they were being applied “far too broadly.”

Committee raises concerns about records and security processes

The statement also highlighted what the ISC described as an “extraordinary” amount of government business conducted outside official systems, including on WhatsApp. It said the lack of an audit trail—such as agendas, minutes and records of conversations—appeared not to be kept as a matter of practice, particularly in the Foreign Office, which it called unacceptable.

The committee’s intervention is expected to increase pressure on the government to explain why it has withheld the UKSV vetting file and how it has handled the release and redaction of the broader set of documents ordered by Parliament.

Further scrutiny is likely to focus on whether ministers seek additional parliamentary permission for non-security redactions and whether the withheld vetting file is provided to the committee and Parliament.