Peter Mandelson crisis returns with Keir Starmer’s Downing Street blasted for ‘disaster’

Sir Keir Starmer’s “disastrous” decision to appoint Lord Mandelson as Britain’s ambassador to the US has been pushed back into the spotlight by a damning report which warns of the pain caused to Jeffrey Epstein’s victims and the damage to the UK’s international standing.

The outgoing PM’s team in Downing Street is blasted for having “forced” Lord Mandelson on the Foreign Office. The report warns that “any serious” investigation into the giant of the New Labour era would have exposed why he should not have been sent to Washington DC.

Outrage that the former Labour peer was given the top diplomatic post – even though Sir Keir had been warned about the depth of his relationship with billionaire sex predator Epstein – hastened the end of the Starmer era. The report from the Foreign Affairs Committee demands MPs are handed a veto on future political appointments on ambassadors and warns of unanswered questions.

It states: “The decision to appoint Peter Mandelson as His Majesty’s Ambassador to the United States has been nothing short of disastrous. From his well-documented friendship with the convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein to his extensive foreign business dealings, any serious investigation into whether he was suitable for one of our country’s most important diplomatic postings would have come to one conclusion. It is quite clear that Peter Mandelson was not the choice of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO), but one that was essentially forced on them by No 10.

“There is no evidence of any debate as to why he was deemed to be the most appropriate candidate for the role. His appointment has been highly damaging for the Government, painful and offensive to the victims of Jeffrey Epstein and it has diminished our country in the eyes of the world.”

The MPs demand that such appointments are now not made without the candidate facing a pre-appointment grilling.

They state: “There must be a proper process set out for political appointment, and this must include a scrutiny evidence session before the foreign affairs committee. We are confident that, had the FCDO agreed to one of our many requests for Peter Mandelson to participate in a pre-appointment evidence session, key questions surrounding the extent of his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, as well as his foreign business dealings, would have been raised.”

They call for the committee to have the power to “formally veto an appointment”. The MPs also claim they were “kept in the dark” about the facts surrounding the scandal, saying they were not given “full answers” in the wake of his sacking.

They state: “It would be too much to say we were told lies, but we were told partial truths.”

The MPs were “especially alarmed to hear suggestions that officials had debated whether Peter Mandelson would even need to go through any security vetting at all”. They are “concerned that much of the evidence surrounding the key decisions of Peter Mandelson’s appointment has not been found”, stating: “The record keeping by the FCDO and Number 10 has been so appalling that it is unclear whether these documents do indeed exist, whether they have been lost or whether they are in the possession of the Metropolitan Police.”

Downing Street comes under intense fire in the report, with the MPs saying: “Most concerning of all, however, has been [former top Foreign Office civil servant] Sir Olly Robbins’ statement to the committee that there was a ‘generally dismissive attitude’ by Number 10 towards Peter Mandelson’s vetting.”

They say they are “left to wonder” whether steps to address “potential conflict of interests and security concerns” were “sufficient to safeguard national security”.

A Reform UK spokesman said: “As the report clearly states, the appointment of Peter Mandelson was disastrous and was made before vetting had been completed, despite multiple red flags along the way. Even without formal vetting, it was clear that Mandelson was the wrong choice. Keir Starmer misled Parliament and lied to the public – outright dishonesty.”

Dame Emily Thornberry, who chairs the foreign affairs committee, warned there are “still unanswered questions as to how someone so clearly unfit was appointed”.

She said: “Processes were rushed or simply not followed. The usual checks and balances were not made. Vital security checks, integral to our national security, seemed to be viewed as a nuisance. Mandelson’s appointment was an unmitigated disaster for the country. It should never have been allowed to happen, and it cannot ever be repeated. To prevent anything similar from happening again, no public appointments should be made without security vetting having already taken place.”

Dame Emily described the “lack of record keeping” as “utterly astounding and a clear failure to abide by the civil service code”.

Shadow Foreign Secretary Dame Priti Patel said: “This scathing report confirms what we already knew: Labour rushed through Mandelson’s appointment, dismissed concerns about his links to Jeffrey Epstein and embarrassed our country in the process. Even now, crucial documents remain unaccounted for, despite Parliament giving a clear instruction for their release. At every stage, Labour have tried to cover up the truth about their appalling failure. The Conservatives will continue to fight for the facts for as long as it takes.”

A government spokesperson said: “We have already improved our processes to ensure that any politically appointed ambassadors will have to undergo security vetting before they are announced or confirmed. The Prime Minister has commissioned an independent review of the National Security Vetting system, led by Sir Adrian Fulford, to ensure lessons are learned.”