Cabinet Secretary's Advice on Mandelson's Appointment
Documents reveal that the then cabinet secretary, Simon Case, advised Keir Starmer to complete security vetting before announcing Peter Mandelson's appointment. These documents, released last month by the Cabinet Office amid disclosures regarding the US ambassadorial appointment, also indicate that Mandelson was offered a “higher tiers” briefing prior to the completion of his vetting process.
reported that Mandelson was initially rejected by United Kingdom Security Vetting (UKSV), a decision later overruled by the Foreign Office. Mandelson was appointed as US ambassador but was dismissed in September following new revelations about his association with the late convicted child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
Details of the Vetting Process and Official Correspondence
In a letter from Case to the prime minister dated 11 November 2024, he advised that for a political appointee to assume the Washington role, the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) should “develop a plan for them to acquire the necessary security clearances and do due diligence on any potential conflicts of interest or other issues of which you should be aware before confirming your choice.” The letter further stated that the foreign secretary would formalize the decision in correspondence to the FCDO. Mandelson’s appointment was publicly announced by No 10 on 20 December, just over a month later.
The documents also reveal that Mandelson was offered a “higher tiers” briefing on 6 January, preceding the confirmation of his developed vetting on 29 January. This implies that he received access to highly classified information from the FCDO as US ambassador before completing the formal vetting process—a process he ultimately failed, though this outcome was subsequently overruled by the Foreign Office.
Political Repercussions and Starmer's Response
Keir Starmer is scheduled to deliver a critical statement to Members of Parliament on Monday, outlining how Mandelson was able to assume the ambassadorial role despite the Foreign Office’s decision to override the failed vetting outcome remaining undisclosed. This controversy has already prompted the resignation of the Foreign Office permanent secretary, who is expected to testify before MPs on Tuesday, marking a potentially precarious moment for Starmer.
In Case’s original letter to Starmer, he noted that political appointments of this nature are uncommon, citing Ed Llewellyn, former chief of staff to David Cameron, who was appointed ambassador to France as an example.
Downing Street's Position and Civil Service Involvement
Downing Street has strongly contested claims from allies of the former ambassador that he was legally barred from informing ministers that Mandelson had failed vetting. They argue there is a distinction between being involved in the decision and being informed about it. An explanatory document published by Downing Street stated:
“No law stops civil servants sensibly flagging UK security vetting recommendations, while rightly protecting detailed sensitive vetting information, to allow ministers to make judgments on appointments or on explaining matters to parliament.”
Support for Robbins and Starmer's Statements
Tom Fletcher, the UN undersecretary general for humanitarian affairs and a friend of the former ambassador, defended him on Monday during an interview on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme:
“This is a guy who has public service and integrity stitched into his DNA in a way I haven’t seen in any other single individual. And I’ve worked with so many people inside government.
So he has had an utterly rough few days. He’s a pretty strong character. But I think he’s heartbroken.”
Starmer, in an interview on Sunday, stated that he would not have appointed Mandelson had he been aware of the failed vetting:
“The fact that I wasn’t told that Peter Mandelson had failed his security vetting when he was appointed is astonishing.
The fact that I wasn’t told when I said to parliament that due process had been followed is unforgivable, and that’s why I intend to set out in parliament on Monday the facts behind that, so there’s full transparency in relation to it.
But am I furious that I wasn’t told? Yes, I am. Am I furious that other ministers weren’t told? Yes, I am. I should have been told, and I wasn’t told.”
