Security Vetting

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Monday 20th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, this is a tortuous and, frankly, somewhat embarrassing Statement—stable door after stable door pushed shut long after the obvious national security risk had bolted through them. The Prime Minister is still answering questions on the Statement in the other place; it would surely have been better if it had been repeated here in prime time, at a time when your Lordships had had a chance to digest the Prime Minister’s words, the reactions to them, and the response of Sir Olly Robbins tomorrow. We made that reasonable request, and the Government rejected it. Will the noble Baroness, our Leader, give an assurance that, if asked, she will come back to this House tomorrow to answer questions on Sir Olly Robbins’s response to today’s account of events?

The noble Baroness must know what everybody knew—apart from, it seems, the Prime Minister—that Peter Mandelson was totally unsuitable to be our ambassador to the USA. The Statement’s repeated defence, as we have just heard, is that the Prime Minister would not have appointed Mandelson if he had known his vetting had failed. But you did not need vetting to see that Mandelson was a proven liar. You did not need vetting to see that he was twice forced to resign in disgrace from government. You did not need vetting to hear that he revelled in the company of what he called the “filthy rich”, from whatever dubious nation that might be. You did not need vetting to know that he was a known associate and defender of the convicted paedophile, Epstein. You did not need vetting or process—you needed gumption, judgment and common sense, and you cannot subcontract those things to a Whitehall committee. Was there no one at any stage in this who asked the simple question, “Is this wise?”

The Prime Minister says that Mandelson lied in the course of his vetting. Should we be surprised? Well, no, though it seems the Prime Minister was. That is the crux of the matter. What is absolutely staggering is the truly spectacular scale of the failure of judgment of the Prime Minister in appointing such a man. It embarrasses the Labour movement, which does not deserve to be embarrassed in such a way. No amount of casuistical argument, such as we have just heard, can efface that personal responsibility. One man picked Mandelson, one man pushed him, and the issue is not the “who knew what when” about Mandelson’s vetting, but what everybody knew about Mandelson before he was appointed, all of which the Prime Minister ignored.

This is a Prime Minister on his third Cabinet Secretary—three in under two years. A legion of advisers has been selected, then shoved out of No. 10 as scapegoats for some panic or crisis of confidence. Is not the truth that it is always someone else to blame? I valued the old conventions that Ministers took responsibility. Civil servants were rarely named in this place and never blamed. Whatever happened to those conventions? Why was an outstanding ambassador shoved out of Washington to make way for the likes of Mandelson? It is because the Prime Minister wanted it, and wanted it quick. Why was the Permanent Secretary at the Foreign Office, Sir Olly Robbins, sacked? It is because the Prime Minister wanted a scapegoat, and wanted it quick. Is not the fact of the matter that the Prime Minister wanted his man Mandelson, come hell or high water, and the Civil Service sought to accommodate his instructions?

Can the noble Baroness tell the House this: did Sir Olly Robbins act against the law, against the Civil Service Code or outside proper process in any way in enabling Mandelson to go forward, despite vetting advice? If so, will she tell the House his specific offences? If not, can she say on what grounds Sir Olly has been fairly dismissed?

The Prime Minister has admitted that he was aware that vetting had not been done on Mandelson when he named him. We know that the then Cabinet Secretary, the noble Lord, Lord Case, advised him to wait for that to be done. Why did the Prime Minister ignore that advice? Can the noble Baroness say whether the Prime Minister or No. 10 at any stage asked about the vetting and Mandelson’s links to China or Russia? Is it true that the National Security Adviser warned that the process was “weirdly rushed”? Is it true, as the Deputy Prime Minister said just this weekend, that there were “time pressures” to get Mandelson cleared? Is it true, as the Foreign Secretary said at the weekend, that officials were instructed to give “priority clearance” to Mandelson?

It looks as if, on the Prime Minister’s wishes, the process for Mandelson’s clearance was put in what was called—how was it in the Covid era?—the VIP lane, and we all know what became of that. Due process was followed by Sir Olly; that has not been challenged. All the problems arose from the undue haste of the Prime Minister to force through his man and glad-hand it with him in No. 10.

The Statement reveals a world beyond “Yes, Prime Minister”—a bureaucracy of bizarre complexity, in which you cannot see the wood for the legalese, where people have to seek legal advice before they talk to each other, where there are inquiries into inquiries into inquiries, where the Prime Minister sits staggered, unbelieving and unknowing the heart of a system over which he has presided for two years, processing and reprocessing process, for all the world like Sir Humphrey Appleby.

We have not had time to assess in detail the minutiae of this Statement. We have not been permitted to hear Sir Olly’s side of the case before being asked to consider it. We will come back to those things, but what must be clear to all is the astonishing lack of judgment by the Prime Minister in making this appointment, the dire consequences of his undue haste, and the rank smell of the blame game and dumping on senior civil servants—things which should have no place in the conduct of good government.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, one thing I agree with in this Statement is the recognition of the victims of the crime of Jeffrey Epstein. We are able to know what we know about an appointment which should never have been made only because of the patience and the persistence of the victims, and they should be at the forefront of all our minds.

At the start of this, on 11 November 2024, the then Cabinet Secretary, Simon Case—now the noble Lord, Lord Case—gave very clear and appointment-specific advice to the Prime Minister if he chose to make a political appointment for the ambassador in Washington. I quote from the advice published in the first release of documents on 11 March this year:

“If this is the route that you wish to take you should give us the name of the person you would like to appoint and we will develop a plan for them to acquire the necessary security clearances and do due diligence on any potential Conflicts of Interest or issues of which you should be aware before confirming your choice”.


