Keir Starmer has ordered an investigation into any security concerns relating to Peter Mandelson’s tenure as UK ambassador to the US, as he set out a series of practical measures in the wake of the controversy over Mandelson’s vetting.
Setting out to the Commons what he called the “frankly staggering” way that Mandelson was appointed to the job despite initially being turned down for security vetting, Starmer said he had ordered a full review into the vetting system.
He went on: “Separately, I have asked the government security group in the Cabinet Office to look at any security concerns raised during Peter Mandelson’s tenure.”
The prime minister also set out how rules had been changed to make sure that, as happened with Mandelson, someone could not be publicly named as an ambassadorial appointee before they were vetted, even for a political choice like Mandelson.
“I want to make clear to the house that for a direct ministerial appointment it was usual for security vetting to happen after the appointment, but before starting in post. That was the process in place at the time,” Starmer told MPs.
“After I sacked Peter Mandelson I changed that process so that now an appointment cannot be announced until after security vetting is passed.”
Giving a detailed chronology of events leading up to the vetting and its aftermath, Stamer said the vetting itself took place in December 2024 and January 2025, after the appointment had already been announced.
On 28 January 2025, he continued, UK Security Vetting (UKSV) “recommended to the Foreign Office that developed vetting clearance should be denied to Peter Mandelson”, but that a day later, the Foreign Office opted to overrule this, a power not available to other departments. This power was suspended by No 10 last week after the news emerged, Starmer said.
“I know many members across the house will find these facts to be incredible,” Starmer told jeering MPs, after setting out how the decision to overrule the initial decision was not passed on to him and other ministers.
He said: “To that I can only say they are right. Throughout the whole timeline of events, officials in the Foreign Office saw fit to withhold this information from the most senior ministers in our system in government. That is not how the vast majority of people in this country expect politics, government or accountability to work, and I do not think it’s how most public servants think it should work either.”
