Freya Scott-Turner
Live reporter

Image source, POOL/AFP via Getty Images

Once again, Starmer has been forced to defend his decision-making in hiring Lord Mandelson as his ambassador to the US.

A Guardian report sparked this latest episode in the long-running saga. The newspaper said on Thursday that Mandelson had actually failed his security vetting, but was able to take up the post anyway because the Foreign Office overruled the decision.

By the end of Thursday, the department's most senior civil servant, Olly Robbins, was out of a job.

"Not only was I not told [about the vetting], no minister was told and I'm absolutely furious about it", Starmer told reporters today.

But this hasn't stymied accusations from opposition figures that Robbins is being made into a scapegoat. While a chorus of party leaders have called for Starmer to resign based on his past statements that "due process" had been followed.

The BBC now understands that the vetting service gave the Foreign Office an explicit recommendation not to approve Mandelson’s clearance. But many, including a Labour MP, have raised questions about the nuts and bolts of this process, and whether a decision of this magnitude could have been kept from the government.

We may learn more next week, when Starmer says he will "set out all the relevant facts" in Parliament.

Sacked civil servant Olly Robbins has also been asked to give evidence to the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, while opposition Leader Kemi Badenoch has demanded the government publish all documents relating to Mandelson's appointment "by the end of next week".

As this row rages on, our political editor Chris Mason writes that the prime minister’s decision to send Mandelson to Washington is like a horror film - stuck on repeat - for Keir Starmer.

• We're ending our live coverage for now, but you can keep up-to-date on this story in our full piece.

The Liberal Democrats have asked the prime minister's ethics adviser to investigate him for not telling Parliament as soon as he became aware that Mandelson had failed security vetting.

Writing to Sir Laurie Magnus, Lib Dem home affairs spokeswoman Lisa Smart says Keir Starmer “appears to have failed in his obligation to correct inadvertent errors ‘at the earliest opportunity'”, which is something the ministerial code requires.

Downing Street said on Friday that Starmer has been "very clear that Parliament had a right to know this, and indeed that he had a right to know this.

"And that it’s completely staggering that UK Security Vetting recommended against the developed vetting security clearance for Mandelson and that he was not told, the Foreign Secretary was not told and as a result Parliament was not told.”

Jack Fenwick and Chris Mason
BBC politics

BBC News understands the United Kingdom Security Vetting service gave the Foreign Office an explicit recommendation not to approve Peter Mandelson’s vetting.

It is understood that UKSV, which carried out the work on behalf of the Cabinet Office, presented the Foreign Office with a list of potential risks as well as a recommendation summing up those risks.

That recommendation can fall into one of three categories, described by sources as “yes”, “yes with caveats” and “no”.

Sources say the recommendation given to the Foreign Office by the vetting services was a “no”.

The Foreign Office is believed to be the only government department in Whitehall with the authority to overrule such a recommendation.

Image source, PA Media

Badenoch says she is "demanding that the government publish all documents" relating to the appointment of Lord Mandelson by "the end of next week".

"There can be no more cover up, no more excuses, no more delays."

She says she's "considering every parliamentary option" in deciding what to do next, but that she doesn't have enough MPs to win a confidence vote against Starmer.

"The people who can do that, can make this happen are Labour MPs," she says.

Labour MPs "need to decide whether they are going to be complicit", or if they "are going to do the right thing", Badenoch adds.

Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch is holding a press conference following Thursday's revelations about Lord Mandelson's vetting.

"Keir Starmer's position is untenable," she says.

She accuses Starmer of having put his own interests before national interests.

"He has misled Parliament and he has misled the country on a matter of national security," Badenoch tells reporters.

"He is not fit to govern," she says.

It is "preposterous" to say the first heard about it was on Tuesday, she adds because she says journalists told No 10 in September that Mandelson failed the vetting

"Either he is lying or he is so incompetent he is unfit to run the country."

She says the only decent response to the situation would be to resign.

Image source, Pool

Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar has repeated his calls for the prime minister to stand down over the Mandelson vetting issue.

"I stated my position in February, I stand by it, I don't recoil from my position, the Mandelson scandal was the tipping point for me," Sarwar told reporters today.

In February, he held a press conference calling on the PM to resign.

