UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer is facing mounting pressure and a top civil servant is to leave their post after it emerged the Foreign Office overruled a security vetting process to clear Peter Mandelson to become UK ambassador to the US.
Mr Starmer and Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper have lost confidence in Foreign Office permanent under-secretary Olly Robbins over the issue and he will be leaving the job, it is reported.
Security officials initially denied Mr Mandelson clearance, but Foreign Office officials took the rare step of overruling the recommendation.
The prime minister was not aware that the former Labour grandee was granted developed vetting against the advice of UK Security Vetting until earlier this week, the government has said.
He has instructed officials to establish the facts about why vetting was granted, and the Foreign Office earlier said it is "working urgently" to comply.
Downing Street sources say Mr Starmer is "absolutely furious".
Reports yesterday suggested he may make a statement in the Commons on Monday over the matter but Number 10 did not confirm if he would face MPs.
Mr Starmer is due to face the media alongside French President Emmanuel Macron as he co-hosts a summit on reopening the Strait of Hormuz in Paris, with the pair expected to make a joint statement in the afternoon.
David Lammy, who was foreign secretary when Mr Mandelson was appointed, also did not know the Foreign Office had overruled the vetting until yesterday afternoon, it is understood.
A report in The Guardian revealed that security officials initially denied the peer clearance but that the Foreign Office overruled the recommendation.
A government spokesperson later confirmed that "officials in the FCDO" had taken the decision to grant developed vetting against the recommendation.
Starmer's claims 'preposterous'
Mr Starmer has faced calls to stand down over the matter, with Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch calling it "preposterous" to claim he did not know Mr Mandelson failed security vetting.
She said: "If the prime minister doesn't know what’s happening in his own office, he shouldn’t be in charge of our country. He should go."
Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davey said Mr Starmer should have told Parliament, "at the earliest opportunity" when he learned what had happened earlier this week, rather than having "waited for the media to force the truth out".
The Green Party and Reform UK have also called for Mr Starmer to resign.
Mr Mandelson, a political appointment rather than a career diplomat, was sacked from his Washington role last September when more details emerged about his relationship with paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein, who died in 2019.
Mr Starmer has been under fire over the decision to give Mr Mandelson the job despite it being known that his dealings with Epstein continued after the financier’s conviction for child sex offences.
Questions over his judgement intensified after the first batch of documents related to the decision published last month showed that he was warned before announcing Mr Mandelson’s ambassadorship of a "general reputational risk" over his association with Epstein.
That warning stemmed from the first part of the checks, carried out by the Cabinet Office, which was based on information in the public domain at the time.
The second was the highly confidential background vetting by security officials, which followed the announcement but came before Mr Mandelson took up his role in February 2025.
Information unearthed in this process - including any concerns - is never shared with ministers, and the result is binary, either clearing the candidate or barring them.
More documents relating to his appointment are yet to be released at the behest of MPs.
Mr Starmer said in February that Mr Mandelson was cleared by security vetting, which he criticised for failing to disprove the former Labour grandee’s lies.
When Morgan McSweeney stepped down as Mr Starmer’s chief of staff in February, he took "full responsibility" for giving his boss advice that resulted in the "wrong" appointment decision, while also calling for the vetting process to be "fundamentally overhauled".