This advice was specific. It was not about seeking clearance after the appointment; it was about seeking security clearances before confirming the choice.

In the House of Commons, Ed Davey asked the Prime Minister why this advice was disregarded and Peter Mandelson’s appointment was confirmed, approved by the King and announced prior to necessary security clearances being acquired. The Prime Minister replied that the subsequent review of the process had confirmed that it was followed. This was a non-answer, because the process was the Cabinet Secretary providing advice, which he did, that the Prime Minister chose to disregard. In the bundle of papers released in March, there was missing a minute between this advice and a reference on 12 December, a month later, to Peter Mandelson being referred to as the lead candidate. Can the Leader confirm that Parliament has been presented with all the information between the advice from the Cabinet Secretary in November and 12 December, when it was indicated that Peter Mandelson was now the lead candidate? Why is there no record of what the Prime Minister did with the advice issued on 11 November?

Just a few days later, on 18 December, the Palace was informed of the decision to appoint Mandelson, contrary to the advice that necessary security clearances should be acquired. What is all the more concerning is that we were told that the Prime Minister subsequently regretted making the appointment as a result of Mandelson’s lies in the due diligence process. But that an appointment was made in the first place, when the Prime Minister had been given the advice on 11 November on due diligence in respect of Peter Mandelson, is staggering. I remind the House of what that advice on the due diligence process was, and I remind the House that this was the lead candidate for appointment. It stated:

“After Epstein was first convicted of procuring an underage girl in 2008, their relationship continued across 2009-2011, beginning when Lord Mandelson was Business Minister and continuing after the end of the Labour government. Mandelson reportedly stayed in Epstein's House while he was in jail in June 2009 … In 2014 Mandelson also agreed to be a ‘founding citizen’ of an ocean conservation group founded by Ghislaine Maxwell, and funded by Epstein”.


Surely this information alone should have been the basis on which, prior to any announcement, the Prime Minister should have decided that the reputational risk was too high, given the ongoing legal and congressional actions in the US at the time. He did not. The Prime Minister made a decision to set aside advice on acquiring vetting approval prior to making the announcement on 20 December and to set aside the reputational risk linked with Epstein’s crimes. Can the Leader confirm that the Foreign Secretary had seen the due diligence checklist report, as on business conflicts and the Epstein links, when he said in the government press release on 20 December:

“It is wonderful to welcome Peter back to the team”?


The Statement today puts all the blame on FCDO officials and none on accountability of Ministers. The Prime Minister stated today that

“given the seriousness of these issues and the significance of the appointment, I simply do not accept that Foreign Office officials could not have informed me of UKSV’s recommendations”

after Mandelson had been announced and his name had gone to the Palace two days before the press release. Given the seriousness and significance of the appointment, I simply do not accept the Prime Minister’s rationale for disregarding the advice given to him on 11 November that vetting should be acquired before the appointment, not before taking post. But quite astonishingly, the Prime Minister says

“if I had known before Peter Mandelson took up his post that the UKSV recommendation was that developed vetting clearance should be denied, I would not have gone ahead with the appointment”.

But the appointment had already been made. Now, we must assume that there are questions on the accountability to Parliament.

The Prime Minister’s Statement today refers to the letter that the Foreign Secretary, alongside the Permanent Secretary, Sir Olly Robbins, provided to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, which said that vetting

“concluded with the DV clearance being granted by the FCDO in advance of Lord Mandelson taking up the post”.

This misled Parliament, and the Government are saying that those who are accountable for that should not be the Ministers but officials—dismissed. We will hear from the sacked official, but the Prime Minister’s Statement alludes to other officials prior to Sir Olly taking up his post, and we are left with the uncomfortable position where only people who cannot answer to Parliament will be blamed, and no Ministers who are accountable to Parliament will be held to account. We await the work of parliamentary committees and the ISC, and I suspect we will also await the ministerial adviser report. Other Ministers have been held to account for what they have told Parliament; surely it must be the case that the Prime Minister and Ministers in this Government are held to account also.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I will do my best to answer the questions in the time available. First, in response to the noble Lord, Lord True, who complained about the timing of the Statement, he usually asks me to repeat Statements made by the Prime Minister as soon as possible. It was my judgment, given the seriousness of the issue, that we should do it as soon as possible. He said about doing it in prime time; I think the House is pretty full to hear the Statement, and it is right that it is so, given the seriousness of it. He asked if I will come back tomorrow. I will always repeat the Prime Minister’s Statements in this House and take questions from your Lordships on any issue raised by the Prime Minister in the normal way and take questions in the normal way.

I think the noble Lord has got slightly confused between vetting and due diligence. There is no evidence that Peter Mandelson lied during the vetting process because we do not know what the vetting process had said. The Prime Minister said that he feels that he was not given accurate answers during the due diligence process, and he said that appointing Peter Mandelson was the wrong decision, for which he has apologised.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, for raising the issue of victims, because too often we have just political debates. This started when the Epstein files were released, and I do not think, had those Epstein files not been released, we would have known the extent of the relationship between Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein. Certainly on the issues around the information he was sending to him and the depth of the contact, we were not aware.

What we are talking about here is a failure of government, and it is extraordinary—