Mandelson's new evidence fails to change verdict

Internal links

Mandelson had no need to resign from Cabinet, says Downing Street

Absolved by his friends, it's time at last to put this 'muddle' behind him

New evidence submitted by Peter Mandelson has failed to change the main findings of the inquiry into the Hinduja pass-ports affair which led to his resignation from the Cabinet last year.

Sir Anthony Hammond QC, who reopened his investigation after Mr Mandelson's submission, said yesterday that he now believes a hotly disputed telephone conversation between Mr Mandelson and the former Home Office minister Mike O'Brien was less likely to have taken place than when he concluded his initial inquiry last year.

Mr Mandelson does not recall making a call to Mr O'Brien about the passport application by S P Hinduja. But Mr O'Brien remembers a conversation and the confusion over whether it took place led directly to Mr Mandelson's resignation.

Sir Anthony said yesterday that records from Mr Mandelson's private office, discovered at his home in Hartlepool after the first inquiry was completed, showed no mention of the alleged phone call. Sir Anthony, a former treasury solicitor, said that while the documents offered "some support" for Mr Mandelson's account, they did not preclude the existence of such a phone conversation.

He rejected Mr Mandelson's plea for the "balance of probability" to be shifted away from his original conclusion that the telephone call was "likely" to have taken place.

"It is still not possible to reach any firm conclusions about the contacts which took place between Mr Mandelson and Mr O'Brien," said Sir Anthony. He therefore decided not to alter his original verdict about the conversation.

Sir Anthony insisted the disputed call was "intrinsically insignificant", even though it prompted Mr Mandelson's downfall because Alastair Campbell, then Tony Blair's press secretary, believed he had been misled by Mr Mandelson over whether the conversation took place.

The "main issue" was whether Mr Hinduja's application had been handled properly, said Sir Anthony.

He added: "I have concluded that the new documents do not affect my original conclusion that both Mr Mandelson and Mr O'Brien behaved properly throughout ... If anything, they reinforce my judgement that Mr Mandelson was concerned both to act, and be seen to act, with propriety."

But some of the new documents appear to show that Mr Mandelson and his civil servants were aware he should not be seen publicly to be involved in the passport application because of the Hinduja brothers' £1m donation to the Millennium Dome, for which Mr Mandelson had responsibility.

The former Northern Ireland secretary was warned by his private secretary, Mark Langdale, that he should not be seen to "push" S P Hinduja's claim for British nationality. Mr Langdale wrote: "Perfectly legitimate for you to raise case with Mike O'Brien. Agree that you cannot be seen to push this personally much further. No matter how justified SP's nationality claim is.

"Media and others will (if your involvement becomes public) accuse you of improper influence (motivated by Dome connection). Advise that we await outcome of MO'B's [Mr O'Brien's] own investigations – and avoid anything in writing for time being." The words "raise", "seen" and "anything" were underlined.

In another handwritten note, Mr Mandelson told his private secretary: "I believe it would be unjustified to refuse SP his nationality but I am concerned on propriety grounds that I am not intervening to influence the decision [while] encouraging Dome sponsorship."

However, Sir Anthony rejected any suggestion that the notes showed Mr Langdale and Mr Mandelson had been "conspiring" or that they provided any evidence of any impropriety.

The second inquiry dismissed evidence from Fiona Jones, the former Labour MP for Newark, who recalled a conversation in which Mr O'Brien told her he could not remember the call with Mr Mandelson.

Sir Anthony believed there was a misunderstanding between Ms Jones and Mr O'Brien and said: "I am not prepared to reach firm conclusions when there is a lack of convincing evidence."