The note, which was included with papers relating to Mandelson’s appointment released on March 11, throws additional light on how Starmer approached questions about Mandelson. The episode has already cost Mandelson, the PM’s chief of staff and the head of the foreign office their jobs and Starmer is facing calls to resign over his handling of the scandal.
At the center of the crisis for the government is the issue of whether Starmer took enough care to make sure Mandelson — a known friend of the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein — was a suitable person to be U.K. ambassador to the United States.
No. 10 said Starmer had already addressed the question, telling Parliament on Wednesday that the “normal” process — in which security vetting takes place after the appointment is made but before a person takes up the post — had been followed.
Starmer sacked foreign office boss Olly Robbins last week, blaming him for not revealing that the government’s security vetting office had recommended Mandelson should not be given clearance to access highly sensitive intelligence files and other secret material. Starmer has said that if he had known this, he would never have appointed Mandelson to the role.
A note included in the same public release shows that the Cabinet Secretary at the time, Simon Case, told Starmer in November 2024 that “security clearances” should be sought before appointing a new ambassador from outside the civil service, like the former minister Mandelson.
In response, Starmer has insisted that the normal process was followed, and that it was typical for an appointment like Mandelson’s to be made before these clearances were granted.
