Peter Mandelson failed his safety vetting clearance but the decision was overruled by the Foreign Office to make sure he might take up his publish as ambassador to the US, an investigation by the Guardian can reveal.
According to a number of sources, Mandelson was initially denied clearance in late January 2025 after a developed vetting course of, a extremely confidential background examine by safety officers.
Keir Starmer had by then announced he can be making Mandelson the UK’s chief diplomat in Washington, posing a dilemma for officers on the Foreign Office, who determined to make use of a not often used authority to override the advice from safety officers.
Mandelson’s failure to safe vetting approval has not beforehand been publicly revealed, regardless of intense scrutiny over his appointment and the discharge by the federal government of 147 pages of paperwork speculated to make clear the case.
Further paperwork are because of be launched. However, it can be revealed that senior authorities officers have been contemplating whether or not to withhold from parliament paperwork that may reveal that Mandelson was not given vetting approval from safety officers.
The decision, which rests with the Cabinet Office, has not but been taken. Any try and withhold the paperwork from the intelligence and safety committee might quantity to a breach of a parliamentary movement to launch “all papers relating to Mandelson’s appointment”.
The revelation that the now former ambassador was not granted clearance by UK Security Vetting (UKSV), a division of the Cabinet Office that scrutinises the background of potential civil servants, will increase additional questions concerning the prime minister’s judgment in appointing him.
Starmer can even be pressed over whether or not he misled the general public in remarks concerning the safety vetting course of, which he stated had given Mandelson “clearance for the role”.
It isn’t identified whether or not the prime minister was made conscious that his decide for Washington ambassador had not been granted approval by UKSV, which conveys its decision as a suggestion to authorities departments. Neither is it identified who within the Foreign Office made the decision to overrule UKSV.
Sir Olly Robbins, the present everlasting secretary within the Foreign Office, was the division’s prime civil servant in late January 2025 when the decision was made, having taken up the function earlier that month. The international secretary was David Lammy, who’s now the deputy prime minister.
Starmer’s then chief of employees, Morgan McSweeney, who resigned in February over his function in appointing Mandelson, might additionally now be requested whether or not he had any involvement in, or data or, the decision to overrule UKSV’s denial of clearance.
That decision was made weeks earlier than Mandelson was because of take up his publish in February 2025. Seven months later, he was sacked over his relationship with the convicted intercourse offender Jeffrey Epstein.
Ministers and officers are actually prone to be pressed over whether or not they have been absolutely clear concerning the course of that led to his appointment.
At a press convention in Hastings on 5 February, Starmer responded to a query from a journalist by saying there had been “security vetting, carried out independently by the security services, which is an intensive exercise that gave him [Mandelson] clearance for the role. You have to go through that before you take up the post.” He added: “Clearly both the due diligence and the security vetting need to be looked at again.”
This appeared to partially put the blame for Mandelson’s appointment on the failure of a vetting course of which, in accordance with sources, his authorities had overruled.
As a results of Mandelson’s sacking as US ambassador on 11 September 2025, after the extent of his relationship with Epstein got here to mild, parliamentary scrutiny mounted. On 16 September, Yvette Cooper, the international secretary, and Robbins, her prime official, responded to questions over the vetting course of with a letter to the international affairs choose committee.
“Peter Mandelson’s security vetting was conducted to the usual standard set for developed vetting in line with established Cabinet Office policy,” the letter stated, explaining that the method had been undertaken by UKSV on behalf of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO).
Cooper and Robbins stated the method had “concluded with DV clearance being granted by the FCDO in advance of Lord Mandelson taking up post in February”.
What the letter failed to tell parliament was that UKSV had denied Mandelson’s clearance – a suggestion that threatened Starmer having to withdraw a high-profile appointment he had already made public.
UKSV’s vetting selections are virtually at all times enforced by authorities departments, but they technically have the authority to override the suggestions. The exact cause that UKSV advisable that Mandelson not obtain clearance is now prone to be topic to intense hypothesis.
According to publicly available government documents, the UKSV developed vetting course of features a questionnaire and interviews requiring disclosure of extremely personal data, together with about private funds, enterprise connections and sexual historical past.
It is known that developed vetting, which is a requirement even for junior civil servants within the Foreign Office, virtually at all times ends in approval, though there’s generally a suggestion to handle dangers. In some instances, approval is topic to mitigations. An outright denial, as in Mandelson’s case, is uncommon.
It is much more distinctive for a decision by UKSV to disclaim an applicant to then be overruled by a authorities division, though officers do have that energy. The decision to take action within the case of Mandelson occurred over a 48-hour interval in late January 2025.
A proper decision to disclaim him clearance was made by UKSV on 28 January 2025. According to sources, UKSV knowledgeable the Foreign Office that the danger elements involving Mandelson meant that his clearance must be denied.
Robbins was just a few weeks into the function of everlasting secretary on the time of the decision, and was Mandelson’s soon-to-be line supervisor, each of which recommend he would have been concerned within the decision. A decision of that magnitude can also have warranted political approval, or at the very least session, which might have concerned Lammy or Downing Street.
By 30 January, Mandelson was advised by the Foreign Office that his safety clearance had been “confirmed”. It isn’t identified whether or not he was ever knowledgeable that UKSV had not authorised his software.
In November 2025, after Mandelson’s resignation, MPs on the international affairs choose committee questioned Robbins at a listening to concerning the former ambassador’s vetting course of.
Robbins stated the “vast majority” of vetting studies had been “relatively straightforward”. He added: “Ones that require more senior judgment, and potentially a discussion about managing and mitigating risks, are escalated appropriately.”
Asked immediately if Mandelson’s appointment had been “escalated”, Robbins replied: “I certainly cannot comment on that.”
Starmer’s decision to nominate Mandelson – the primary political appointee to the function, versus a profession diplomat, since 1977 – regardless of well-documented issues about his suitability, has prompted probably the most severe disaster of his premiership.
When McSweeney resigned in February, he stated that he took “full responsibility” for advising Starmer to nominate Mandelson, and implied there had been shortcomings within the vetting course of. “While I did not oversee the due diligence and vetting process, I believe that process must now be fundamentally overhauled,” he stated.
Mandelson’s vetting by UKSV was considered one of two separate processes that concerned scrutinising his background.
The first, which occurred as a result of he was a political appointee, was a due diligence course of that occurred earlier than the announcement of his function. It concerned the propriety and ethics crew (PET), a bunch of officers within the Cabinet Office.
This was largely primarily based on publicly obtainable materials, with a report produced by PET for Starmer, summarising Mandelson’s skilled and monetary relationships, reputational dangers – which included his relationship with Epstein – and his earlier roles. The prime minister ignored these warnings and went forward with the appointment.
Far much less consideration has been given to the second, solely separate course of undertaken by UKSV within the weeks after his appointment was introduced but earlier than he took up the function.
The Foreign Office, Downing Street, the Cabinet Office, Morgan McSweeney and Peter Mandelson have been approached for remark.
