>>24507055
cont…
The revelation that the now former ambassador was not granted clearance by UK UKSV, a division of the Cabinet Office that scrutinises the background of prospective civil servants, will raise further questions about the prime minister’s judgment in appointing him.
Starmer will also be pressed over whether he misled the public in remarks about the security vetting process, which he said had given Mandelson “clearance for the role”.
It is not known who in the Foreign Office made the decision to overrule UKSV.
Sir Olly Robbins, the current permanent secretary in the Foreign Office, was the department’s top civil servant in late January 2025 when the decision was made, having taken up the role earlier that month. The foreign secretary was David Lammy, who is now the deputy prime minister.
Starmer’s then chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, who resigned in February over his role in appointing Mandelson, could also now be asked whether he had any involvement in, or knowledge or, the decision to overrule UKSV’s denial of clearance.
Friends of McSweeney told the Guardian that he had no knowledge of Mandelson’s developed vetting process or the outcome.
That decision was made weeks before Mandelson was due to take up his post in February 2025. Seven months later, he was sacked over his relationship with the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
Ministers and officials are now likely to be pressed over whether they have been fully transparent about the process that led to his appointment.
At a press conference in Hastings on 5 February, Starmer responded to a question from a journalist by saying there had been “security vetting, carried out independently by the security services, which is an intensive exercise that gave him [Mandelson] clearance for the role. You have to go through that before you take up the post.” He added: “Clearly both the due diligence and the security vetting need to be looked at again.”
This appeared to partly put the blame for Mandelson’s appointment on the failure of a vetting process which, according to sources, his government had overruled.
As a result of Mandelson’s sacking as US ambassador on 11 September 2025, after the extent of his relationship with Epstein came to light, parliamentary scrutiny mounted. On 16 September, Yvette Cooper, the foreign secretary, and Robbins, her top official, responded to questions over the vetting process with a letter to the foreign affairs select committee.
Yvette Cooper.
Yvette Cooper. Photograph: Andy Rain/EPA
“Peter Mandelson’s security vetting was conducted to the usual standard set for developed vetting in line with established Cabinet Office policy,” the letter said, explaining that the process had been undertaken by UKSV on behalf of the FCDO.
Cooper and Robbins said the process had “concluded with DV clearance being granted by the FCDO in advance of Lord Mandelson taking up post in February”.
What the letter failed to inform parliament was that UKSV had denied Mandelson’s clearance – a recommendation that threatened Starmer having to withdraw a high-profile appointment he had already made public.
UKSV’s vetting decisions are almost always enforced by government departments, but they technically have the authority to override the recommendations. The precise reason that UKSV recommended that Mandelson not receive clearance is now likely to be subject to intense speculation.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/apr/16/revealed-mandelson-failed-vetting-but-foreign-office-overruled-decision