Ministers have faced renewed cross-party pressure in parliament over documents missing from a 1,500-page release of papers about Peter Mandelson’s appointment as ambassador to Washington.
Despite the volume of information published on Monday, crucial documents were withheld at the request of the Metropolitan police on the grounds that they could “potentially prejudice” an investigation. They include a document summarising the vetting process, which concluded with officials recommending Mandelson not be given security clearance.
Ministers said they were not able to reveal when the police decided the vetting summary was relevant to their investigation. The document had been reviewed and redacted by members of parliament’s intelligence and security committee.
In a general debate on the government’s publication of the documents, MPs expressed surprise at the absence of any documents detailing security mitigations that would have been necessary to address concerns identified by vetting officials, whose recommendation was overruled by the Foreign Office.
Sources told the Guardian that the vetting summary contained concerns about Mandelson’s links to China’s minister of finance, Lan Fo’an, the sanctions-hit Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska, and a former Israeli military intelligence general, Tamir Hayman.
Emily Thornberry, the Labour chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee, said she had expected to see records of the mitigations to address those risks.
She said: “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 said there was no sign of an “aide memoire” drafted by the Foreign Office security chief, Ian Collard, when he reviewed the vetting file last September 2025 after Mandelson was sacked.
Documents show that the Foreign Office security team requested access to the vetting file four days after Collard sent an outline of the vetting process to Downing Street. He did not say that vetting officials had recommended against giving clearance.
Thornberry suggested the released documents showed Keir Starmer had “subcontracted” the decision to appoint Mandelson.
She said: “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.”
MPs noted the omission of Mandelson’s declaration of interest form, which has been withheld by the police in addition to photos, videos, voice memos and documents attached to official emails.
Alex Burghart, speaking for the Conservative frontbench, demanded clarity and suggested the attachments might have “accidentally fallen out of the full disclosure”.
Members of the intelligence and security committee noted that a parliamentary motion required the government to release “all papers” relevant to Mandelson’s appointment.
Nick Thomas-Symonds, the paymaster general, said the government had complied in full with parliament’s motion in what had been an “official-led process”, subject to precedents, data protection principles and ministerial guidelines.
The debate featured an intervention from Alex Davies-Jones, who resigned as justice minister in May. Davies-Jones called on the prime minister to meet survivors of the sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
Reading a statement by Lisa Phillips, a former model, she said: “As a survivor I [Phillips] struggle to understand why prime minister Keir Starmer appointed Peter Mandelson when his association with Jeffrey Epstein had long been publicly known. 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?”
