Inside No10 as ‘furious’ Starmer sacks official and orders probe into Mandelson vetting
Explosive revelations that Peter Mandelson failed his security vetting but was still handed the top Washington job anyway have plunged Downing Street into crisis
Keir Starmer appointed Peter Mandelson as ambassador to Washington despite his ties to Jeffrey Epstein(Image: PA)
Keir Starmer is once again under fire over his fateful decision to name Peter Mandelson as US ambassador.
Explosive revelations that the ex-Labour peer failed his security vetting but still got the top Washington job anyway have plunged Downing Street into crisis.
A No10 insider said the Prime Minister was “absolutely livid”, as sources insisted he had not been told that Foreign Office officials overruled a vetting agency to allow Lord Mandelson to take up the role. He sacked top mandarin Sir Olly Robbins tonight, after losing confidence in him, the Mirror understands.
Mr Starmer is understood to have ordered a probe after he found out on Tuesday that Lord Mandelson was initially denied security clearance in January 2025 after going through developed vetting, a top-secret background check done by UK Security Vetting (UKSV).
READ MORE: Government ADMITS Mandelson failed security vetting – but says Starmer not awareREAD MORE: Keir Starmer makes ‘far-fetched’ claim after Morgan McSweeney phone stolen
The bombshell was uncovered by officials trawling through the so-called Mandelson files – tens of thousands of documents relating to his appointment that MPs have forced the Government to publish. The furious PM knew he’d have to update Parliament – but his plans were upended when the news got out.
After a two-hour vacuum, No10 put out a statement saying the PM and his ministers were in the dark and an explosive blame game began.
Downing Street pointed the finger at the Foreign Office, saying officials took the decision, and the PM and other Government ministers weren’t told. The Foreign Office said it was “working urgently” to comply with the PM’s order to get to the facts – and to find out who made the decision to overrule security officials, and why.
It raises difficult questions for top Foreign Office mandarin Oliver Robbins and Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper, who wasn’t in post at the time but has been landed with the fallout. In a letter to the Foreign Affairs Committee, they said: “Peter Mandelson’s security vetting was conducted to the usual standard set for developed vetting in line with established Cabinet Office policy.”
Mr Starmer is expected to give a statement to Parliament, which could come as soon as Monday, where he is likely to face a barrage of difficult questions.
In uncomfortable echoes of Boris Johnson, who misled Parliament with his Partygate denials, Mr Starmer will also have to convince MPs he didn’t knowingly mislead them when he said the “full due process” had been followed. He went further in a press conference in February, saying “intensive” security vetting had been done that “gave him clearance for the role.”
Opposition parties have been calling on the Prime Minister to resign if he misled Parliament and the public.
A Labour MP said: “This is really bad in my opinion. Sounds like the PM may have misled the House too. Which only means one thing right?!”
One backbencher told the Mirror they were too shocked to comment, while another said: “Good luck explaining this away Keir.”
A fourth MP said: “If heads don’t roll at FO[Foreign Office] in the next 24 hours it gets harder to survive this. PLP [Parliamentary Labour Party] wont be satisfied until PM has explained how the security services had refused one of his biggest appointments and he ‘didn’t know.”
The PM has already said he regrets appointing Lord Mandelson to the plum job in Washington after the extent of his ties to notorious paedophile Jeffrey Epstein became clear. His premiership nearly collapsed as questions were raised over his judgement.
Mr Starmer pulled it back from the brink and appeared to have steadied the ship – at least for the time being – as his handling of the Iran crisis won plaudits.
But the spectre of Lord Mandelson keeps on rearing its head. Who would have thought appointing someone nicknamed the Prince of Darkness could end so badly?
