Starmer overruled warning of ‘reputational risk’ over Mandelson appointment, files show | Peter Mandelson

by Rachel Morgan News Editor

Newly released documents reveal that Keir Starmer approved the appointment of Peter Mandelson as US ambassador despite warnings from officials about a “reputational risk” linked to Mandelson’s relationship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Concerns Raised Before Appointment

The files show that national security adviser Jonathan Powell and the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office’s (FCDO) permanent secretary Philip Barton both expressed concerns regarding Mandelson’s appointment, citing his involvement in previous public scandals. Starmer was also warned that Mandelson had maintained contact with Epstein even after the financier’s 2008 conviction for procuring an underage girl, including reportedly staying at Epstein’s home while he was in jail in 2009.

Did You Know? Peter Mandelson initially requested a severance payment of over £500,000 from the Foreign Office, but ultimately accepted £75,000 after his dismissal as ambassador.

Despite these warnings, emails indicate that close aides to the prime minister were “satisfied” with Mandelson’s explanations regarding his friendship with Epstein. Starmer later stated he believed Mandelson had misled his team about the extent of their relationship, including contact during Epstein’s imprisonment and efforts to secure his early release – claims Mandelson disputes.

Vetting Process Questions

The documents also raise questions about the timeline of Mandelson’s vetting. He was offered a highly classified briefing from the Foreign Office before completing the formal vetting process. Emails suggest he received briefings at a high level before his “Strap clearance” – a higher level of vetting – was even initiated on February 4, 2025. FCDO guidelines require this level of clearance to be submitted at least three months before starting the post.

Expert Insight: The apparent circumvention of standard vetting procedures raises significant questions about risk assessment and due diligence in high-level appointments, particularly when potential national security implications are present.

Following the release of the documents, the chief secretary to the prime minister, Darren Jones, stated that the government is changing its procedures to ensure candidates for politically appointed diplomatic roles with access to classified material pass national security vetting *before* appointments are announced or confirmed.

Dismissal and Settlement

Mandelson was ultimately dismissed as ambassador in September last year following the release of further documents in the US Department of Justice’s Epstein files, which included emails showing Mandelson urging Epstein to “fight for early release.” He reportedly considered legal action for unfair dismissal, with concerns raised internally about the potential public implications of a tribunal case.

Frequently Asked Questions

What concerns did officials have about Peter Mandelson’s appointment?

National security adviser Jonathan Powell and FCDO permanent secretary Philip Barton raised concerns about Mandelson’s appointment due to his involvement in previous public scandals.

What did Starmer’s aides say about Mandelson’s explanations regarding his relationship with Epstein?

Close aides to the prime minister said they were “satisfied” with Mandelson’s explanations of their friendship.

When was Mandelson formally offered the position of US ambassador?

An email confirms Mandelson’s formal offer of employment on January 30, 2025.

Given the scrutiny surrounding this appointment and the questions raised about the vetting process, what level of transparency and accountability will be demanded in future high-level diplomatic selections?

You may also like

Leave a Comment