More than 1,500 pages of documents were published by the government on Monday afternoon about Peter Mandelson’s appointment as the ambassador in Washington. Despite claims this was “an unprecedented piece of government transparency”, there are still a number of significant missing documents.
Some of the documents have been withheld by the government at the request of the Metropolitan police, if they could “potentially prejudice” an ongoing investigation. According to Darren Jones, chief secretary to the prime minister, these documents will be published as part of a third tranche at the conclusion of an investigation or when no longer prejudicial.
But after hours of testimony by top officials involved in Mandelson’s appointment, there is a clear picture of the documents that are missing.
The vetting summary document
A nine-page summary document produced by United Kingdom Security Vetting (UKSV), giving an outline of the areas of concern that contributed towards security officials concluding that Mandelson should not be given “developed vetting” security clearance, does not appear in the second tranche.
The UKSV document 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, sources have told the Guardian.
UKSV also said Mandelson had a very close relationship with a fourth individual, who is British, that could be compromising. A separate concern recorded by UKSV, the sources said, was a £1m loan Mandelson received to invest in an Israeli startup. UKSV noted additionally, the sources added, that he appeared naive about the risk that historical relationships with other individuals could be exploited.
According to Jones, it has been withheld on the advice of the Met.
The security chief’s note
After Mandelson was withdrawn from Washington in September 2025, the Foreign Office’s (FCDO) security team requested access to some of the UKSV documents. According to the department’s security chief, Ian Collard, he took a note of the summary document. Collard said that note was submitted to the public disclosure process. But there is no trace of it, or of its claim that UKSV concluded Mandelson was a “very borderline case”.
There is also no documentary evidence of any security mitigation, as the Guardian reported before publication of the second tranche. The closest is an email by Collard recording the decision to grant developed vetting status. It says “matters pertaining to [Mandelson’s] overseas contacts” would be reviewed again in the process for him to receive STRAP clearance, which is necessary to access some of the British government’s most sensitive documents.
The declaration of interest form
The first tranche of documents included a blank template sent to Mandelson for him to make a declaration of interests. A completed template could have included, for example, the £1m loan.
But the completed declaration of interest form, which should also detail the actions taken to address any conflicts and whether those actions had been agreed by Mandelson’s line manager, does not appear. It has been withheld by the Met.
Morgan McSweeney’s email about Jeffrey Epstein
Three questions sent by Keir Starmer’s chief of staff to Mandelson about his relationship with Epstein, as well as Mandelson’s responses, do not appear in the second tranche of documents.
The questions were asked after a due diligence process carried out before Mandelson was announced to his post. According to McSweeney, they have been withheld by the police.
The disappearing messages and unwritten memos
Many messages between Mandelson and political figures have been released, but some conversations set to disappear have not been recovered. Mandelson appears to have used a mixture of WhatsApp and Signal.
There are also no minutes of phone calls taken by officials in the FCDO that detail any “pressure” from Downing Street to conclude Mandelson’s vetting, despite claims by Collard and former FCDO permanent secretary Olly Robbins that the department was under “constant pressure” in January 2025.
The lack of adequate minute-taking has been criticised by MPs on the foreign affairs committee as well as the intelligence and security committee.
