Why did Lord Mandelson fail his vetting for US ambassador role?

Sir Keir Starmer faces a showdown in the House of Commons on Monday afternoon after it was revealed last week that Peter Mandelson had failed the critical security review for his appointment as US ambassador but was nevertheless given the role after intervention by the Foreign Office.

The Prime Minister had already announced that Lord Mandelson would be sent to Washington when critical leave was refused, but the government admitted that the Foreign Office had taken the rare step of overriding that advice.

The prime minister was accused of misleading parliament about the appointment, leading to calls for his resignation.

No 10 insisted it was unaware of the failed review until last week. Independent In September he revealed concerns that Lord Mandelson had failed MI6 checks, concerns about his business links to China and fears that his past contacts with Epstein would “put him at risk”.

The government accepted that officials at the Foreign Office had rejected the advice, but Downing Street claimed that senior Foreign Office civil servant Olly Robbins had failed to report security concerns to authorities, leading to his dismissal.

nevertheless Independent Putting the same concerns 10th on the same day that Lord Mandelson was sacked on September 11 for his links to Jeffrey Epstein.

A government spokesman said: “Until earlier this week, neither the prime minister nor any government minister was aware that Peter Mandelson had been given an Enhanced Review against the recommendation of the UK Security Review.

“Once the Prime Minister was briefed, he immediately instructed officials to establish the facts of why Enhanced Scrutiny had been granted in order to put in place plans to update the House of Commons.”

Why did Lord Mandelson fail the review?

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.

Official government guidance states that this conversation “may be intrusive and some people may feel distressed or triggered”. It may last several hours and cover topics such as sexual history, internet use, lifestyle and beliefs.

Instead of a simple pass or fail, some people may be let in with warnings, but most applicants pass.

The veteran politician’s relationship with 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.

Decades of email exchanges between the pair appear to indicate a long, wide-ranging and cordial relationship, including during Lord Mandelson’s time as business secretary in Gordon Brown’s Labor government.

The messages suggest the former minister may have shared internal cabinet dealings with Epstein and given him important updates before they were announced. He was later arrested in February on suspicion of abuse of public office and a police investigation is ongoing.

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

Security officials in the Cabinet Office have previously raised concerns about the peer’s former role as a non-executive director at Sistema, which is a shareholder in defense firm RTI. The report noted that RTI produced technology “for Russia’s land-based missile early warning system” and stated that the chairman of Sistema was a “Putin ally”.

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. No 10 did not explain why Lord Mandelson failed the process and did not indicate that he intended to do so.

More documents relating to the former Labor counterpart’s appointment are due to be released in the coming months as part of a parliamentary inquiry into the scandal.