A UK security vetting case is raising questions as key documents, including a vetting summary, a security chief's note, and a declaration of interest form, are missing from a released tranche. Concerns involve links to foreign officials and oligarchs, a large loan, and potential naivety.
Chief property and security officer Ian Collard set to submit written answers to foreign affairs committee questionsA key figure in the row over Peter Mandelson’s appointment as UK ambassador to Washington will not appear before a parliamentary committee of MPs to give evidence.Dame Emily Thornberry had requested that Ian Collard speak to the foreign affairs committee (FAC) on Tuesday, but confirmed on Saturday that he would submit written answers instead.Whether he felt under pressure to deliver Lord Mandelson’s clearance, after Sir Olly said there was an “atmosphere of pressure” and “constant chasing” from Downing Street.Whether he had seen the cover form for Lord Mandelson’s vetting by UK Security Vetting (UKSV), the agency responsible for checks on candidates for sensitive posts, in which it had ticked two red boxes – meaning they had “high concern” and recommended “clearance denied or withdrawn”.If he was asked by anyone in the Foreign Office, Downing Street or the Cabinet Office for advice about whether Lord Mandelson required vetting for the post given he was a member of the House of Lords.If he advised on how Lord Mandelson should be treated during the period between his appointment being announced and his clearance coming through. Continue reading...
Global Counsel, the lobbying firm co-founded by Peter Mandelson, collapsed in February owing £4.54m to creditors including £645,789 to HM Revenue and Customs. The firm's collapse on 20 February happened three days before Mandelson was arrested by police over allegations he passed sensitive information to Jeffrey Epstein. The firm had suffered a significant financial impact as customers cut ties amid pressure over its association with the former Labour minister and US ambassador.
Global Counsel, the lobbying firm co-founded by Peter Mandelson, collapsed owing £4.54m to creditors including £645,789 to HM Revenue and Customs. The London-based firm went into administration on 20 February 2026, three days before Mandelson was arrested over allegations he passed sensitive information to Jeffrey Epstein. The firm said it suffered significant financial impact after clients cut ties amid pressure over its association with the former Labour minister and US ambassador.
Keir Starmer dismissed claims of cabinet divisions over the Peter Mandelson vetting scandal and the sacking of Olly Robbins, emphasizing the government's focus on its agenda. Meanwhile, opposition MPs are calling for an inquiry into whether Starmer misled Parliament.
Cabinet Office permanent secretary Cat Little has accused former Foreign Office head Olly Robbins of refusing to hand over a vetting summary about Peter Mandelson's security clearance. Giving evidence to the Commons foreign affairs committee, Little said Robbins resisted her department seeing documents connected to Mandelson's appointment as UK ambassador to the US, despite her specific request. She disputed Robbins' claim that the Cabinet Office had suggested Mandelson might not need vetting, saying emails showed it was the Foreign Office that raised this possibility given his status as a member of the House of Lords.
In evidence to MPs, Cabinet Office top civil servant disputes that her department suggested vetting might not be neededUK politics live – latest updatesOlly Robbins refused to hand Peter Mandelson’s vetting summary to the Cabinet Office, the civil servant who leads the department has said.The summary – which would have revealed that Robbins, the now-sacked Foreign Office head, had granted Mandelson clearance against the advice of security officials – was instead provided to Cat Little by UK Security Vetting (UKSV), she said. Continue reading...
Cat Little testified that she delayed informing the Prime Minister about Peter Mandelson's vetting report to seek legal advice. The testimony highlights ongoing confusion regarding civil service procedures and communication between the Cabinet Office and Foreign Office.
Sir Olly Robbins faced parliamentary scrutiny over his decision to grant Peter Mandelson developed vetting clearance despite UK Security Vetting (UKSV) recommending denial in red. Robbins relied on oral briefing rather than viewing the actual vetting file, describing the case as "borderline". Former senior civil servants defended Robbins, but the testimony raised questions about the opacity of the vetting system and why risks potentially related to Jeffrey Epstein were apparently missed.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer has sacked senior Foreign Office civil servant Olly Robbins for failing to inform him that former US ambassador Peter Mandelson had not passed UK security vetting. The dismissal has sparked fury within Whitehall, with senior civil servants believing Robbins was sacked for doing what No 10 wanted by swiftly passing Mandelson through vetting and implementing mitigations. Former officials and unions have rallied behind Robbins, with the FDA union stating he did absolutely nothing wrong and was unjustifiably dismissed. The incident marks a new low in No 10-civil service relations following February's ousting of cabinet secretary Chris Wormald.
Fury erupts in Whitehall after Prime Minister Keir Starmer sacked senior Foreign Office civil servant Olly Robbins for failing to inform him that former US ambassador Peter Mandelson had not passed UK security vetting. Supporters of Robbins say he was sacked for doing exactly what No 10 wanted by swiftly passing Mandelson through vetting with mitigations. The dismissal has sparked warnings of a crisis in relations between ministers and civil servants, with senior officials questioning why they would take any risky action if they won't be protected by politicians.
