Welsh Minister’s statement in Commons creates further intrigue in Mandelson vetting scandal

Martin Shipton

A statement made by Foreign Office Minister Stephen Doughty in the House of Commons last September has been seized on by Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch as a significant sign that elements of the truth about the vetting process involving Peter Mandelson have not been revealed.

On September 16 2025 Mr Doughty, the MP for Cardiff South and Penarth, told MPs during a debate about Lord Mandelson’s sacking as the UK’s Ambassador to the US: “National security vetting is a long-standing formal process undertaken by UK Security Vetting (UKSV) on behalf of individual Departments, and it reports back to them.

It helps Departments to identify and manage risks where individuals have access to sensitive assets or sites, and there are established processes within national security vetting to consider any security concerns raised and to manage such risks appropriately.

Importantly, the national security vetting process is rightly independent of Ministers, who are not informed of any findings other than the final outcome. Exactly the same procedures were followed in this case.”

Mr Doughty’s statement suggested that Ministers had been told that Mandelson had failed the vetting process.

He added: “I want to pay particular attention to this matter, because it is important and because Members present have asked very sensible questions. The national security vetting process is confidential, and the UK Government’s vetting charter includes an undertaking to protect personal data and other information in the strictest confidence.

“I am not going to depart from that approach in this Chamber today and release personal information about an individual’s confidential vetting. However, while I will not talk about the confidential details relating to this case, I can provide details of the overall processes that a number of people have asked about.

“ … Prior to the announcement of Lord Mandelson’s appointment as ambassador, the propriety and ethics team in the Cabinet Office undertook a due diligence process, and after his appointment was announced on 20 December 2024, the FCDO started the ambassadorial appointment process, including national security vetting. That vetting process was undertaken by UK Security Vetting on behalf of the FCDO, and concluded with clearance being granted by the FCDO in advance of Lord Mandelson taking up his post in February.”

In the House of Commons on April 20, Mrs Badenoch stated: “The Prime Minister says he is furious that he was not told the recommendations of the vetting, yet on 16 September, a Foreign Office Minister told Parliament that ‘the national security vetting process is rightly independent of Ministers, who are not informed of any findings other than the final outcome.’ That was the Government’s stated process, so why is the Prime Minister so furious that it was followed?

‘Due process’

Sir Keir Starmer responded: “In relation to the answer about full due process, that was the information that I had and which I put before the House, and it was confirmed to me by Sir Chris Wormald. In September, I asked him to conduct a review of the process to assure me that the process was correctly carried out. He did that and wrote to me on 16 September to give me his conclusions.

“In relation to reports in the media, No. 10 was repeatedly asked about the facts surrounding Peter Mandelson’s clearance, and was assured that the proper process was followed in that case.

“In relation to those in No. 10, let me give the answer. Nobody in No. 10 was informed about UKSV’s recommendation. To be clear, and for the record, the Cabinet Office permanent secretary received information recently, and then sought the necessary and legal advice. Once those checks were completed by the Cabinet Office permanent secretary, I was told. That is in the last two weeks or so, and that was entirely the right procedure—to get the legal advice, and then to bring it to my attention at the first opportunity. The right procedure was followed by my officials in the last few weeks.

“In relation to why I was furious about the process, it was for the very reason that I strongly believe I should have been given this information at the very outset. I strongly believe there were repeated times when I should have been told.

“I should have been told on appointment, and I should have been told when Peter Mandelson was sacked. The Cabinet Secretary should have been told when he reviewed the process. The Foreign Secretary should have been told before she was asked to sign a statement to the Select Committee, and I should have been told when I ordered a review of vetting.”

Accountability

MPs will have the opportunity to scrutinise the UK Government’s accountability in relation to the appointment of Lord Peter Mandelson as US ambassador in an emergency debate on Tuesday.

Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch said it is “a matter of national security because the Prime Minister has admitted appointing a known serious security risk to our most sensitive diplomatic post”, as she made an application under standing order 24.