Mandelson Vetting Decision "Utterly Unacceptable" - Chief Secretary to PM
While Prime Minister Keir Starmer attended talks in Paris regarding the opening of the Strait of Hormuz, his chief secretary, Darren Jones, faced criticism during morning media appearances concerning revelations about Peter Mandelson's security vetting.
Jones stated that the Foreign Office’s decision to override security vetting recommendations was "utterly unacceptable." He revealed that he had ordered an urgent review after discovering that the Foreign Office and other government departments possess the authority to disregard security advice when appointing individuals to sensitive positions.
"It is utterly unacceptable, not just in the individual case of Peter Mandelson and in respect of the prime minister’s fury at the Foreign Office for not having informed him, but the very fact that their processes were in place that allow for that to happen in the first place.
That’s why in my role in the Cabinet Office, immediately last night, I suspended the rights for these organisations to make these judgments.
I’ve asked for an urgent review about what decisions these organisations have taken in the past to overrule the recommendations from UK security vetting, and I was due to announce a broader, independent review of the vetting process anyway. And this will now be part of that."
Earlier on ITV’s Good Morning Britain, Jones confirmed he had suspended the Foreign Office’s rights to overrule security vetting recommendations, stating:
"As soon as I found out last night that the Foreign Office and a small number of other organisations have the right to ignore the recommendation… I immediately suspended those rights and ordered an urgent audit."
Jones repeatedly denied claims that the prime minister had misled the public or lost control of the situation. On BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, he said:
"I completely refute the suggestion the PM misled the public or the House of Commons. It’s very clear from his words he was reporting what he had been told and what had been followed."
When questioned about the prime minister’s leadership, Jones responded:
"I don’t think this is a question about the prime minister’s leadership."
Jones explained that the prime minister only became aware of the Foreign Office’s decision to grant Mandelson vetted status against security advice when documents were provided to the Cabinet Office on Tuesday.
"The Foreign Office did not tell the prime minister that they granted developed vetting status to Peter Mandelson against the advice of the security and vetting process. The prime minister was only made aware of that on Tuesday evening this week when the documents became available to the Cabinet Office as part of the humble address process (a binding motion to request government papers – JG)."
He added that no minister is permitted to view these vetting documents as a matter of principle, since security professionals conduct extensive personal investigations and make recommendations to civil servants regarding appointments.
On BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, Jones said he discovered the Foreign Office had overruled the vetting recommendation the previous afternoon:
"Look I find this whole situation astonishing, I found this out yesterday afternoon… the Foreign Office and a small number of other organisations have the right to ignore the recommendations of security and vetting officials when appointing people to sensitive roles.
I immediately suspended the right last night for the Foreign Office and other organisations to be able to use that exemption."
Jones noted that security officials had recommended Mandelson not be appointed but did not provide further details.
"I’ve not seen the documents or the detailed information. This is deeply personal information about financial, personal background and particular views and relationships. It’s normal for that information to be kept only by the security officials who conduct this work because it is so invasive into their personal lives."
During the morning media rounds, Darren Jones addressed calls for the prime minister’s resignation, asserting that Starmer had not considered stepping down and had not misled Parliament.
When asked on BBC Breakfast if the prime minister would resign or had misled Parliament knowingly or unknowingly, Jones replied "no." He explained that the vetting process was technically followed correctly because UK Security Vetting conducts investigations and makes recommendations, but the sponsoring department has the right to reject them. Consequently, he has suspended the right for departments to override vetting recommendations.
Continuing criticism of the prime minister came from Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch, who told BBC Radio 4 Today’s programme:
"The fact is all roads lead to a resignation.
The fact is the prime minister is telling everyone that he was told [about the Foreign Office vetting decision] on Tuesday.
The Ministerial Code states that when a minister discovers… that parliament has been inadvertently misled they need to correct the record at the first opportunity. The first opportunity was on Wednesday morning at prime minister’s questions. He gave a long sermon about all sorts of things, refused to answer questions I asked him, and didn’t tell the house, that in itself is a breach of the ministerial code.
Claiming full due process was followed when it wasn’t - another breach, misleading parliament. Breaching the ministerial code by telling people the security services had cleared him.
The fact is all roads lead to a resignation.
It doesn’t matter what story the prime minister is telling, at some point there is deliberate dishonesty – whether it’s the cover up story or the original story - one of these is deliberate dishonesty, they can't all be true, and that’s why I know he is lying."
