Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch accused the prime minister of misleading the House of Commons on Apr. 16, following reports that Lord Mandelson failed his security vetting for the role of US ambassador but was still appointed after an intervention by the Foreign Office.
The issue is significant as it raises questions about government transparency and adherence to proper procedures in high-level appointments. The Ministerial Code states that ministers who knowingly mislead Parliament are expected to resign.
According to The Guardian, Lord Mandelson was initially denied clearance in late January 2025 after a developed vetting process. However, the Foreign Office reportedly overruled this decision so he could take up his post as ambassador. During Prime Minister’s Questions on Sept. 10, 2025, Sir Keir Starmer said three times that “full due process” had been followed for the appointment.
Badenoch referenced these comments and said: “We now know the prime minister misled the House. The prime minister must take responsibility.” Other political leaders also called for Starmer’s resignation if he had lied about Mandelson’s clearance. Reform UK leader Nigel Farage said: “Keir Starmer said in February that the security services had given Mandelson ‘clearance for the role’. Now we discover that he has blatantly lied, the prime minister should resign.” Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey stated: “Keir Starmer had already made a catastrophic error of judgement. Now it looks as though he has also misled Parliament and lied to the British public. If that is the case, he must go.” Green Party MP Sian Berry added: “Keir Starmer has lied and lied again over his decision to appoint Peter Mandelson and he must resign,” continuing, “He has tried to blame the vetting process, when in fact it is reported that a decision was taken to ignore a failed vetting.”
Sir Keir responded at a press conference on Feb. 5 in Hastings by saying that “security vetting carried out independently by the security services… gave [Lord Mandelson] clearance for the role.” It remains unclear whether Starmer knew about any lack of approval from security officials or who within government made decisions regarding overriding standard procedures.
The BBC understands Lord Mandelson only learned about concerns raised during his vetting after The Guardian article was published and no one informed him directly during or after his interview process.
