“We now know the Prime Minister misled the House. The Prime Minister must take responsibility.”
Sir Keir Starmer is facing renewed accusations of misleading Parliament after reports that Lord Mandelson was appointed as UK ambassador to the United States despite initially failing a key security vetting process.
The Prime Minister selected the senior Labour figure for the role at the end of 2024, before formal checks had been completed, and while aware that Lord Mandelson had maintained contact with Jeffrey Epstein following the financier’s conviction for child sex offences.
According to reports, Lord Mandelson was refused developed vetting clearance on 28 January 2025, a level of screening required for access to highly sensitive government material, including intelligence and diplomatic communications. The decision was reportedly overturned within two days by officials, allowing the appointment to proceed.
Andrew Griffith MP said: “To fail Developed Vetting (DV) when you are already a Privy Councillor and peer of the realm takes some doing. But for a mysterious process or person to then decide that it doesn’t matter after all – in a role which sees some of the most sensitive intelligence on the planet?”
The timeline has intensified scrutiny of the government’s account of events, particularly repeated assurances from ministers that proper procedures had been followed. Sir Keir and his team have on multiple occasions insisted that “due process was followed” and that vetting had been conducted in the normal way.
Critics say the apparent reversal of a failed security clearance undermines those claims and raises serious questions about how the appointment was handled at the highest levels of government.
Kemi Badenoch, the Conservative leader, said: “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. The Prime Minister must take responsibility.”
The controversy comes after earlier disclosures suggested that Jonathan Powell, the Prime Minister’s national security adviser, believed the decision to appoint Lord Mandelson had been “weirdly rushed”.
Lord Mandelson had been dismissed from a government role in September 2024 after emails revealed the extent of his relationship with Epstein. He was later arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office, linked to allegations that he shared Downing Street documents with Epstein during his time as business secretary under Gordon Brown. He denies any wrongdoing and remains under investigation.
Despite the mounting controversy, Lord Mandelson has continued to play a significant role in government activity, including helping to shape the Chagos Islands agreement pursued by Sir Keir Starmer’s administration.
Further questions have also emerged over transparency. Officials are reportedly considering whether to restrict MPs and peers from accessing documents confirming the failed vetting outcome, despite a parliamentary motion requiring the release of material related to the appointment.
Such a move could place the government in conflict with Parliament and deepen concerns about accountability.
Additional documents are expected to be published in the coming days, following the release of an initial batch last month.
Internal records have also pointed to unease within government prior to the appointment. Notes from a discussion on 12 September 2024 show that Mr Powell had previously “raised concerns” about Lord Mandelson’s reputation with Morgan McSweeney, then the Prime Minister’s chief of staff.
According to the note, Mr McSweeney “responded that the issues had been addressed”. He later resigned after taking responsibility for backing the appointment.
With further disclosures imminent, the issue threatens to reopen a political crisis that had already placed significant strain on Sir Keir’s premiership, and to intensify pressure over whether the government gave a full and accurate account of how one of its most controversial appointments was approved.
