Lord Mandelson paid millions by Chinese-military linked firm in new twist to security vetting scandal

The Shanghai-listed company paid £2.24million to Lord Mandelson's company and topped a list of "biggest clients by revenue" that was shared by senior executives at the firm.

Senior government sources told The Times it was his ties to foreign entities that caused the UK Security Vetting (UKSV) agency to recommend against his appointment to the role of British ambassador to the US, rather than his alleged links to convicted paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein.

WuXi AppTec paid £1.42million to Lord Mandelson's firm in 2024, when the peer was appointed to his ambassadorial role.

The company was one of five companies of concern targeted by the US Biosecure Act which banned federal agencies from purchasing biotechnology equipment from the Chinese firm.

The Pentagon had described it as a company which engaged in assisting the Chinese People's Liberation Army and links to human rights abuses in Xinjiang, according to Bloomberg.

US Representatives Brad Wenstrup and Raja Krishnamoorthy directly named the company as they introduced the Biosecure Act into the House of Congress.

"Chinese company WuXi AppTec has sponsored events with China's military, reportedly stolen U.S. IP, and jointly operated genetic collection sites with China's military," they said in May 2024.

But Ge Li, WuXi AppTec's chair and chief executive, denied the company was any national security risk to any country in a 2024 letter.

Lord Mandelson resigned from Global Counsel shortly before the 2024 general election but did not divest his stake in the company.

Sir Olly Robbins told MPs in November that determining if Lord Mandelson should abandon his ownership was the "hardest" part of the "process for both of us".

Sir John Whittingdale, member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, told the Commons "some Chinese walls" were put into place to "ensure that he was not aware of who the clients of Global Counsel were, or of the work being undertaken".

A source familiar with the negotiations between Lord Mandelson and Sir Olly over his ownership stake in Global Counsel said the former permanent under-secretary was in favour of the peer divesting, but made no serious effort for it to happen.

Sir Olly is expected to disclose more information about the vetting process when he appears before the Foreign Affairs Select Committee on Tuesday, which some have described as a "judgement day" for Sir Keir Starmer and Downing Street.

All opposition parties have called for him to resign as Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey called for the report the Prime Minister received to be published, Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch declared Sir Keir "unfit" to run the country, and Reform UK leader Nigel Farage said it was "totally unbelievable" he had not be told about the vetting process.

But the Government has maintained Sir Keir was not aware Lord Mandelson had not cleared vetting until Tuesday, even as it emerged Dame Antonia Romeo and Catherine Little knew of the failure in March.

Friends and allies have said the developed vetting process is not a simple pass or fail but an assessment of risks and mitigating factors with a set of rules to ensure the confidence of information.

Ciaran Martin, former head of the National Cyber Security Centre said the Prime Minister had "sacked someone who appears to have applied the current rules correctly".

Lord Simon McDonald, who ran the Foreign Office from 2015 to 2020, argued vetting report details are "very closely held" and would "never be shared with No 10 or the prime minister".

When asked if Sir Olly had been thrown under the bus, he answered "yes".

Sources claimed the former Foreign Office chief would ultimately be exonerated after he appears in front of MPs.

One former senior ambassador and friend of Sir Olly said: "Olly Robbins did not deserve to be fired, and certainly didn’t deserve the subsequent pile-on. And ultimately, it won’t work — everyone knows it was Starmer that made the decision, and hanging a brilliant and dedicated civil servant out to dry won’t shift that one iota."

A Government spokesman has previously said: "Neither the Prime Minister, nor any Government minister, was aware that Peter Mandelson was granted Developed Vetting against the advice of UK Security Vetting until earlier this week.

"Once the Prime Minister was informed he immediately instructed officials to establish the facts about why the Developed Vetting was granted, in order to enact plans to update the House of Commons.

"The Government is committed to complying with the Humble Address in full as soon as possible. Any documentation within the scope of the Humble Address that requires redaction on the basis of national security or international relations will be provided to the ISC. This will include documents provided to the FCDO by UK Security Vetting."