All the unanswered questions over the Mandelson vetting scandal

Sir Keir Starmer is facing “doomsday” as he prepares to face a debate in the House of Commons over the latest revelations about the Peter Mandelson scandal.

The prime minister will inform MPs after it was revealed that Mandelson had been appointed as the US ambassador, despite the security services not recommending that he be given a security clearance.

Downing Street accused Foreign Office officials of failing to warn the prime minister about the issue, choosing instead to override the advice and grant Mandelson enhanced review status.

But critics accused No 10 of a ‘cover-up’ after it was revealed Independent He claimed his former Labor colleague had failed to scrutinize at Downing Street seven months ago.

Here are some of the unanswered questions Sir Keir will face as he prepares to address MPs:

Why did Mandelson fail the review?

Full details of why the UK Security Review (UKSV) recommended against the appointment of Peter Mandelson as Britain’s ambassador to the US have not been revealed.

Enhanced vetting is used by the State Department for the most senior individuals and subjects them to very in-depth scrutiny. Applicants must go through an extensive process that includes a questionnaire, character references, financial background checks and an in-depth interview with an examiner.

Those who have gone through the previously developed review process have noted that it is deeply personal and the details of why it failed the process are unlikely to be made public.

There are several reasons why a person may fail an examination. These included dishonesty during the process or issues arising that could call their suitability for the role into question.

The reasons behind Lord Mandelson’s failed investigation were not disclosed.

The politician’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein had likely weakened during the process, but the depth of his connection to the late financier may not be clear given that his appointment preceded the release of the extensive Epstein files.

Lord Mandelson had connections to both Russia and China through his various business interests. After taking on the role of US ambassador, he was forced to step back from his role at Global Counsel, a company he co-founded and whose clients include Chinese brands Shein and TikTok.

Who knew Mandelson failed the review?

The vetting was carried out by UKSV in a separate process to those carried out by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Cabinet Office.

According to the government, Foreign Office officials decided to invoke a rarely used power to override UKSV’s decision to refuse Lord Mandelson permission.

Downing Street has repeatedly denied that anyone at No 10 or any minister was made aware of the concerns raised by UKSV, and as a result last week it sacked the Foreign Office’s most senior civil servant, Sir Olly Robbins.

In the statement made on Sunday night by No 10, it was stated that although civil servants make investigation and permission decisions instead of ministers, there is nothing in the law to prevent ministers from being informed.

But last week it turned out that Independent No 10 has been approached over allegations that Lord Mandelson failed to complete his security clearance so long ago that he was sacked from his post as US ambassador last September.

How could ‘full due process’ have been followed if Mandelson had been given leave despite the failure of the investigation?

Sir Keir Starmer told the House of Commons that “full due process” had been followed when it came to his vetting and appointment of Mandelson as US ambassador.

Asked last September whether Mandelson had failed the review, No 10 said: Independent: “Review by FCDO [Foreign and Commonwealth Office] normally”.

The process of appointing a political ambassador at the time meant that the government was able to announce the appointee before they were vetted.

This also allowed government departments to override security service recommendations to be allowed onto the island, as was done in this case.

Did the Prime Minister lie to the Parliament?

The question of whether Sir Keir misled MPs about the appointment made by the political opposition is likely to be a key question he faces on Monday.

Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch said of X: “Last September, Keir Starmer told Parliament three times that ‘full due process’ had been followed in appointing Lord Mandelson. We now know that the prime minister misled the House.”

He was also criticized for waiting until Monday to address MPs despite appearing in the House of Commons for a regular question session on Wednesday.

But the prime minister’s allies insisted Monday was the first opportunity Mandelson had to explain all the facts to Parliament because he was unaware of the review failures laid out by UKSV.

As recently as February, Sir Keir told a press conference in Hastings that an independently conducted security review by the security services had given Mandelson “clearance for duty”.

“You should review this before taking over,” he said. “Clearly, both due diligence and vetting need to be revisited.”

But the claim comes months after journalists told Number 10 that sources claimed this was not the case.

What is Starmer’s relationship with Whitehall now?

Sir Keir’s government now faces a conflict with the Civil Service as Sir Olly is the latest person to be sacked over Mandelson’s ill-considered appointment.

Whitehall figures and Sir Olly’s allies have moved to defend the sacked officer and attacked Sir Keir for the attack, which was deemed as “throwing him under the bus”.

Whitehall veteran Sir Olly is expected to give his own account to MPs at the Foreign Affairs Committee on Tuesday.

Lord Simon McDonald, the former permanent secretary at the Foreign Office, said Sir Olly was a “scalp” for No 10 and added: “I think this is the biggest crisis since I joined the diplomatic service in 1982.”

Lord McDonald was asked on the BBC whether he thought Sir Olly had been “thrown under the bus”.

He replied: “Yes. This story appeared as a story in The Guardian on Thursday morning – in the news cycle Olly Robbins had to resign.

“This suggests to me that No 10 wants scalps and they want it quickly and I can’t see there being any process, fairness or any process that gives him the chance to put his case forward and that seems wrong to me.”