What happens during security vetting and why did Peter Mandelson fail his?
After Keir Starmer announced Peter Mandelson as his pick to be ambassador to the US in December 2024, officials in the Foreign Office contacted him to organise the security vetting clearance process.As with almost all of the 8,000 officials working in the Foreign Office’s Whitehall headquarters, Mandelson required a level of clearance known as developed vetting(DV).This is necessary for individuals in roles that require frequent and uncontrolled access to material marked top secret.The vetting process is not carried out by the Foreign Office.It is done by security officials who work for United Kingdom Security Vetting (UKSV).
It has been mistakenly reported that such vetting is carried out by MI6.That is not the case.UKSV is an agency in the Cabinet Office and its vetting process is not to be confused with checks made before Mandelson’s appointment was announced, carried out by a separate propriety and ethics team.That due diligence process warned of a “general reputational risk” in appointing Mandelson in December 2024.Weeks later, in late January 2025, UKSV concluded that Mandelson should not receive DV, but the Foreign Office decided he could receive that security clearance, which was necessary for him to take up the role in Washington.
The reasons why Mandelson failed the UKSV process have not been made public and details of an individual’s DV results have never been disclosed publicly before,Here’s what we do know about the UKSV process,Some details are published by the government about the process,Applicants have to complete questionnaires on their use of the internet, their finances and any security considerations,Checks are made against security services systems.
Perhaps the most intense and intrusive section of the process is an hours-long interview with a security vetting officer, who will discuss a range of matters with the applicant,This could include their family, friends and associations, business relationships, sexual history, and alcohol and substance use,Questions are asked about travel, residences and citizenships,The overall process normally takes months, but departments are able to nominate a small percentage of applicants for an expedited process by putting their candidate at the top of the queue,This appears to have happened with Mandelson.
The outcomes of the process include clearance being granted, clearance being granted with caveats and restrictions, or clearance being denied.In Mandelson’s case, clearance was denied.The process is all about managing risks.Applicants are told it is “vital to be open and honest throughout”, even about embarrassing material.Two types of risk are considered.
The first is of blackmail or coercion, some hidden information that could be leveraged against the person to force them to release sensitive material.The second is that the applicant is engaged in risky activities that could lead to them divulging sensitive information.Security clearance can be withdrawn at any time if conduct, personal behaviour or other personal circumstances cast doubt on an individual’s reliability.In Mandelson’s case, however, even though UKSV advised he should not be given clearance, the Foreign Office appears to have decided any risks that were identified could be managed and that he could take the role in Washington.Days after Mandelson failed the UKSV process, the Foreign Office told him the role in Washington required an additional level of clearance, called DV+STRAP.
This would require a new application to be made.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.Given UKSV’s conclusion that Mandelson did not clear the barrier of DV, for him to receive an additional level of clearance would be extraordinary.
Documents that may address this question are expected to be reviewed by the intelligence and security committee of parliament, which will face pressure to release them to the public.
Olly Robbins and Mandelson’s vetting: what did he do, why – and who knew?
Fiddling with his reading glasses, the then cabinet secretary, Sir Chris Wormald – sitting alongside the most senior civil servant in the Foreign Office, Sir Olly Robbins – suddenly appeared a little tense.The bonhomie evident in earlier answers had quite disappeared.It was 3 November 2025, and Peter Mandelson had been removed from his post as ambassador to the US two months earlier, after the disclosure of Jeffrey Epstein’s emails.MPs on the cross-party foreign affairs select committee were grilling the most senior civil servants involved in Mandelson’s appointment about the vetting and due diligence.Just over an hour in, Fleur Anderson, the MP for Putney, asked what can now be seen as a crucial question about the process: “In general, what is the end product of all that vetting? Does it all get put into one report? Who receives that report?”“The report is received by the employing department and employing line manager – in this case, that would be Sir Oliver,” Wormald responded, looking to his left towards Robbins
Five unanswered questions on Keir Starmer’s Mandelson debacle
Downing Street has tried to do a lot of explaining, as has Keir Starmer himself. But there are still plenty of things we do not know about how Peter Mandelson failed security vetting, and what the prime minister did or did not know about it.A fairly key question. Downing Street is clear: it is “staggering” that Mandelson failed vetting, and that the Foreign Office not only overruled this but told no one in No 10.However, Ciaran Martin, a former top civil servant with past involvement in vetting work – and a close friend of the ousted Olly Robbins – said this was an oversimplification
‘Almost like a Bond villain’: why Labour MPs expect Starmer to cling on as PM
It still feels improbable that the UK prime minister, Keir Starmer, will face a formal challenge even if, as assumed, his Labour party performs disastrously in next month’s local elections. But for many of his MPs, the latest revelations about Peter Mandelson have emphasised that the question is simply one of when, not if.“It does seems incredible that he didn’t know, but the problem is that it’s quite possible as well,” was the summary of one backbencher, in response to No 10’s insistence that no one had told the prime minister that his pick to be the UK ambassador to Washington had failed his security vetting.Some MPs believe the Mandelson vetting fiasco could be terminally damaging for a prime minister who, as one said, had painted himself as “whiter than white”. “I can’t see how he survives this,” one said
Starmer says it is ‘staggering’ and ‘unforgivable’ he was not told Mandelson failed vetting – as it happened
The prime minister has spoken to reporters in Paris this morning, saying it is “unforgivable” and “staggering” he wasn’t told Peter Mandelson was denied security clearance.He said:double quotation markThat I wasn’t told that he’d failed security vetting when I was telling parliament that due process had been followed is unforgivable.Not only was I not told, no minister was told and I’m absolutely furious about it.Keir Starmer added:double quotation markIt is totally unacceptable that the prime minister making an appointment is not told that security vetting has been failed.He added he will “set out all the relevant facts in true transparency” to parliament on Monday
Peter Mandelson’s failed security vetting: a timeline of the controversy
Keir Starmer is facing calls to resign after the Guardian revealed that Peter Mandelson failed the developed vetting process over his appointment as US ambassador – but was able to take up the post after the Foreign Office overruled the recommendation.Here is the timeline of Mandelson’s controversial appointment and the fallout it has caused.Labour wins a landslide election victory engineered by Mandelson’s protege Morgan McSweeney, of whom Mandelson once said: “I don’t know who and how and when he was invented. But whoever it was, they will find their place in heaven.” Mandelson said the election win was “an extraordinary achievement for Keir Starmer and his team”
More than half of Britons support rejoining EU 10 years on from Brexit vote
Support for rejoining the EU rather than simply rejoining the single market is growing among British voters, with more than 80% of Labour, Liberal Democrat and Green party supporters favouring this option, according to research mapping voter attitudes 10 years after the Brexit referendum.Labour’s “muted” approach to the issue means it risks losing support among progressive voters and in “red wall” constituencies, experts have said as part of research by Best for Britain.While 61% of all voters supported the government’s current approach to EU relations, only 19% did so “strongly”, the research showed.A full return to the EU was supported by 53% of all voters with support at 83% among Labour voters, 84% Liberal Democrat and 82% Green, the polling found.Of Conservative and Reform voters, 39% and 18% backed the policy respectively, Best for Britain found
How to turn old bread into a brilliant Italian cake – recipe | Waste not
Roast chicken, cheesy scones and a genius cocktail: Ravinder Bhogal’s recipes for cooking with lime pickle
Vegemite is recognised globally – but how many people know Milo was invented in Australia?
What can I do with leftover rice? | Kitchen aide
José Pizarro’s recipe for nettle (or wild garlic) and goat’s cheese tortilla
Gone from shop shelves, but not forgotten | Letters