'Preposterous' to Believe Starmer Did Not Know About Vetting Decision, Claims Badenoch
Kemi Badenoch expressed disbelief in the prime minister’s account during BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, stating:
"It’s completely preposterous for us to believe that when the prime minister said on the floor of the house [of Commons] the full due process was followed that officials who knew that was not the case would not have told him. He knew.
It is preposterous for us to believe that on 5 February, him giving press conference saying that Mandelson was cleared by the security services nobody told him that actually that this was not the case.
It’s completely preposterous, the prime minister, the former chief prosecutor, did not ask basic questions, did not ask to look at the security vetting himself.
It’s also completely preposterous that civil servants would have cleared a political appointee who had failed security vetting. Mandelson was not a mandarin he was a Labour party grandee appointed to be our most senior diplomat and ambassador."
Badenoch further questioned the credibility of claims that parliament had not seen the documents:
"We would not have found out about this if not for .
The story does not stack up, the prime minister is taking us for fools."
Sir Ed Davey, leader of the Liberal Democrats, also called for the prime minister’s resignation. He stated that even if Starmer’s claim of unawareness regarding the Foreign Office’s override was true, he should still step down. Davey warned that if the prime minister does not resign voluntarily, his party will pursue parliamentary action to remove him.
Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, Davey said:
"I don’t think the prime minister can get out of his responsibility by sacking Olly Robbins - the buck has to stop with Mr Starmer.
I think frankly it’s inconceivable on such a sensitive matter the permanent secretary at the Foreign Office wouldn’t have referred to ministers on this.
It’s also a matter of national security, essentially the Foreign Office found that prime minister should not be given top secret information."
Davey expressed skepticism about the prime minister’s claim of recent awareness:
"Let’s imagine they are telling the truth and they did only just learn about this on Tuesday what does that say about the Government and how they operate?
It means people around the prime minister were hiding critical information from him and he took this decision without meeting Mandelson, without knowing about his failed security but knowing about Mandelson’s reputation.
I think the evidence suggests he misled the commons and he misled the public that’s against all the rules and that’s why we’ve called for him to go and I think that if he doesn’t go, we’re going to have to take some action in parliament."
Davey compared the situation to former Conservative prime minister Boris Johnson’s final days in office:
"It’s hard to believe it was inadvertent, it stretches credibility, but even if that is a true story it shows there was total negligence and incompetence at the top of his government...
The PM held the Conservatives to account when he was in opposition when Boris Johnson was clearly lying over partygate and Keir Starmer called for all the accountability and called for Boris Johnson to go... but I’m afraid now he has to take his own medicine. All the evidence suggests he has to go."
What You Need to Know
The story regarding Mandelson’s vetting developed rapidly overnight. Key facts include:
On the previous evening, reported that Peter Mandelson had failed his security vetting clearance but the Foreign Office overruled this decision to allow him to assume his post as ambassador to the United States. Multiple sources indicated Mandelson was initially denied clearance in late January 2025 following a developed vetting process, a highly confidential background check conducted by security officials. Prime Minister Keir Starmer had announced Mandelson’s appointment as the UK’s chief diplomat in Washington, creating a dilemma for Foreign Office officials who chose to exercise a rarely used authority to override the security officials’ recommendation.
also revealed that senior government officials were considering withholding sensitive documents from Parliament that demonstrate Mandelson failed security vetting. Such a decision could represent a significant breach of a parliamentary vote known as a humble address, which ordered the release of "all papers" related to Mandelson’s appointment. Sources reported disputes within government over whether to disclose documents revealing these facts and other information about Mandelson’s vetting to the parliamentary intelligence and security committee (ISC).
According to , Starmer—who insiders described as furious—first learned of Mandelson’s failed vetting on Tuesday of the same week, while then Foreign Secretary David Lammy only became aware when published the story two days later. Late on Thursday, Sir Olly Robbins, the UK Foreign Office’s most senior civil servant at the time the decision was made in late January 2025, was suspended. Robbins had overseen the Foreign Office when the override enabling Mandelson’s appointment occurred.
Pressure on Starmer Over Mandelson Revelations
Good morning and welcome to the UK politics blog amid the unfolding revelations that Peter Mandelson’s security vetting was overridden to facilitate his appointment as ambassador to the US.
Opposition parties have called for Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s resignation amid the controversy.
Starmer is currently in Paris chairing a gathering of world leaders on the opening of the Strait of Hormuz as the situation develops in Westminster and Whitehall.
Stay with us for ongoing updates and reactions.
