WASHINGTON — Keir Starmer appointed Peter Mandelson as the United Kingdom’s ambassador to Washington and later sacked him after U.S. documents revealed the depth of his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein, the disgraced financier and convicted sex offender. The UK’s vetting agency concluded that Mandelson should be denied security clearance due to his associations with senior figures in China, Russia, and Israel.
Government documents about Mandelson’s appointment contain no record of measures taken to mitigate the serious security concerns raised during his vetting process. Multiple sources who have seen or been briefed on the files say there is no detail about any steps put in place to address flags related to his foreign associations. Mandelson was not asked to take any steps himself to allay those concerns.
However, several officials have presented conflicting accounts regarding the existence of security mitigations. Olly Robbins, a former top Foreign Office official, told the foreign affairs select committee in April that clearance could be approved if the “risks identified as of highest concern by UKSV could be managed and/or mitigated.” He stated that an email from Ian Collard, the Foreign Office’s head of security, recorded “the ways in which we would manage” Mandelson’s clearance and “the mitigations.” Cat Little, the top official overseeing the release of documents in response to a parliamentary humble address, told MPs she had seen an email that “sets out the decision to grant DV and some mitigations.” Collard, through a Foreign Office letter, confirmed he had sent an email “recording the fact of the decision (but not any of the underlying discussions or reasons for doing so) and mitigations.”
Despite these assertions, multiple sources said that whatever emails were sent, none included any formal agreement with Mandelson regarding security mitigations.
More than 1,000 pages of government documents relating to Mandelson’s appointment are being published following the parliamentary request. Some documents are being withheld because they could be used by the Metropolitan Police in a potential future prosecution. The released materials do not include a nine-page summary compiled by UK Security Vetting at Scotland Yard’s request. Mandelson declined to comment.