Mandelson failed security vetting. Starmer says he didn’t know

Wyllow3

I want more details.

Yes, cross if he did know.

Not a good idea to get into Boris comparisons, he did far, far more than described above (one party, you have to be joking!) as in handouts for mates (contracts, the Chris Pincher episode, lied many times to Parliament) and got a pretty free pass from the right wing press until it got far too much.

Yes I like Yvette Cooper, always have, but not change atm.

i want more details
Not a problem. Just apply under the freedom of information act.
But don’t be surprised if you receive a communication where everything is redacted bar your name and date.
Just saying 🤷‍♀️

Rosie51

My question would be why was the Mandelson appointment announced before the security vetting had taken place? If the announcement is made and he fails the vetting then isn't that a monumental slight on him forever more? A relative went through extensive security vetting which included his overseas relatives, before being appointed to the counter-terrorist group. Surely such a high profile appointment as Mandelson's required at least the same level of pre-vetting?

Jobs for the boys, perhaps?

I agree with Casdon 9.23.

And what about the Iran war situation?
Not to forget Ukraine?

Graphite

^Another question, why did Keir Starmer announce PM’s appointment as Ambassador before he had been formally vetted?^

This is explained in the proceedings of the Foreign Affairs Committee linked to above.

The appointment can be made subject to appropriate vetting, but is there a legal requirement to announce it publicly before such vetting is concluded, or it would appear even started?
As I've said up thread it could blight someone publicly for evermore because they failed the vetting.

Cardamom

This latest "scandal" couldn't have come at a worse time for Starmer. It's one scandal too many for Labour and follows far too many U turns; they haven't got enough time to turn things around before the May elections. I'm afraid he'll be toast.

I think so too.

I have said for months I couldnt see him lasting past May.

Would he be got rid of before the Local Elections?

Kier Starmer's real crime was even considering Mandelson for any post in the first place.

Indeed. And no one can claim ignorance of Mandelson's history and reputation; Mandelson resigned twice from Blair’s cabinet—first in 1998 over a home loan, and again in 2001 over a passport controversy, with Blair accepting both to minimize government damage.

Starmer bleating "But I didn'tknow! No one told me!" is just ridiculous; he knew precisely what Mandelson was.

So there’s now a long list of those who want Starmer out. The Greens, Reform, Conservatives, Lib Dems, many Labour MPs, the Left leaning Guardian and much of the public. Oh dear Keir.

Sorry someone's already asked that question, I must have missed it.

My question would be why was the Mandelson appointment announced before the security vetting had taken place? If the announcement is made and he fails the vetting then isn't that a monumental slight on him forever more? A relative went through extensive security vetting which included his overseas relatives, before being appointed to the counter-terrorist group. Surely such a high profile appointment as Mandelson's required at least the same level of pre-vetting?

Kier Starmer's real crime was even considering Mandelson for any post in the first place.

Another question, why did Keir Starmer announce PM’s appointment as Ambassador before he had been formally vetted?

This is explained in the proceedings of the Foreign Affairs Committee linked to above.

Further to my post with the MacMaster synopsis.

Where this gets muddy is in political appointments.

The proceedings of the Foreign Affairs Committee which took place on 3 November 2025 is worth reading particularly with regard to the questions put to Robbins by Fleur Anderson. Q250 onwards in particular his answer to Q252:

committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/16673/html/

It was different, because this was not run as a standard civil service/diplomatic service process. As the Committee will probably be aware, there is a specific exemption in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 for heads of mission appointments from time to time to be appointed directly by Ministers. They are known as political appointments, although they do not actually have to be politicians or even politically motivated; it is just the choice of politicians. Lord Mandelson’s appointment, as one or two others over the years have done, fell into that category.

To answer the other part of your question, he did not hold national security vetting when he was appointed, but, as is normally the case with external appointments to my Department and the wider civil service, the appointment was made subject to obtaining security clearance.

