All the unanswered questions over the Mandelson vetting scandal as Starmer faces grilling from MPs

Sir Keir Starmer is facing “judgement day” as he prepares to face a grilling in the Commons over the latest revelations in the Peter Mandelson scandal.

The prime minister is set to update MPs after it was discovered that Mandelson was appointed US ambassador despite security services recommending against granting him security clearance.

Downing Street has blamed officials at the Foreign Office for not alerting the prime minister about the matter, and instead choosing to overrule the recommendation and grant Mandelson developed vetting status.

But critics have accused No 10 of a “cover up”, after it was revealed The Independent had put claims the former Labour peer had failed vetting to Downing Street seven months ago.

As Sir Keir gears up to address MPs, these are some unanswered questions he will be facing:

Downing Street have blamed officials at the Foreign Office for not alerting the prime minister about the matter (Reuters)

Why did Mandelson fail vetting?

Full details about why UK Security Vetting (UKSV) recommended against Peter Mandelson being appointed as Britain’s ambassador the US have not been released.

Developed vetting is used by the Foreign Office for the highest-level individuals and subjects them to very deep scrutiny. Applicants must go through a thorough process that includes a questionnaire, character references, financial history checks and an in-depth interview with a vetting officer.

Those who have previously gone through the developed vetting process have described it as being highly personal, and it is unlikely details of why he failed the process will be released to the public.

There are several reasons a person could fail vetting. These included dishonesty during the process, or issues that arise that may call into question their suitability for the role.

The reasons behind Lord Mandelson’s failed vetting has not been disclosed.

Downing Street has repeatedly denied that anyone in No 10 or any ministers were made aware of the concerns raised by UKSV (AFP/Getty)

The politician’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein was likely flagged during the process, although the depth of his connection with the late financier may not have been clear, given that his appointment was prior to the release of the extensive Epstein files.

Through his various business interests, Lord Mandelson has also had links to both Russia and China. Upon assuming the role of US ambassador, he was required to step back from his role at the company Global Counsel, which he co-founded, whose clients included Chinese brands Shein and TikTok.

Who knew Mandelson had failed vetting?

The security vetting was carried out by UKSV in a process separate to those carried out by the Foreign Office and Cabinet Office.

According to the government, Foreign Office officials decided to deploy a rarely used authority to override the UKSV decision to deny Lord Mandelson clearance.

Downing Street has repeatedly denied that anyone in No 10 or any ministers were made aware of the concerns raised by UKSV, and sacked the Foreign Office’s top civil servant Sir Olly Robbins last week as a result.

A statement issued by No 10 on Sunday night said that although civil servants rather than ministers make decisions on vetting and clearance, there was nothing in the law to prevent ministers being told.

However, it was revealed last week that The Independent approached No 10 about claims that Lord Mandelson had not cleared his security vetting as long ago as last September, when the disgraced peer was sacked from his post as ambassador to the US.

Sir Keir Starmer told the Commons that “full due process” had been followed when it came to security vetting and the appointment of Mandelson as US ambassador (Reuters)

How could ‘full due process’ have been followed if Mandelson was given clearance despite failing vetting?

Sir Keir Starmer told the Commons that “full due process” had been followed when it came to security vetting and the appointment of Mandelson as US ambassador.

When asked last September whether Mandelson had in fact failed vetting, No 10 told The Independent: “Vetting done by FCDO [Foreign and Commonwealth Office] in normal way”.

At the time, the process in place for appointing political ambassadors meant that the government was able to announce an appointee prior to being vetted.

It also allowed for government departments to overrule security service recommendations to grant the candidate clearance, as was done in this case.

Did the PM lie to the House?

The question of whether Sir Keir misled MPs over the appointment by political opposition is likely to be a key question he faces on Monday.

Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch said on X: “Last September, Keir Starmer told Parliament three times that ‘full due process’ was followed over the appointment of Lord Mandelson. We now know the prime minister misled the House.”

He has also been criticised for waiting until Monday to address MPs, despite appearing in the Commons on Wednesday for his regular question time session.

But allies of the prime minister insisted that Monday was the first opportunity he has had to set out the full facts to Parliament, as he was not aware of Mandelson’s vetting failures raised by UKSV.

As recently as February, Sir Keir told a press conference in Hastings that security vetting carried out independently by the security services gave Mandelson “clearance for the role”.

“You have to go through that before you take up the post,” he said. “Clearly both the due diligence and the security vetting need to be looked at again.”

However, the claim came months after No 10 had been made aware by journalists that sources had claimed this was not the case.

The question of whether Sir Keir misled MPs over the appointment by political opposition is likely to be a key question he faces on Monday (PA Wire)

How is Starmer’s relationship with Whitehall now?

Sir Keir’s government is now facing a clash with the Civil Service as Sir Olly became the latest figure to be sacked over the ill-considered appointment of Mandelson.

Whitehall figures and allies of Sir Olly have rushed to defend the sacked civil servant and attack Sir Keir for what has been considered throwing him “under the bus”.

Whitehall veteran Sir Olly is expected to give his own account to MPs on Tuesday at the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Lord Simon McDonald, ex-permanent secretary in the Foreign Office, said Sir Olly was a “scalp” for Number 10 and added: “I think this is the biggest crisis in the diplomatic service since I joined it in 1982.”

Lord McDonald was asked on the BBC if he thought Sir Olly “has basically been thrown under the bus”.

He replied: “Yes. This story broke on Thursday morning in a piece in The Guardian – within the news cycle Olly Robbins had been required to resign.

“This shows to me that Number 10 wanted a scalp and they wanted it quickly and I cannot see that there was any process, any fairness, any giving him the chance to set out his case, and that feels to me wrong.”

Read More

Is this the week that finally sinks Starmer?

Attacks on Jewish sites ‘raise prospect of foreign state working to sow discord’

Starmer-Mandelson latest: Prime minister faces judgement day after calls to resign

Teenagers arrested in connection with arson attack at Kenton Synagogue

Quarter of a million people could lose jobs by 2027 as UK ‘flirts with recession’

Reform vows to deport ‘hundreds of thousands’ of asylum seekers