Sir Keir Starmer is facing renewed scrutiny over whether he misled MPs when he insisted that “due process” around vetting Lord Peter Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador was followed despite being warned about steps being rushed. Former Cabinet secretary Simon Case told the Prime Minister that Mandelson should face “necessary
Mauricio Alencar
Monday 20 April 2026 2:29 pm | Updated: Monday 20 April 2026 2:30 pm
Sir Keir Starmer is facing renewed scrutiny over whether he misled MPs when he insisted that “due process” around vetting Lord Peter Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador was followed despite being warned about steps being rushed.
Former Cabinet secretary Simon Case told the Prime Minister that Mandelson should face “necessary security clearances” before being confirmed as the UK’s ambassador in Washington.
Papers also revealed that Starmer’s national security adviser Jonathan Powell felt the appointment was “weirdly rushed” while questions have also emerged over whether Starmer should have personally asked for details around whether Mandelson passed his security vetting.
Number 10 has insisted that Starmer did not know that the Foreign Office could overturn a failure by vetting services. This is the basis of Starmer’s reason for sacking Sir Olly Robbins, the former head of the department.
On Monday morning, Starmer’s spokesman appeared to suggest that the Prime Minister now concedes he misled parliament on the vetting process, though emphasises that he did not deliberately do so.
#mc_embed_signup { background: #fff; clear: left; font: 14px Helvetica, Arial,sans-serif; width: 100%; max-width: 600px; margin: 20px 0; } #mc-embedded-subscribe-form { margin: 20px 0 !important; } .newsletter-form-flex { display: flex; gap: 0; align-items: center; margin-top: -10px; } .newsletter-form-flex input[type=”email”] { flex: 1; padding: 2px 10px; border: 1px solid rgb(18, 22, 23) !important; border-radius: 12px 0 0 12px !important; } .newsletter-form-flex input[type=”submit”] { padding: 4px 10px !important; margin: 0 !important; background-color: rgb(18, 22, 23) !important; color: rgb(255, 255, 255) !important; border: 1px solid rgb(18, 22, 23) !important; border-radius: 0 12px 12px 0 !important; } .newsletter-banner-content { margin-bottom: 15px; } .newsletter-banner-content h2 { margin: 0 0 10px 0; font-size: 18px; font-weight: 600; } .newsletter-banner-content p { margin: 0 0 10px 0; line-height: 1.5; } .newsletter-banner-content ul, .newsletter-banner-content ol { margin: 0 0 10px 20px; } .newsletter-banner-content a { color: #0073aa; text-decoration: none; } .newsletter-banner-content a:hover { text-decoration: underline; } .newsletter-banner-content img { max-width: 100%; height: auto; margin: 10px 0; } #mc_embed_signup #mce-success-response { color: #0356a5; display: none; margin: 0 0 10px; width: 100%; } #mc_embed_signup div#mce-responses { float: left; top: -1.4em; padding: 0; overflow: hidden; width: 100%; margin: 0; clear: both; }
“The prime minister would never knowingly mislead parliament or the public,” the spokesman said.
“He’s clear, though, that this information should have been provided to Parliament. It should have been provided to him, it should have been provided to other government ministers.”
Starmer decries ‘staggering’ Whitehall decision
The debacle around Mandelson hinges on whether the bureaucratic procedures within government were followed. The former US ambassador was first subject to a due diligence report by civil servants based on publicly available information while a separate branch of the Cabinet Office later conducted a security vetting process.
Read more ‘Cover up’: Starmer blames vetting amid process questions on Mandelson
This second critical vetting process was completed after Mandelson was already in his post in Washington DC. The Guardian reported last week that he failed the security vetting, with ministers stating in the last few days that they were never made aware of its details.
Case’s advice on the appointment process will raise questions over whether Starmer’s team attempted to fast-track the appointment. Some civil servants have defended Robbins’ apparent decision to allow Mandelson to stay in his job despite vetting alerts being flagged.
Robbins has reportedly consulted legal advisers over the terms of his sacking.
The government separately published a document suggesting that the law did not prevent him from informing Starmer about the security vetting process. Former deputy prime minister and current justice secretary David Lammy said Starmer would not have kept Mandelson in his position if he had known about the result of the security vetting.
“Taking a step back, I think anybody who’s been following this case or indeed any case would find it completely staggering that no ministers, the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, were informed that the UK Security vetting had recommended against approving Peter Mandelson,” the Prime Minister’s spokesman said.
Robbins will appear before an MP committee to speak about the Whitehall crisis on Tuesday.
Tory leader Kemi Badenoch said: “This has been a tawdry and shaming affair for you and your party, and for this country.
“Not only have you damaged our relationship with the United States and insulted the victims of the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, but you have also undermined our national security by giving the highest diplomatic post to an individual that the security services found to be of ‘high concern’.”
Read more Starmer would have blocked Mandelson ambassador role, says Lammy
Similarly tagged content: Sections Categories People & Organisations
