Prime Minister Faces Political Firestorm Over Ambassador Appointment
Extraordinary footage has revealed Prime Minister Keir Starmer falsely insisting that Lord Mandelson underwent an intensive security vetting exercise that cleared him for the crucial role of US ambassador. This astonishing development comes as Downing Street confirmed the disgraced peer was approved for the position against the explicit recommendation of security officials, while claiming the Prime Minister remained unaware of this critical information.
Foreign Office Overruled Security Experts
The Foreign Office reportedly pushed ahead with appointing Lord Mandelson as Britain's top diplomat in Washington DC despite receiving advice against granting him security clearance. A recently circulated clip from a February 5 press conference in East Sussex shows a visibly flustered Starmer attempting to erroneously attribute responsibility for Mandelson's appointment to independent security vetting services.
Sir Keir stated during the conference: "It was an intensive exercise that gave him clearance for the role, and you have to go through that before you take up the post." The Prime Minister added: "Clearly both the due diligence and security vetting need to be looked at again. I've already strengthened the due process and I think we need to look at the security vetting because it now transpires that what was being said was not true."
Starmer concluded with a remarkable admission: "Had I known then what I know now I'd never have appointed him in the first place."
Downing Street's Delayed Response
Downing Street has now insisted that neither the Prime Minister nor any other Government minister became aware of the security vetting issues until Tuesday evening, at which point Sir Keir immediately ordered a Whitehall investigation. The revelation that Lord Mandelson had failed security vetting only emerged publicly when The Guardian newspaper published explosive claims on Thursday afternoon, with Number 10 remaining silent for nearly three hours before responding.
The newspaper reported that security officials initially denied Lord Mandelson clearance, but the Prime Minister had already named him as ambassador, prompting the Foreign Office to take the rare step of overruling the recommendation. Westminster sources suggest that Olly Robbins, the architect of Theresa May's Brexit deal who now serves as the most senior civil servant at the Foreign Office, is being positioned as a potential scapegoat for the controversy.
The Foreign Office confirmed it is urgently working to comply with Sir Keir's demand to understand how Lord Mandelson was cleared to become US ambassador despite security concerns.
Cross-Party Demands for Resignation
The extraordinary revelations have significantly increased pressure on Sir Keir's position in Downing Street, with the Conservative Party, Reform UK, Liberal Democrats, and Green Party all calling for his resignation over what they describe as "lies" about Lord Mandelson's appointment. Keir Starmer now faces furious demands to quit after Downing Street admitted Lord Mandelson was made Britain's ambassador to the United States despite failing security checks.
Tory leader Kemi Badenoch declared: "The PM appointed Peter Mandelson before the vetting had been completed, vetting Mandelson failed. Starmer then said full due process was followed. THAT is misleading Parliament. I'm only holding him to the same standards to which he's held previous PMs - that if they mislead parliament, they should resign."
Badenoch added pointedly: "In these dangerous times, Britain cannot afford to have a PM who the country doesn't trust. Starmer has betrayed our national security. He should go."
Reform's Nigel Farage stated bluntly: "Now we discover that he has blatantly lied, the Prime Minister should resign." Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davey echoed these sentiments: "Keir Starmer had already made a catastrophic error of judgement. Now it looks as though he has also misled Parliament and lied to the British public. If that is the case, he must go."
Parliamentary Scrutiny Intensifies
Sir Keir has also been accused of misleading Parliament over his previous claims that "full due process" was followed in the appointment of Lord Mandelson. Number 10 sources revealed that information about Lord Mandelson's vetting was obtained by officials trawling through piles of documents as the Government scrambles to comply with MPs' demand for publication of all files related to his appointment.
A Government spokesperson stated: "The security vetting process for Peter Mandelson was sponsored by the FCDO. The decision to grant Developed Vetting to Peter Mandelson against the recommendation of UK Security Vetting was taken by officials in the FCDO. Neither the PM, nor any Government minister, was aware that Peter Mandelson was granted Developed Vetting against the advice of UK Security Vetting until earlier this week."
The spokesperson continued: "Once the PM 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." They confirmed the Government is committed to complying with the parliamentary "humble address" motion to disclose documents relating to Lord Mandelson's appointment "in full as soon as possible."