I think this is what MacMaster means when he says Robbins was "boxed in”. The procedure is different when a political appointment is made but civil servants are still bound by the rules which prevent them from disclosing certain information to ministers.

I don’t understand why we should be so shocked/surprised/alarmed/distressed etc over being lied to and deceived by our Government.

Hasn’t it always been that way?

Casdon 👍

GrannyGravy13

Casdon

Political prejudices cloud judgement, which is never more obvious than on this thread. This is a time for a cool head.

I am not sure that our current PM has a clear head is he just a nodding dog, under the control of the civil servants?

To not know what is going on with the most senior Ambassador appointment, is not acceptable.

(For what it s worth as a Conservative who is now politically homeless, I always said that if and when Boris `Johnson was found guilty of his alleged misdemeanours he should go, Truss was a disaster and should never have been PM. I liked Rishi Sunak but he was left with one almighty mess… )

I was talking about some people on Gransnet’s political prejudices not allowing them to see the wood for the trees GrannyGravy13, which doesn’t apply to your posts at all.

I’ve already said that in my opinion if the PM is culpable he should go. Ignorance is not a defence, but if he asked the question and was lied to that is an extremely serious indictment of the Foreign Office, and as I said before I am praying was not the case.

If Olly Robbins knew that his department had not told the PM that Mandelson had failed the scrutiny he should also go, whether he was in post at the time the scrutiny took place is irrelevant. We don’t know if he was a scapegoat, because we don’t know what he knew.

People defending Boris Johnson whilst condemning Keir Starmer is an example of muddle headed thinking at its very worst in my view. The punishment has to fit the crime - I don’t care who people like or don’t, when it comes down to it what matters is what they did, which I think is what you are saying too.

LizzieDrip

^I agree, but how can you be sacked for something that happened before you started in a position?^

Because GG, the vetting took place after Robbins had taken up his position:

“Lord Mandelson was announced as the UK's ambassador to the US in December 2024, before in-depth vetting had been carried out, and formally took up the role on 10 February 2025.”

Source: Chris Mason, BBC News

OK 👍

Another question, why did Keir Starmer announce PM’s appointment as Ambassador before he had been formally vetted, despite PM’s disastrous record of having been sacked twice from government positions and his know association with Epstein.

Although I do think that the extent of PM’s involvement with Epstein was downplayed by him.

I agree, but how can you be sacked for something that happened before you started in a position?

Because GG, the vetting took place after Robbins had taken up his position:

“Lord Mandelson was announced as the UK's ambassador to the US in December 2024, before in-depth vetting had been carried out, and formally took up the role on 10 February 2025.”

Source: Chris Mason, BBC News

Sarnia

MT62

Ladyleftfieldlover

The right wing press have had it in for Starmer from day one. It’s sad that people have such short memories of the 14 years of Tory misrule. It wasn’t just Johnson who was appallingly bad, don’t forget Truss, who still thinks she did no wrong. In these treacherous times for the world, Starmer is the only choice really to handle the shenanigans created by trump. Can you see Badenoch, or words fail me, Farage on the world stage?

I could see Badenoch on the world stage, but that’s not going to happen under the Tories.
She has way more personality than Starmer. Quicker, wittier than he could ever be.
I just love PMQS when she rips into to him week after week, Starmer just doesn’t have it in him to answer her questions. I feel embarrassed for him.
High light of my week 😂

I like her too. She has more fire in her belly than all the Labour Party put together. As Starmer is doing a one-man demolition job on their chances of being re-elected at the next GE, I sincerely hope the Tories gain momentum because the thought of Reform, Green, Restore etc trotting over the doorstep of No. 10 fills me with horror.

Blimey, and there was me thinking how p…s poor Badenoch is. Week after week she embarrasses herself with her mediocrity and failure to get the correct facts.

That is why it is highly unlikely that she will lead the Tories into the next election, in fact if there had been an obvious candidate, she would have been shoved out ages ago.