He tells reporters that there are "questions for [Downing Street] to answer" over the appointment of Mandelson.

He says Mandelson is "a traitor to his party, a traitor to his country and of course he's subject to a police investigation".

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

What did Mandelson’s appointment letter say about his security clearance?published at 14:31 BST

14:31 BST

By Tom Edgington

Lord Mandelson’s appointment letter to the role of US ambassador was released in March, as part of a larger batch of government documents.

The letter, external, dated 30 January 2025, states that the role requires top-level clearance, known as Developed Vetting (DV) and that “your security clearance has been confirmed”.

Image source, .

However, what the letter doesn’t reveal was that the clearance was granted by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) - against the recommendation of UK Security Vetting (UKSV) which carries out all national security vetting.

“The wording of the contracts looks fairly standard” says Hannah Keenan, from the Institute for Government think tank.

“What it omits though is what has been missing from the public conversation - that DV was granted despite the UKSV recommending Mandelson not be appointed.

“The whole process has been highly unusual - right from the point where Mandelson's appointment was announced before any vetting had taken place,” Keenan says.

The key questions facing Starmer about the Mandelson sagapublished at 14:01 BST

14:01 BST

Nick Eardley
Political correspondent

The prime minister will appear before MPs on Monday - to explain what went wrong in this process.

But there are some key questions that remain unanswered.

The biggest one: did the prime minister and the government mislead MPs - and the public?

The PM says he only found out this week that Mandelson had failed developed vetting. Questions were being asked in September last year - including by The Independent, which reported, external that Mandelson may not have passed the process.

Why did the PM therefore say at the time that “full due process” had been followed? And why in February this year did he go further, saying: "security vetting carried out independently by the security services... that gave him clearance for the role"?

Which leads to the next question; why weren't more questions asked by the PM and his team?

Given journalists were asking about Mandelson failing vetting, should No 10 have been more curious? No 10 said there had been repeated requests for "assurances” from the Foreign Office about the “facts of this case”, including vetting.

Why did Mandelson fail vetting?

Developed vetting is said to be a highly personal process. It's unlikely we will see full details of the questions asked and answers given. But will the public be told what the concerns were?

Why were those concerns overruled?

Why did officials in the Foreign Office make the decision to go ahead with the appointment? Mandelson had already been announced - would it have been too embarrassing to cancel it? Or were mitigations found to address the concerns? At the moment, we simply don't know.

What will Labour MPs do?

Plenty of Labour MPs are angry at the prime minister - and have been for some time. They didn't act earlier this year when there were calls for the prime minister to quit. Will that change this time? At the moment, many are busy campaigning ahead of May's elections. Some are speaking up, but I don't yet detect a groundswell of pressure.

The PM's answers on Monday will be studied closely.

Harry Farley
Political correspondent

Downing Street has also denied the Foreign Office felt pressure to overrule the UK Security Vetting’s recommendation.

The spokesman would not be drawn on whether the PM thought he had been misled by the Foreign Office, saying: “He’s said that it’s staggering that he wasn’t told that he’d failed his developed vetting when he was telling Parliament that due process had been followed.

"And this is why he has ordered an urgent investigation into how this decision was taken and why he was not informed earlier.”

Harry Farley
Political correspondent

Following yesterday's revelations, we have just heard some more from Number 10.

The prime minister believes Parliament had a “right” to know Lord Mandelson had failed his security vetting, Downing Street says.

Downing Street was asked this afternoon if the prime minister had misled Parliament when he repeatedly told MPs “due process” was followed over the appointment.

“He’s very clear that Parliament had a right to know this, and indeed that he had a right to know this, and that it’s completely staggering that UK Security Vetting recommended against the developed vetting security clearance for Peter Mandelson and that he was not told, the Foreign Secretary was not told and as a result Parliament was not told," a spokesman tells reporters.

The spokesman says the prime minister wants to provide parliament with the “full facts” and admits that MPs did not have them.

Freya Scott-Turner
Live reporter

Image source, Pool/Getty Images

Prime Minister Keir Starmer says he's "absolutely furious" that he "wasn't told" that his former US Ambassador Lord Peter Mandelson had failed his security vetting before his appointment to the role.

In recent months, Starmer had already faced scrutiny for hiring Mandelson, who was sacked from the post in September.