Security Committee Involvement
The cross-party Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) has been given final authority over what material is too sensitive for public release. "Any documentation within the scope of the humble address that requires redaction on the basis of national security or international relations will be provided to the ISC," the spokesperson added. "This will include documents provided to the FCDO by UK Security Vetting."
A Foreign Office spokesperson stated: "The PM has initiated a process to establish the facts of the granting of developed vetting and we are working urgently to comply with that process." It is understood that recommendations by UK Security Vetting are non-binding on Government departments, providing potential justification for the Foreign Office's controversial decision.
Epstein Connections Resurface
The Prime Minister and Cabinet Secretary are said to have agreed on a "fact-finding" exercise once information about Lord Mandelson's vetting was uncovered. The Government is being forced by MPs to release a batch of documents about the process after the Commons passed a "humble address" motion earlier this year.
While it remains unclear whether the recommendation against Lord Mandelson by vetting officials specifically related to his ties to convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, the connection has raised serious questions. Chancellor Rachel Reeves told reporters in Washington DC: "I didn't know anything about the vetting process. I'm the Chancellor, I'm not the foreign secretary, and I'm not 10 Downing Street, so I can't give you any more information on that."
Labour Internal Turmoil
Thursday's developments have revived the furore that previously threatened to explode Sir Keir's premiership in February. One senior Labour source told the Daily Mail that the situation was "far more complicated" than it appeared, describing their initial response upon learning details as "holy f***." The source added: "This is a huge failure."
Labour MPs have expressed outrage that Lord Mandelson was given the key diplomatic position despite his long-standing ties to Epstein. It is understood Lord Mandelson maintains he did not know he had been rejected by vetting officials until reports emerged today. The identity of the Foreign Office official who apparently decided to overrule UK Security Vetting remains unclear, though Sir Olly Robbins is believed to have been permanent secretary at the time, while Deputy PM David Lammy served as Foreign Secretary.
Parliamentary Committee Investigation
Senior Labour MP Emily Thornberry, chair of the House of Commons' Foreign Affairs Committee, announced she would summon Sir Olly Robbins to clarify information he provided at a previous hearing. Thornberry stated: "My committee asked several times whether red flags had been raised by Peter Mandelson's vetting process. It seems there were. Who overrode these concerns? Why were we kept in the dark? People need to stop messing us about and tell us the truth."
Developed vetting represents standard procedure for most mid-level diplomatic staff, with outright refusal of clearance believed to be relatively rare, although "mitigations" can sometimes be requested. In another potentially incendiary claim, the Guardian reported that senior Government officials have been considering whether to withhold documents about the refusal from Parliament.
Document Disclosure Controversy
Labour MPs rebelled to insist on publication of extensive material about the appointment process, with the cross-party ISC meant to have final say on what requires redaction for security reasons. The Daily Mail understands no document showing that vetting clearance was initially refused has been supplied to the ISC thus far.
On September 16 last year, then-Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper and Sir Olly Robbins wrote to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee responding to questions about the vetting. Their letter stated: "Peter Mandelson's security vetting was conducted to the usual standard set for developed vetting in line with established Cabinet Office policy." Notably, the correspondence failed to mention that UK Security Vetting had initially refused clearance.
Growing Backbench Pressure
Labour MP Bell Ribeiro-Addy declared: "The Government must come clean about why the Foreign Office overrode security officials' decision to deny Mandelson clearance. This scandal has been beyond damaging, as has the Government's handling of it. We need the full facts."
Fellow Labour backbencher Rachael Maskell added: "All we want is the truth. Now a different account of Mandelson's security clearance has been brought to light we need accountability as to why we were provided a different version of events."
Senior Tory MP David Davis suggested Sir Keir must have known if Mandelson had failed his security vetting. The former Cabinet minister posted on social media: "In what sort of Government does the Foreign Office override a vetting failure for the most senior ambassadorship in the world without notifying the Prime Minister? It must be presumed that Starmer knew of this vetting failure when he officially appointed him."
Davis continued: "Frankly, this calls into question the Prime Minister's claims that he made the decision because Mandelson had lied to him, since he would have had the accurate conclusions of the vetting process when he made the decision."
