By Scott Greenwood | April 20, 2026
Prime Minister Keir Starmer faced a tense House of Commons this afternoon as he gave a full account of the appointment process of Peter Mandelson.
In a noticeable shift in tone, the Prime Minister admitted there had been a failure in leadership.
“At the heart of this, there was also a judgement that I made that was wrong,” Starmer told MPs. “I take responsibility for that decision, and I apologise again to the victims of the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, who were clearly failed by my decision.”
The Prime Minister revealed that it was only on 14 April that he first learned Foreign Office officials had granted Peter Mandelson security clearance on 29 January 2025 – despite a clear recommendation from the UK’s security vetting agency that it should be denied.
Starmer explained that while most departments are bound by the decisions of UK Security Vetting (UKSV), the Foreign Office has traditionally kept the power for its own officials to make the final call.
UKSV advised against granting clearance on 28 January 2025, following two interviews.
FCDO officials went ahead and granted it the very next day.
This discretionary power was suspended by the Prime Minister’s Chief Secretary last week.
Starmer insisted he would never have gone ahead with the appointment if he had known Mandelson had failed the vetting process. He described the lack of communication from the FCDO as “staggering and unforgivable.”
He also confirmed that the rules have now been changed: no diplomatic appointment can be announced until security vetting has been passed.
Pressure is mounting for total transparency. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has demanded the release of all vetting papers by the end of the week, calling the row “an issue of national security.”
However, the government has made clear that disclosure will be limited. Certain documents are being withheld at the request of the Metropolitan Police to avoid prejudicing the ongoing criminal investigation.
Any proposed redactions on national security grounds must be approved by the cross-party Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC).
The Liberal Democrats are particularly pushing for the release of the December 2024 Cabinet Office due diligence report, which reportedly noted “a general reputational risk” regarding Epstein before Mandelson ever took the post.
Calls for Resignation
The admission that the Prime Minister “inadvertently misled” Parliament in earlier sessions has triggered a strong reaction from across the political spectrum:
Conservatives and Greens: Kemi Badenoch and Zack Polanski both argue that the Prime Minister’s position is now untenable. Polanski branded the situation an “absurd scenario.”
Liberal Democrats: Ed Davey spoke of “catastrophically poor judgement” on national security.
Reform UK: Nigel Farage described the recent departure of top official Olly Robbins as the sacking of a “sacrificial lamb.”
SNP: Stephen Flynn accused the Prime Minister of being incompetent, gullible, or a liar.”
What’s Next?
The focus now shifts to the Civil Service. Olly Robbins, the most senior civil servant in the Foreign Office until his departure last Thursday, is due to give evidence before the Foreign Affairs Committee tomorrow morning.
His testimony is expected to be crucial in establishing exactly how a failed vetting status was bypassed and why the Prime Minister was kept in the dark for over a year.
Leave a Reply