What is Developed Vetting security clearance at centre of Mandelson row?

There are several outcomes which the vetting process can result in beyond a straightforward awarding or refusal of clearance, according to the government's own guidance. They are:

• Clearance awarded with "aftercare" - where "potential risks" are identified which can be managed by a review 18 months to two years after clearance is first granted
• Clearance awarded with "caveats and/or restrictions" - where specific measures are put in place "to mitigate any risks and/or potential conflicts of interest"
• And in some cases, risks identified during the DV process can also result in lower level security clearances being reviewed

We do not know if any of the above applied to Mandelson, nor do we know what issues led the vetting agency to recommend that he be refused clearance.

Downing Street has said the decision to override the advice on Mandelson was taken by Foreign Office officials, with neither the prime minister or foreign secretary made aware at the time.

Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper previously said the vetting process is "independent of ministers who are not informed of any findings other than the final outcome".

Mandelson's vetting only began after the prime minister had announced he would appoint him to the ambassador's role, though other checks (more below) had been carried out by that stage, and senior civil servants told a parliamentary committee in November that carrying out vetting post-appointment is standard practice.

A due diligence check was carried out by a team at the Cabinet Office on behalf of Downing Street, as the prime minister was responsible for the appointment, prior to Mandelson's appointment.

The point was to identify reputational risks or potential conflicts of interests that may have needed to be considered in Mandelson's case.

Sir Chris Wormald, the UK's top civil servant, has previously confirmed to MPs that this was largely based on public information, such as media reports.

At the time, it was public knowledge that the peer had maintained his relationship with Epstein after his conviction for soliciting sex from a minor in 2008.

In 2023, the Financial Times reported about emails suggesting he stayed at Epstein's Manhattan mansion in 2009, while the financier was in jail.

The only non-public information that featured, Sir Chris added, were records of a meeting Lord Mandelson facilitated between Epstein and Sir Tony Blair that have since been disclosed by the National Archives.

This appears to be a reference to a meeting in Downing Street in 2002, six years before Epstein's conviction.

Lord Mandelson's file included information about his previous roles inside and outside government, and his "professional and financial relationships".

His prior relationship with Epstein was listed as a reputational risk, Sir Chris added, alongside his previous two resignations as a minister during the last Labour government.

Sir Chris Wormald, who was Cabinet Secretary at the time, has previously told MPs that "mitigations" were put in place regarding potential conflicts of interest arising from Mandelson's business career which were identified during this pre-vetting process.

After reviewing the due dilligence findings, No 10 sources said Sir Keir Starmer asked Lord Mandelson to address three specific questions, which were sent to him via email by the prime minister's then chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney.

These questions were: why has he continued contact with Epstein after he was convicted? Why was he reported to have stayed in one of Epstein's homes while the financier was in prison? And was he associated with a charity founded by Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell that the financier had backed?

At the time, his answers were considered sufficient for him to be appointed to the role, for it to be announced publicly, and for the vetting process to begin prior to him formally taking up the position.

The BBC understands Mandelson's view is that he answered questions about his relationship with Epstein in the vetting process accurately.

Sign up for our Politics Essential newsletter to keep up with the inner workings of Westminster and beyond.