Ministers faced renewed cross-party pressure in parliament on Monday over documents missing from a 1,500-page release of papers concerning Peter Mandelson’s appointment as ambassador to Washington. Crucial documents were withheld at the request of the Metropolitan police, who said their release could “potentially prejudice” an investigation. Among them is a document summarising the vetting process, which concluded that officials recommended Mandelson not be given security clearance.
In a general debate, MPs expressed surprise at the absence of any documents detailing security mitigations that would have been necessary to address concerns identified by vetting officials—a recommendation later overruled by the Foreign Office. Emily Thornberry, Labour chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee, said she had expected to see records of such mitigations. “How do we bridge that gap? The only way that gap is bridged is by mitigations. And so, I spend my time looking for mitigations. And I can’t find any,” she said.
Thornberry also noted the absence of an “aide memoire” drafted by Foreign Office security chief Ian Collard after he reviewed the vetting file last September, following Mandelson’s sacking. Documents show the security team requested access to the file four days after Collard sent an outline of the vetting process to Downing Street, without mentioning that vetting officials had recommended withholding clearance. She suggested Keir Starmer had “subcontracted” the decision, delegating power to others who “abused it”.
MPs also noted the omission of Mandelson’s declaration of interest form, withheld by police along with photos, videos, voice memos and document attachments to official emails. Conservative frontbencher Alex Burghart demanded clarity, suggesting the attachments might have “accidentally fallen out of the full disclosure”. Members of the intelligence and security committee noted that a parliamentary motion required the release of “all papers” relevant to the appointment.
Paymaster General Nick Thomas-Symonds said the government had complied fully with the motion in an “official-led process”, subject to precedents, data protection principles and ministerial guidelines. The debate featured an intervention from Alex Davies-Jones, who resigned as justice minister in May. She called on the prime minister to meet survivors of Jeffrey Epstein, reading a statement from former model Lisa Phillips questioning why Starmer appointed Mandelson given his known association with Epstein, and asking whether lessons from the scandal had been learned.
