Starmer did not know Mandelson failed vetting, government says

The prime minister did not know Lord Mandelson failed security vetting for the role of US ambassador until earlier this week, the government has said.

A spokesperson said the decision to go against the recommendation of the vetting agency and allow him to take up the role was taken by officials in the Foreign Office.

Sir Keir Starmer has faced calls to resign over allegations he misled Parliament and MPs when he claimed "full due process" was followed during the appointment.

It came after the Guardian newspaper reported that Lord Mandelson was initially denied security clearance in late January 2025 but this was overruled by the Foreign Office to ensure the peer could take up the post.

Lord Mandelson was sacked as ambassador last year over his ties to the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

During Prime Minister's Questions on 10 September 2025, Sir Keir said three times that "full due process" was followed for the appointment.

The Ministerial Code states that ministers who knowingly mislead Parliament are expected to resign.

Taking questions from journalists following a press conference on 5 February in Hastings, Sir Keir also said that there was "security vetting carried out independently by the security services, which is an intensive exercise that gave [Lord Mandelson] clearance for the role, and you have to go through that before you take up the post".

Lord Mandelson was announced as the UK's ambassador to the US in December 2024, before in-depth vetting had been carried out, and formally took up the role on 10 February 2025.

Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch called for the PM to resign.

"It is either, he knew that Mandelson failed the security vetting and lied to us in Parliament, on TV repeatedly, or he didn't know, didn't ask and said he had passed the security vetting - which means he is hopelessly incompetent," she said.

The revelations have reignited anger over Lord Mandelson's appointment and raise further questions over the prime minister's judgement.

Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey said that if it was true the PM was not aware Lord Mandelson had failed security vetting, he should have "told Parliament at the earliest opportunity, not waited for the media to force the truth out".

"His failure to do that alone is surely a breach of the ministerial code," he added.

Reform UK, the Green Party and Plaid Cymru have also called for the prime minister to go, accusing him of lying about Lord Mandelson's vetting.

Meanwhile, the Scottish National Party have written to the independent adviser on ministerial standards, Sir Laurie Magnus, calling for an investigation into whether the PM deliberately misled the public.

SNP Westminster leader Stephen Flynn said: "The prime minister is either incompetent, gullible or a liar. Or all three."

A government spokesperson 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 Foreign Office said it was "working urgently" to comply with the PM's request to establish the facts.

Labour MP Emily Thornberry, who chairs the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, said she felt she was "misled" by the top official at the Foreign Office, Sir Olly Robbins, when he gave evidence to her committee last November about Lord Mandelson's vetting.

"We gave them direct questions and they half answered it, but they missed out the bit that was important... he didn't pass the vetting," she told the BBC.

The developed vetting process is carried out by UK Security Vetting, a specialist agency within the Cabinet Office, and is designed to make sure individuals are unlikely to abuse their access to secret material, or be subject to blackmail or bribery.

It includes checks on a candidates' credit history and criminal record.

Those being vetted also have to undertake an interview with a specially trained vetting officer, which can cover areas including candidates' health, friendships, family and sexual history.

The BBC understands Lord Mandelson had no knowledge about the judgements reached during his vetting process until the Guardian article was published, and that no-one at any level raised anything about it with him following his vetting interview.

In February, the government agreed to release documents relating to Lord Mandelson's appointment, following a vote by MPs for them to be published.

However, the Guardian reported that senior government officials have been considering whether to withhold documents from Parliament revealing Lord Mandelson was not given vetting approval from security officials.

The government has already published some files, including an earlier due diligence check carried out by a team at the Cabinet Office, which was sent to the PM on 11 December 2024.

That advice - which is largely based on public information such as media reports - warned that Lord Mandelson's relationship with Epstein posed a "reputation risk".

A spokesperson said the government was committed to complying with a parliamentary motion demanding the release of documents related to the appointment "in full as soon as possible".

They said any documentation which required redaction on the basis of national security or international relations would be provided to Parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee, a cross-party group of MPs and peers which has been tasked with reviewing documents to decide what can be released.

"This will include documents provided to the FCDO by UK Security Vetting," they added.

Lord Mandelson was arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office on 23 February, over allegations that while serving as a minister in 2010 he passed on market-sensitive government information to Epstein.

He was released on bail, with his bail conditions dropped last month.

The BBC understands Lord Mandelson's position is that he has not acted in any way criminally and that he was not motivated by financial gain.

Sign up for our Politics Essential newsletter to keep up with the inner workings of Westminster and beyond.