5 Questions For Starmer As Mandelson’s Vetting Ignites Row

The Peter Mandelson scandal has returned to haunt Keir Starmer once again after fresh details about the ex-ambassador’s security vetting were revealed.

It appears security officials advised against appointing the former Labour peer to be the UK’s attache to Washington.

But, according to the government, the Foreign Office overrode those concerns and granted Mandelson vetted status anyway.

This has caused a fresh row over how much the prime minister knew – and when. He has since fired the top Foreign Office official in a bid to get ahead of the row.

Still, his political opponents have accused him of misleading the Commons by vowing “due process” was followed in appointing Mandelson.

Critics claim this strengthens the argument for Starmer to step down – even as the May elections approach.

But first, let’s recap…

Mandelson, a former minister under New Labour and later spin doctor, was announced as Starmer’s pick to be the UK’s ambassador to the US in late 2024.

Government files have since proven Starmer was warned that his choice to fill the ambassador role with a political appointment rather than a career diplomat could make the PM himself more exposed.

A due diligence report from December 2024 also shows Starmer was warned appointing Mandelson came with “reputational risk”.

His friendship with convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein had already been well-documented at this point, particularly by the Financial Times.

Mandelson had also been forced to resign from government before over scandals and previously criticised Donald Trump.

Even so, government files show Mandelson received an email saying he would receive “high-tier” briefings from January 6, before his security vetting was completed.

The UK Security Vetting then denied Mandelson clearance at the end of January, according to the Guardian.

Even so, Mandelson officially started the role in February, flying out to Washington DC and appearing on exceptionally friendly terms with Trump.

In September 2025, the US House Oversight Committee released documents related to the Epstein probe – including messages from Mandelson calling Epstein his “best pal”, suggesting they were closer than previously thought.

He was fired two days later.

A second batch of Epstein files from the US raised more questions about how he maintained a friendship with the disgraced financier after he was sentenced for soliciting a minor in 2008.

Mandelson resigned from the Labour Party in February, while Starmer said he regretted appointing him and was lied to by the peer.

MPs then voted to force the government to release all files related to Mandelson, although some documents are being held back while the police conduct their own probe into the former ambassador.

The ex-peer was then arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office in late February, after claims he was planning on emigrating.

Mandelson was soon released under investigation. He has always denied any allegations of wrongdoing in relation to Epstein.

This question will be the most pertinent one for parliamentarians.

Starmer told MPs in “full due process” was followed during Mandelson’s appointment in September.

He also told journalists in February that independent security vetting gave Mandelson “clearance for the role”.

The UK Ministerial Code states any minister who “knowingly” misleads the Commons must correct the record as soon as possible and step down.

The government is still abiding by the “humble address”, where MPs voted to force the government to publicly release “all papers” linked to Mandelson’s appointment.

However, the motion did offer an exemption for details “prejudicial to UK national security or international relations” – a matter which would refer to the intelligence and security committee of MPs.

Releasing such evidence would be unprecedented, but the Downing Street statement on Thursday said the government would “include documents” linked to Mandelson’s vetting as it complies with the parliamentary motion.

While the Foreign Office chief may have taken the fall last night, questions remain over who exactly rubber-stamped Mandelson’s appointment.

Robbins had only been in the post for a handful of weeks when Mandelson’s vetting came through.

It remains unclear whether he consulted with senior politicians or officials over the decision, though the government insists ministers were not party to it.

The exact reason is unlikely to be revealed anytime soon, but there will be plenty of speculation around it.

Reasons for vetting failure have never been revealed to the public before.

Chief secretary to the prime minister Darren Jones told broadcasters Starmer only found out about this on Tuesday evening.

However, the Independent reported in September that Mandelson may have failed to clear MI6 vetting.

A Downing Street spokesperson told the newspaper at the time: “Vetting done by FCDO in normal way.”

This has raised substantial questions about the timeline around Mandelson’s appointment.

Subscribe to Commons People, the podcast that makes politics easy. Every week, Kevin Schofield and Kate Nicholson unpack the week’s biggest stories to keep you informed. Join us for straightforward analysis of what’s going on at Westminster.