The key questions Keir Starmer must answer over Mandelson appointment

How much did Starmer know about vetting issues with his pick for US ambassador?

The appointment of Peter Mandelson as US ambassador was known to be risky. Mandelson, who was nicknamed the “prince of darkness”, had been forced to resign twice as a Labour minister. His links to the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein were public knowledge. As were his consultancy Global Counsel’s links to China. So on a basic level, the question is obvious: why did Starmer pick him?

The current crisis facing Downing Street stems from the Guardian’s revelation that United Kingdom Security Vetting (UKSV) said Mandelson should be declined “developed vetting” clearance in late January 2025, only for that advice to be overruled by the Foreign Office so he could take up the post. Starmer has said it was “unforgivable” and “staggering” that officials did not tell him Mandelson was denied UKSV clearance. But was the prime minister made aware there were problems with the vetting process?

It has been suggested, for example, that mitigations were put in place before Mandelson took up the post. To be clear, UKSV did not recommend mitigations or “risk management”, opting for straight “clearance denied”. But when deciding to give Mandelson clearance anyway, the Foreign Office could have put in place some restrictions to mitigate risk. If that happened, was Starmer aware? And if he was told that there were issues, why did he not demand to get to the bottom of them?

Were there issues with Mandelson’s STRAP clearance, and if so, was Starmer aware?

Days after the Foreign Office granted Mandelson “developed vetting” clearance, against the advice of security officials, the department told him the role in Washington required an even higher level of clearance, called DV+STRAP. STRAP clearance – or “indoctrination” – is required for access to documents even more sensitive than top secret, such as intelligence material. Such documents are reportedly printed on pink paper to visually identify them.

It is unclear whether or not Mandelson received STRAP clearance, but it is hard to see how he would perform his role without it. Did Mandelson get this top-level clearance? If so, how was that possible, given that he’d been denied the lower-level clearance by UKSV? And if Mandelson got STRAP clearance with mitigations put in place that affected his ability to do the role, for example by limiting his access to particular documents or areas of foreign policy, how did Starmer not know that?

Has Starmer now seen the UKSV document explaining why Mandelson should be denied vetting? And if so, will he set out the reasons?

Friends of Robbins have said he had a legal duty not to divulge the details of a highly intrusive vetting process. Ciaran Martin, a former senior civil servant, said: “Not only is there no duty to disclose the details of a vetting case, there is a duty not to disclose them.” Simon McDonald, a former permanent secretary of the Foreign Office, said vetting was a “confidential process”, citing the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010.

According to publicly available government documents, the process includes a questionnaire and interviews requiring disclosure of highly private information, including about personal finances, business connections and sexual history. Starmer is likely to be pressed on whether he has now seen the full details of why Mandelson failed his vetting. Assuming he now has the facts, what will Starmer now tell parliament abut the reasons why Mandelson was deemed a security risk?

Has the unredacted UKSV document now been sent to all members of the intelligence and security committee?

In February, a humble address vote in the Commons forced the government to order the release to the public of “all papers” relevant to Mandelson’s appointment. Under the terms of the motion, papers deemed prejudicial to national security or international relations should go to the parliamentary intelligence and security committee.

According to multiple sources, officials have been in dispute over whether to release the vetting documents to this committee. Starmer will be asked to explain why officials considered withholding these documents, in defiance of the humble address motion. Has the committee now been provided with the documents? If not, when will that happen? And does the prime minister now think there’s a case for the public to know what’s in them?

Why did senior civil servants fail to correct Starmer after he misled parliament over Mandelson’s vetting?

In February, Starmer told journalists: “Security vetting, carried out independently by the security services, which is an intensive exercise that gave him clearance for the role. You have to go through that before you take up the post. Clearly both the due diligence and the security vetting need to be looked at again.”

He also told the Commons: “Full due process was followed during this appointment, as it is with all ambassadors.”

Why did no official tell Starmer that he had misled parliament, either at the time or subsequently when they found out that Mandelson had failed vetting? The Guardian has revealed that the cabinet secretary, Antonia Romeo, and the Cabinet Office’s permanent secretary, Catherine Little, have both known about this since March. Starmer must explain why they, and others, did not tell him earlier – and why he did not sufficiently check that what he was claiming about the vetting was true.

Why did Starmer fail to correct the parliamentary record as soon as he found out?

If, as it is claimed, Starmer only discovered that Mandelson failed vetting on Tuesday night, why did he not set the record straight at the earliest opportunity? Starmer could have informed parliament on Wednesday during prime minister’s questions that he may have inadvertently misled the house about Mandelson’s vetting. But he said nothing on the issue, and will be pressed to explain why.

Why has Starmer failed to take responsibility for Mandelson’s appointment?

The appointment of Mandelson has led to the resignation of Starmer’s chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, and the firing of Robbins. Starmer is being accused by opposition leaders of trying to blame others for a decision that was ultimately his responsibility. And frustrated civil servants think he has tried to throw Robbins under a bus over the row. He will need to provide a convincing answer to these charges, both to settle his own exasperated MPs and his disgruntled officials.