Keir Starmer faces political crisis after it emerged Peter Mandelson failed UK security vetting before becoming US ambassador, yet the Foreign Office overruled the decision. Jonathan Freedland suggests the saga may ultimately cost Starmer his job, as he addressed MPs about the extraordinary powers used by officials.
MPs jeered as PM said it is ‘incredible’ he was not told full story and he was wrong to appoint Mandelson as US ambassadorAt his press conference Nigel Farage was asked about reports saying that Keir Starmer knew about the security concerns about Peter Mandelson that led to him failing his security vetting interview. That was a reference to the Telegraph splash, which says:Senior Whitehall sources told The Telegraph that the UKSV [UK Security Vetting] findings largely restated security risks that had already been drawn to Sir Keir’s attention.One senior source with knowledge of the process said: “The reality is that Starmer had already been warned about the major risks and he had waved them away.”Sources have told The Independent that MI6 failed to clear the Labour peer largely because of concerns over his business links to China.However, there were also worries that his past links to the disgraced financier and convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein “would compromise him”.It’s impossible for the prime minister to say the warning lights weren’t flashing.And if you were prime minister and there were news reports last September that your ambassadorial choice had failed vetting, you would have thought perhaps he might have had some curiosity to try to find out whether this had really happened or not. I just find the whole thing totally incredible. Incredible. There is no way the prime minister couldn’t have known.The Labour backbenchers are not yet of a mood to get rid of their prime minister, although after 7 May they just might be. Continue reading...
Keir Starmer told MPs he did not mislead the Commons over the Peter Mandelson vetting controversy, accepting that information should have been provided to Parliament but denying he lied. The Prime Minister survived a parliamentary session where Kemi Badenoch failed to table a no confidence motion. The controversy stems from Starmer's decision to appoint Mandelson despite concerns about his business record and friendship with Jeffrey Epstein, with claims that Olly Robbins used discretion to overrule the vetting recommendation. Critics argue the appointment was made because Mandelson was seen as a suitable interlocutor for Donald Trump.
Peter Mandelson, Britain's appointed ambassador to Washington, failed his developed vetting (DV) security clearance, with officials choosing to deny clearance. The Cabinet Office learned of the failure in March 2026 but Keir Starmer was not informed for several weeks. A humble address motion forced government to publish papers related to Mandelson's appointment, with vetting documents to be referred to the Intelligence and Security Committee.
A senior UK minister has criticised the Foreign Office for withholding information from senior ministers about a UKSV recommendation to deny Peter Mandelson development and clearance. The minister described it as beggaring belief that such information was not shared, stating it should have been available to Parliament and the British people.
PM tells MPs he was wrong to appoint Peter Mandelson ambassador to US in his update to parliament Judgment day for PM over Mandelson scandalAt his press conference Nigel Farage was asked about reports saying that Keir Starmer knew about the security concerns about Peter Mandelson that led to him failing his security vetting interview. That was a reference to the Telegraph splash, which says:Senior Whitehall sources told The Telegraph that the UKSV [UK Security Vetting] findings largely restated security risks that had already been drawn to Sir Keir’s attention.One senior source with knowledge of the process said: “The reality is that Starmer had already been warned about the major risks and he had waved them away.”Sources have told The Independent that MI6 failed to clear the Labour peer largely because of concerns over his business links to China.However, there were also worries that his past links to the disgraced financier and convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein “would compromise him”.It’s impossible for the prime minister to say the warning lights weren’t flashing.And if you were prime minister and there were news reports last September that your ambassadorial choice had failed vetting, you would have thought perhaps he might have had some curiosity to try to find out whether this had really happened or not. I just find the whole thing totally incredible. Incredible. There is no way the prime minister couldn’t have known.The Labour backbenchers are not yet of a mood to get rid of their prime minister, although after 7 May they just might be. Continue reading...
Downing Street has signalled that Keir Starmer accepts he inadvertently misled MPs by not telling them that Peter Mandelson failed his security vetting interview for ambassador to the US. The PM's spokesperson said parliament should have been given the information about the security vetting that led to a recommendation that Mandelson should not be approved, but Starmer did not knowingly mislead parliament. Under the ministerial code, only knowingly misleading parliament is a resignation offence.
Peter Mandelson, appointed as Britain's ambassador to Washington, failed his security vetting (developed vetting/DV) check, with officials choosing to deny clearance. The Cabinet Office learned of this in March 2026 but delayed informing Prime Minister Keir Starmer for several weeks while seeking legal advice. The revelation followed the release of Epstein Files documents which prompted Parliament to pass a rare 'humble address' motion forcing government to publish all papers related to Mandelson's appointment. Documents regarding Mandelson's vetting are set to be handed to the Intelligence and Security Committee, which will decide what can be made public.
Downing Street has signalled that Keir Starmer accepts he inadvertently misled MPs by not telling them that Peter Mandelson failed his security vetting interview for ambassador to the US. The PM's spokesperson said parliament should have been given this information, but Starmer did not knowingly mislead. Under the ministerial code, only knowingly misleading parliament is a resignation offence. Starmer will update parliament with the full facts. Meanwhile, Reform UK leader Nigel Farage claimed Starmer 'lied' and said Labour MPs may oust him after May election.
