Committee publication · Correspondence · 16 September 2025 · HC 385
Letter from the Foreign Secretary relating to the appointment of former HM Ambassador to Washington, dated 16.09.25
From: Foreign Affairs Committee
Inquiry: Work of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office
Summary
Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper responds to Foreign Affairs Committee questions about security vetting for Lord Mandelson's appointment as Ambassador to the US, which was withdrawn in September 2025 after emails revealed a deeper relationship with Jeffrey Epstein than previously known. The letter defends the vetting process as standard and independent of ministers, declining to detail specific security findings citing confidentiality.
Key findings
- Lord Mandelson's appointment was withdrawn after emails revealed the extent of his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein was materially different from that known at appointment time.
- Cabinet Office due diligence process prior to announcement on 20 December 2024 raised no issues with the FCDO; National Security Vetting commenced after public announcement.
- A priority DV (Developed Vetting) clearance was requested to enable faster decision-making, but involved same checks and standards as standard vetting; clearance completed before February take-up.
- Government declines to comment on specific security concerns, vetting findings, or whether conditions were imposed on the ambassadorial remit, citing established confidentiality protocols.
- Vetting process is stated as independent of Ministers, with No. 10 not involved in security clearance decisions.
Tone
ProceduralTopics
Key actors
Yvette Cooper, Emily Thornberry, Lord Mandelson, Oliver Robbins, Jeffrey Epstein, UK Security Vetting, Cabinet Office
Notable line
“… the depth and extent of Peter Mandelson's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein was materially different from that known at the time of his appointment.”
Key Quotes
“… the Prime Minister asked me to withdraw Peter Mandelson as Ambassador in light of information contained in emails showing that the depth and extent of Peter Mandelson's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein was materially different from that known at the time of his appointment.”
“The process is also independent of Ministers who are not informed of any findings other than the final outcome.”
“There are strict confidentiality rules around sensitive personal information in the vetting process and as a result we do not comment on individual National Security Vetting cases in line with long established practice.”
“Priority clearances, which are a standard offer by UK Security Vetting, involve the same checks and are carried out to the same standard as other Developed Vetting clearances.”
Source · parliament.uk record ↗