The Guardian view on the Mandelson files: the missing vetting document matters most | Editorial

The Epstein files fatally damaged Peter Mandelson. Gone was his reputation as Westminster’s great survivor: the politician who could weather any scandal and return to the centre of power. Allegations that he leaked market-sensitive information to the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein after the financial crash led to a criminal investigation. The peer was sacked as Britain’s US ambassador. He denies any wrongdoing.

Yet the “humble address” files also damage the government. The hundreds of emails, notes and social media conversations, released on Monday, mostly show an unsurprising version of Lord Mandelson – wheedling, criticising and positioning himself as the man who knows the court. Parliament asked to see why he was allowed into one of the most sensitive jobs in the British state. The government has shown us what he said once he got there. That is not the same thing.

The risks are obvious in a top diplomatic post with access to intelligence, trade negotiations and power brokers. That is why the vetting of Lord Mandelson was so important. Security concerns should have shaped the appointment. Instead, Sir Keir Starmer announced him as Britain’s US ambassador before “developed vetting” had begun – ensuring that the appointment shaped the handling of those concerns. That might explain why the key document – which outlines the security risks of having Lord Mandelson in post has not been released.

Darren Jones. Photograph: James Manning/PA

The Cabinet Office minister, Darren Jones, told MPs that, apart from material withheld at the request of the police, the government believes that it has complied with parliament’s demand for all papers relating to the peer’s appointment except those “prejudicial to UK national security or international relations”. The release may satisfy the procedural duty while still failing to answer the central question: why was Lord Mandelson cleared for the job? Mr Jones says that the crucial vetting file was shared with the intelligence and security committee (ISC) “for the purpose of agreeing redactions”, and can be published when possible. The obstacle is not an argument over what information needed to be concealed. It is that the file is being held back because of the police investigation. Why hold it back after the Guardian published the substance of the concerns last week?

It is not good enough for Mr Jones to claim that the decisive vetting material is not being suppressed, merely delayed. The ISC went public about ministerial attempts to withhold publication of the key vetting document. Until it is published, parliament is being asked to judge the appointment of Lord Mandelson as US ambassador without the information that explains the decision to approve him for the post. That can’t be right.

The files published so far show a great deal about Lord Mandelson’s style, worldview and political intimacy with ministers. They do not yet show the security logic of giving him the role. And this mattered. Lord Mandelson’s own take on 31 December 2024 was he’d “much prefer to get going with calls etc w/b Jan 6 but will policy briefings/reading depend on vetting clearance?” That shows that this was understood as a live issue. The question was asked; the workaround followed. Sir Keir should have said no full access until a security risk assessment was complete. Instead, the prime minister announced Lord Mandelson as his choice – and the civil service appears to have been made to catch up.