or Guardian investigation has revealed that Peter Mandelson failed his security clearance before being posted as ambassador to the US, but the decision to deny him leave was overturned by the Foreign Office.
This is a remarkable story after months of scrutiny over Mandelson’s nomination. It raises further questions about the lengths the government went to to ensure Mandelson got the job despite repeated warnings about his candidacy, as well as serious questions about the government’s subsequent honesty in its public comments about his appointment.
To remind you: there were two stages in Mandelson’s “vetting” before he became Washington’s ambassador. As we detailed in our cover story in February, the Cabinet Office’s Justice and Ethics Team conducted a due diligence exercise on Mandelson and the other candidates in December 2024, highlighting issues that already existed in the public domain, rather than involving deeper vetting. That report highlighted Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, as well as his business ties to Russia and China, and his past cabinet resignations.
Much of the scandal surrounding the appointment has centered on this first stage of vetting: that Keir Starmer had been made aware of Mandelson’s relationship with a convicted sex offender and appointed him anyway. (Downing Street says Mandelson lied in his answer to the next three questions of this report; Mandelson maintains it was true. Most people think it doesn’t really matter and the facts presented to Starmer should have ruled out the nomination whatever Mandelson said to those other three questions.)
Subscribe to the New Statesman today and save 75%
But the second stage of Mandelson’s vetting has faced less scrutiny, simply because the government said on the record last September that Mandelson passed it. This developed vetting for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs – required for all diplomats – it only took place after he was announced for the role, which was unusual. After Mandelson’s resignation last September, I was one of many journalists who heard suggestions from sources that something had gone wrong somewhere in the Foreign Office’s vetting process, but government sources repeatedly and vehemently denied it. We have always been told by the government that “processes were followed but Peter Mandelson cheated”.
Yvette Cooper, then Foreign Secretary, appeared to address all questions about Mandelson’s Foreign Office vetting in September. it wrote to the Foreign Affairs select committee and said in black and white: “Peter Mandelson’s security vetting was carried out to the usual standard set for vetting conducted in accordance with established Cabinet Office policy.” The vetting process “ended with DV clearance being granted by the FCDO before Lord Mandelson took office in February,” she wrote, and later again: “Security clearance was granted before Peter Mandelson began his role as Ambassador.”
For months, Starmer has insisted that due process was followed. He himself said in February that there was “security vetting, carried out independently by the security services, which is an intensive exercise, that cleared (Mandelson) for the role”. Indeed, Morgan McSweeney criticized the vetting process in his resignation over the Mandelson scandal.
After hours of silence, the government has now issued a statement denying any knowledge of the decision by Starmer or any other minister, instead placing the blame squarely on Foreign Office officials.
“Neither the Prime Minister nor any government minister was aware that Peter Mandelson was given the Development Vetting against the advice of the UK Security Vetting until earlier this week. Once the Prime Minister was informed, he immediately instructed officials to establish the facts of why the development vetting was given, in order to approve plans to modernize the House of Commons,” a government spokesman said. A question that immediately comes to mind is whether any Labor advisers, who are not named in the affidavit, had knowledge of the decision.
The Starmer team has chosen to deny any knowledge that Mandelson failed his vetting, washing their hands of any responsibility. It may be a less damaging explanation than the alternative, but not by much. When taken at face value, it adds new depth to Starmer’s extraordinary disregard for the workings of his government.
Some – including within the government – think the explanation strains credibility. “Are we supposed to believe that some guys in the Foreign Ministry just didn’t tell anyone anything?” asks a Labor member of the government. Others struggle to believe that Starmer or Number 10 would knowingly lie about something for which there is a paper trail, but are speculating whether, wordlessly, “with a nod and a wink” it was communicated to foreign officials that the vetting decision would have to be reversed.
Number 10 insists he knew nothing and says he is angry with the Foreign Office, with questions mounting over the position of Olly Robbins, the department’s permanent secretary. Labor ministers are also angry, but they are holding fire. One figure who is tempted to resign says they won’t go over the top now “because I have council candidates who need me knocking on doors”.
Serious questions still remain about how the prime minister and his senior cabinet ministers managed to insist for months that Mandelson passed his vetting when he, remarkably, had not. And suddenly what happens after May has become a direct question in the Labor Party.
“It’s not looking good, is it?” the texts of a government adviser. Of course it isn’t.
(Further reading: Inside Zack Polanski’s inner circle)
Content from our partners
