Starmer orders Foreign Office to explain after overruling Mandelson vetting

Sir Keir Starmer has ordered the Foreign Office to explain how Lord Peter Mandelson was cleared to become UK ambassador to the US after it emerged the department had overruled a security vetting process.

The Prime Minister was not aware that the former Labour grandee was granted developed vetting against the advice of UK Security Vetting until earlier this week, the Government has said.

He then immediately instructed officials to establish the facts about why vetting was granted, and the Foreign Office has said it is “working urgently” to comply with this request.

Downing Street sources say the Prime Minister is “absolutely furious”.

It comes after The Guardian reported that security officials initially denied the peer clearance, but it was after the Prime Minister had already named him as Britain’s top diplomat in the US, and the Foreign Office took the rare step of overruling the recommendation.

Sir Keir has previously insisted due process was followed in the appointment, and that Lord Mandelson had lied about the extent of his links with paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein.

Sir Keir has previously said that vetting carried out independently by the security services “gave him clearance for the role”.

But the peer was not granted approval following the secretive process by the Cabinet Office’s UK Security Vetting (UKSV) last January, The Guardian reported.

A Government spokesperson said: “The decision to grant developed vetting to Peter Mandelson against the recommendation of UK Security Vetting was taken by officials in the FCDO.”

They added: “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.”

Reports suggest he could give a statement to MPs on Monday but No 10 did not confirm this.

The Foreign Office’s top civil servant, Sir Olly Robbins, has been asked to appear again before Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee next week to explain what happened.

Dame Emily Thornberry, senior Labour MP and the committee’s chairwoman, told Sky News: “Perhaps he can tell us… was it his own idea, or was he being leant on elsewhere?

“Or was he, being a civil servant, was he getting direction from elsewhere, and if so, by whom?”

She also pointed to the careful language in a letter she received from Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper on the vetting process, which noted that: “The vetting process was undertaken by UK Security Vetting on behalf of the FCDO and concluded with DV clearance being granted by the FCDO.”

Dame Emily said: “It says he was vetted, and it says he was appointed, but it doesn’t say it was overridden… I’m saying is that, you know, people have basically been telling us half the story.”

Sir Keir has faced calls to stand down over the matter.

Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch said: “It is preposterous for Starmer to claim he did not know Mandelson failed security vetting.

“If the Prime Minister doesn’t know what’s happening in his own office, he shouldn’t be in charge of our country. He should go.”

Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey said: “If this is true, the PM should’ve 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.”

The Green Party and Reform UK have called for Sir Keir to resign.

Lord Mandelson, a political appointment rather than a career diplomat, was sacked from his Washington role last September when more details emerged about his relationship with Epstein, who died in 2019.

Sir Keir has been under fire over the decision to give Lord Mandelson the job despite it being known that his dealings with Epstein continued after the financier’s conviction for child sex offences.

Questions over his judgment intensified after the first batch of documents related to the decision published last month showed that he was warned before announcing Lord Mandelson’s ambassadorship of a “general reputational risk” over his association with Epstein.

That warning stemmed from the first part of the checks, carried out by the Cabinet Office, which was based on information in the public domain at the time.

The second was the highly confidential background vetting by security officials, which followed the announcement but was before Lord Mandelson took up his role in February 2025.

Information unearthed in this process – including any concerns – is never shared with ministers, and the result is binary, either clearing the candidate or barring them.

Foreign Office officials deployed a rarely used authority to override the decision to deny Lord Mandelson clearance, and he was told days later that he had passed, according to The Guardian.

More documents relating to his appointment are yet to be released at the behest of MPs.

Sir Keir said in February that Lord Mandelson was cleared by security vetting, which he criticised for failing to disprove the former Labour grandee’s lies.

When Morgan McSweeney stepped down as Sir Keir’s chief of staff in February, he took “full responsibility” for giving his boss advice that resulted in the “wrong” appointment decision, while also calling for the vetting process to be “fundamentally overhauled”.

Mike Clancy, general secretary of Prospect, the trade union which represents vetting officers at UKSV, said it was “deeply unfortunate” that Downing Street “allowed the impression to circulate that the vetting of Peter Mandelson had not been done correctly by UK Security Vetting”.

He said: “Civil servants, particularly those working in the most sensitive parts of government, cannot speak publicly, and deserve ministers to take responsibility for the decisions they take and not to seek to deflect blame on to them.”