Ministers are currently facing intensified bipartisan scrutiny in Parliament regarding the absence of certain documents from a recent 1,500-page release concerning Peter Mandelson’s appointment as the ambassador to Washington.
While a substantial amount of information was disclosed on Monday, key documents were withheld at the request of the Metropolitan Police, who argued that their release could “potentially prejudice” an ongoing investigation. Among the withheld materials is a summary of the vetting process, which ultimately resulted in officials recommending that Mandelson not receive security clearance.
Government officials stated they could not disclose when the police deemed the vetting summary pertinent to their inquiry. This document had already undergone review and redaction by members of the intelligence and security committee in Parliament.
During a general discussion about the government’s release of these documents, MPs expressed surprise over the lack of documentation that would outline the security measures necessary to address concerns raised by vetting officials, whose advice was ultimately disregarded by the Foreign Office.
Sources informed the Guardian that the vetting summary highlighted concerns regarding Mandelson’s connections with China’s finance minister, Lan Fo’an, sanctioned Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska, and former Israeli military intelligence general Tamir Hayman.
Emily Thornberry, the Labour chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee, indicated that she had anticipated finding records detailing the mitigations needed to address the identified risks. She remarked, “How do we bridge that gap? The only way that gap is bridged is by mitigations. And so, I spend my time looking for mitigations. And I can’t find any.”
Thornberry noted the absence of an “aide memoire” prepared by Ian Collard, the Foreign Office security chief, who reviewed the vetting file in September 2025 after Mandelson’s dismissal. Documents reveal that the Foreign Office security team sought access to the vetting file just four days after Collard briefed Downing Street on the vetting process, without mentioning that vetting officials had recommended against granting clearance.
Thornberry further suggested that the released documents indicated that Keir Starmer had “subcontracted” the decision to appoint Mandelson. She stated, “The mistake and criticism one can level at the prime minister is that he delegated and did not watch sufficiently what was going on. Essentially giving power to others who then abused it.”
Members of Parliament also pointed out the absence of Mandelson’s declaration of interest form, which has been withheld by the police along with photos, videos, voice memos, and documents linked to official emails.
Alex Burghart, representing the Conservative frontbench, called for clarification, suggesting that the missing attachments may have “accidentally fallen out of the full disclosure.” Meanwhile, members of the intelligence and security committee highlighted a parliamentary motion that mandated the release of “all papers” relevant to Mandelson’s appointment.
Nick Thomas-Symonds, the paymaster general, asserted that the government had fully complied with Parliament’s motion in what he characterized as an “official-led process,” which adhered to existing precedents, data protection laws, and ministerial protocols.
The debate also included a statement from Alex Davies-Jones, who resigned as justice minister in May. Davies-Jones urged the Prime Minister to meet with survivors of sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. She read a statement from Lisa Phillips, a former model, who expressed confusion over Mandelson’s appointment in light of his known association with Epstein. Phillips stated, “For survivors, this raises serious questions about whether the lessons of the Epstein scandal have truly been learned. I have repeatedly requested the opportunity to meet with the prime minister but those requests have all been ignored. Must I now wait for the next prime minister to acknowledge me and my survivor sisters?”
