London, United Kingdom. The UK government said former U.S. ambassador Peter Mandelson failed his security vetting before taking up the role, but Prime Minister Keir Starmer was unaware officials had overruled the recommendation.
Government statement on vetting decision
A government spokesperson said on Thursday that neither Starmer nor any government minister was aware that Mandelson was granted developed vetting against the advice of UK Security Vetting until earlier this week. The spokesperson said the decision was taken by officials in the foreign ministry.
Investigation and political pressure
The disclosure increased pressure on Starmer over Mandelson’s appointment and led to renewed calls for Mandelson to resign. Mandelson is under police investigation for allegedly leaking government documents to sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
Starmer response and document release
Starmer has apologised for the appointment but defended his own actions, accusing Mandelson of creating a “litany of deceit” about his Epstein ties and promising to release documents on how he was appointed.
Foreign ministry process and Guardian report
A foreign ministry spokesperson said Starmer had initiated a process to establish the facts of the vetting process and that the ministry was working urgently to comply. The Guardian reported earlier on Thursday that the failed security check came after Mandelson’s appointment had been announced.
Vetting overhaul and parliament update
The government has previously pledged to overhaul the vetting process and address weaknesses in the system. The Guardian report said officials were considering whether to withhold publication of documents that would reveal Mandelson had not been given security clearance, but the government spokesperson said Starmer instructed officials to establish why clearance had been granted and to update parliament.
Mandelson comment
Mandelson has not commented publicly on the allegations, and his lawyer did not provide a comment about the report.
What do you think should be included in the documents explaining how Peter Mandelson was appointed?