What's happened this week?

• On Thursday: The Guardian newspaper reported that Mandelson had failed security vetting prior to taking up the job in Washington, but this was overruled by the Foreign Office
• It was later announced that the most senior civil servant in the Foreign Office, Olly Robbins, would leave his post

Starmer has denied any knowledge.

• "Not only was I not told, no minister was told [about the vetting failure]", the prime minister has said - calling the situation "staggering"
• He has laid out his intention to go to Parliament on Monday to "set out all the relevant facts in true transparency so Parliament has the full picture"

But opposition parties are calling for him to resign.

• “All roads lead to resignation” says Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch, who says it's "simply not possible" that Starmer was unaware of Mandelson's vetting failure
• While Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davey says it shows “catastrophically poor judgement” on a matter of national security
• We have a roundup of reaction from all the political parties in our earlier post

Image source, PA Media

A backbench Labour MP says that it "doesn't sound credible" that the prime minister didn't know that Peter Mandelson had failed his security vetting.

MP Jon Trickett tells Press Association that “it simply doesn’t sound credible for Keir Starmer to claim that he was unaware that Mandelson had been denied security clearance."

If Starmer was not aware, he says "it raises gravely serious issues about the way we are governed".

“Either way, the excuses coming from Downing Street won’t cut it on the doorstep in the run-up to the local elections," he adds.

For Keir Starmer, there are now more questions over Lord Mandelson and his appointment as UK ambassador to the US.

Mandelson was sacked from the role in September over his links with the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Take a look below at how things developed, and how we got here:

Opposition leaders are calling for Keir Starmer to resign over the latest Mandelson vetting revelations.

Is there any way his MPs could force him out?

As the BBC has previously reported, there is not an easy mechanism for Labour MPs to remove a party leader quickly.

If a Labour leader resigns, a leadership contest is automatically triggered.

Labour MPs could initiate a leadership contest if a challenger is backed by at least 20% of the party's MPs - currently that number would be 81.

Other methods such as a confidence vote are not guaranteed to force a leader out of office.

Image source, PA Media

Paul Seddon
Politics reporter

Image source, Getty Images

Olly Robbins has been asked to give evidence to the Commons foreign affairs committee on Tuesday next week about the vetting process for Lord Mandelson.

In a letter, external published on the committee’s website, Labour MP and committee chair Emily Thornberry said she would like the former top Foreign Office official to respond to the committee’s request by 10am on Monday.

This would allow the sacked civil servant to give his side of the story.

Thornberry said yesterday’s Guardian investigation had “called into question” answers Robbins gave to the committee in a letter in September last year, and his subsequent appearance at the committee after Mandelson had been sacked as US ambassador.

In a September letter to MPs, Robbins told the committee the process “concluded with DV [developed vetting] clearance being granted” by the Foreign Office – but did not mention that vetting officials had recommended against the move.

Image source, Reuters

Lord Mandelson has been pictured walking his dog this morning in London as the fallout continues over news that he failed his security vetting for the role of US ambassador but the Foreign Office allowed him to take up the post regardless.

He has not publicly commented on the latest revelations over his security vetting.

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

More now from Starmer, who's speaking to reporters in Paris.

On Mandelson, Starmer continues: "That I wasn't told that he'd failed security vetting when I was telling Parliament that due process had been followed is unforgivable."

"Not only was I not told, no minister was told and I'm absolutely furious about it."

Starmer says he intends to go to Parliament on Monday to "set out all the relevant facts in true transparency so Parliament has the full picture".

He is asked whether it's believable that a senior civil servant "unilaterally" overruled security vetting to approve a political appointment.

The prime minister insists: "I was not told that he failed security vetting. No minister was told that he failed security vetting, Number 10 wasn't told that he failed security vetting."

"It is totally unacceptable that the prime minister making an appointment is not told that security vetting has been failed," he says.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer says the fact that he "was not told" that Lord Mandelson had failed security vetting is "staggering".

Scotland's first minister has called on the prime minister to resign.

John Swinney says he has no reason to doubt the prime minister’s version of events regarding Lord Mandelson failing vetting, but says the events showed “a staggering level of incompetence”.

He tells BBC Scotland News: “You cannot have someone who’s incompetent being the prime minister, so I think the prime minister has to resign”.