With regard to Starmer. If he is found culpable of knowingly employing Mandelson despite the fact that he failed the security vetting, then yes, he should consider his position. But it looks, at present, highly unlikely that Starmer did know. Those who are arguing that he should have known, obviously misunderstand the civil servants roll in government, and their task in much of the governments day to day work. All governments rely on their experience and expertise.

At the beginning of a new government, myriad decisions have to be made. This was one of hundreds. Relying on civil servants is what all governments do and will continue to do.

Of course the opposition is after Starmer’s blood - they have been from day one. It is remarkable how much strength of character he shows in the teeth of so much bile from the majority of the press.

the Prime Minister should have been informed only of the outcome of the appointment and vetting process ..... surely that means KS should have been informed that the outcome was that Mandaleson failed the vetting process?

So are we to assume that KS simply assumed he'd past?

This latest "scandal" couldn't have come at a worse time for Starmer. It's one scandal too many for Labour and follows far too many U turns; they haven't got enough time to turn things around before the May elections. I'm afraid he'll be toast.

LizzieDrip

Thanks Graphite. That’s very interesting and informative.

I agree, but how can you be sacked for something that happened before you started in a position?

Thanks Graphite. That’s very interesting and informative.

Graphite Sir `Keir Starmer announced PM’s appointment on 20th December, Olly Robbins didn’t take up his position until the following January…

How can you be expected to know actions taken if you are not involved?

Are you aware of the CRAG Act?

Vincent MacMaster writing in The Spectator.

(MacMaster is the pseudonym of a former Cabinet Office civil servant.)

The law provides us with some guidance. Section 3 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 assigns the power to manage the civil service to ‘the Minister for the Civil Service’ who is, both by convention and presently, the Prime Minister. Conversely, the Act assigns the power to manage the diplomatic service to the Secretary of State (that is, the Foreign Secretary), and expressly says that this includes the power to make appointments to the diplomatic service. The Foreign Secretary, not the Prime Minister, is thus the relevant appointing authority for the diplomatic service. The Prime Minister clearly has political influence, and in practice may be consulted on or even politically try and direct major appointments, but he has no formal legal role in the selection of ambassadors.

The Act also says that the management powers over both the home civil service and the diplomatic service do not cover national security vetting. Vetting sits outside the ordinary management power. A diplomatic appointment and a vetting decision are legally distinct things. Official vetting guidance likewise treats national security vetting as a separate process from the appointment itself.

Final decisions on difficult vetting questions and any waiver process ordinarily rest at permanent secretary level. That strongly implies the probability that Sir Olly Robbins, the Permanent Secretary at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, authorised Mandelson’s clearance. A letter sent jointly by Robbins and Yvette Cooper to the Foreign Affairs select committee on 16 September last year seems to imply this by stating that ‘the [vetting] process is also independent of ministers who are not informed of any findings other than the final outcome’.

On the legal front, therefore, it seems correct to say that the Prime Minister should have been informed only of the outcome of the appointment and vetting process conducted within the Foreign Office, not treated as a formal decision-maker himself. The official vetting process also appears to mandate that ministers not be told anything about vetting other than the final decision.

This is potentially the true scandal of this entire affair: the process as outlined by Sir Olly in his letter to the Foreign Affairs committee requires that he alone bear the responsibility for overturning the findings of the security vetting procedure. He is notionally forbidden from informing ministers of anything other than the final outcome which, taken literally, would prohibit him from revealing that he overruled the security services’ determination.

It is very clear in retrospect that Robbins should not have reached the judgment he did. But it is worth readers and politicians alike reflecting on how appropriate it is that an unelected career bureaucracy is expected to make such monumental decisions with no democratic oversight. Sir Olly made a mistake, but it was a mistake he was effectively boxed into making by a system very clearly designed to keep ministers out of the decision-making chain.