Serious concerns have been raised that newly sacked US ambassador Peter Mandelson did not clear security vetting for the role – but the prime minister pushed through his appointment anyway.
Sources have told The Independent that MI6 failed to clear the Labour peer largely because of concerns over his business links to China.
However, there were also worries that his past links to the disgraced financier and convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein “would compromise him”.
The row has broken out as Sir Keir Starmer faces serious questions about his judgement from his political opponents, but also from Labour MPs after Lord Mandelson became the latest high-profile sacking by the prime minister over issues that should have been detected earlier.
When The Independent put the claims that Sir Keir had pushed through Lord Mandelson’s appointment despite not clearing MI6 vetting, a spokesperson said: “Vetting done by FCDO in normal way.”
Lord Mandelson admitted in his vetting interview for the role of US ambassador that he had continued his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein for many years, according to reports.
Lord Mandelson relayed his regrets in his resignation letter to the UK Embassy: “The circumstances surrounding the announcement today are ones which I deeply regret. I continue to feel utterly awful about my association with Epstein 20 years ago and the plight of his victims.” James Roscoe has taken over as interim ambassador while Downing Street finds a replacement.
Lord Mandelson’s dramatic sacking came after a string of shocking revelations, including emails appearing to show him offering support for Epstein as he was facing charges of child sex offences.
Announcing his departure, Foreign Office minister Stephen Doughty claimed that the emails showed the depth and extent of the pair’s relationship was “materially different from that known at the time of his appointment”, while Sir Keir said he found the emails “reprehensible”.
Questions were immediately raised about what Sir Keir knew and when, and whether the vetting process for the coveted and powerful government job was robust enough.
Now, further questions are being asked of the prime minister’s judgement after it emerged that security services had raised concerns before Lord Mandelson was appointed.
Tory leader Kemi Badenoch described the overruling of MI6 warnings to appoint a political ally as “unforgivable”.
She said: “These latest revelations point yet again to the terrible judgement of Keir Starmer and why it is imperative that all documents relating to Peter Mandelson’s appointment are released immediately.
“If it is true that Starmer or his chief of staff Morgan McSweeney overruled the security services, as has been alleged, they need immediately to explain to the public why they did so.”
Shadow foreign secretary Dame Priti Patel, who had similar security briefings from MI5 as home secretary, said: “These are extraordinary revelations. For Keir Starmer and Morgan McSweeney to have appointed Lord Mandelson despite concerns being raised by the security services shows a blatant disregard of all national security considerations and their determination to promote their Labour Party friends.”
A former senior cabinet minister told The Independent that any security concerns would have been raised privately between the head of MI6, the foreign secretary and the prime minister.
It means that the new deputy prime minister, David Lammy, who was the foreign secretary at the time, would also have been informed about any issues with the appointment.
Added to that Sir Keir’s chief of staff Mr McSweeney is also in trouble having personally pushed for Lord Mandelson’s appointment in the first place and then, according to sources, tried to prevent his sacking this week.
Asked whether No 10 ignored security concerns reportedly flagged by security services before the appointment, the spokesperson said: “No 10 was not involved in the security vetting process. This is managed at departmental level by the agency responsible and any suggestion that No 10 was involved is untrue.”
But in an explanation on X (Twitter), former foreign secretary James Cleverly, who made many diplomatic appointments, insisted that all security and other concerns about Lord Mandelson would have been presented to the foreign secretary and prime minister by officials and the security services.
He wrote: “They would have reminded Lammy that Mandelson had resigned in disgrace twice before. They would have reminded Lammy that Mandelson had a longstanding relationship with Epstein. They would have reminded Lammy that Mandelson had widespread, complicated, and opaque commercial interests.
“I have no doubt that they would have reminded Lammy that he and the PM were importing significant reputational risk if they appointed Mandelson. I have no doubt they would have unambiguously advised Lammy against appointing Mandelson to the post.
“And it is now clear that Lammy and Starmer ignored that advice and appointed him anyway.”
Lord Mandelson was already a controversial pick for the role, with The Independent revealing that Donald Trump was minded to reject his credentials in January after the inauguration because of security concerns over his business links with Beijing.
At the time, sources close to the US president suggested that he would struggle to share confidential information with the Labour peer because of the perceived problems.
But after a massive diplomatic push, Sir Keir succeeded in getting President Trump to accept Lord Mandelson because he wanted the architect of New Labour, known by many as the “Prince of Darkness”, to be responsible for the UK’s most important diplomatic relationship.
In a letter to embassy staff on Thursday, Lord Mandelson said being ambassador to the US “has been the privilege of my life”.
“The circumstances surrounding the announcement today are ones which I deeply regret. I continue to feel utterly awful about my association with Epstein 20 years ago and the plight of his victims.
“I have no alternative to accepting the Prime Minister’s decision and will leave a position in which I have been so incredibly honoured to serve.
He added that “we leave the relationship with the US in a really good condition, with a magnificent state visit and the new US-UK Technology Partnership – my personal pride and joy that will help write the next chapter of the special relationship – set for next week”.
Now, Labour MPs are publicly and privately questioning Sir Keir’s judgement in appointing him.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy, who attempted to run for the deputy leadership contest, said: “There were clearly double standards here. Good people were blocked from being candidates for liking the wrong tweets, but Mandelson was appointed despite all his baggage.”
The comments echo concerns within the party after a string of embarrassing sackings. Sir Keir last week lost deputy prime minister Angela Rayner for failing to pay £40,000 of stamp duty while she was housing secretary.
Homelessness minister Rushanara Ali lost her job after she made her tenants homeless, while anti-corruption minister Tulip Siddiq quit after she was investigated for corruption through her family’s now-ended autocratic regime in Bangladesh. And former transport secretary, Louise Haigh, resigned over revelations she was prosecuted and found guilty of falsely claiming a mobile phone was stolen from her.
Mr Doughty announced the sacking while answering an urgent question from Tory MP Neil O’Brien, who said: “The simple question is this: is the minister now saying that the prime minister did not know about any of this at the point where [Lord Mandelson] was appointed? What did the prime minister know at the point of his appointment?”
Labour foreign affairs select committee chair Dame Emily Thornberry revealed that MPs had been blocked from questioning Lord Mandelson.
She said: “Since the first rumours of his appointment, my committee has repeatedly asked – publicly and privately – to question Peter Mandelson. It is right that he has now been sacked.
“The FCDO should not have stopped us from asking questions. The government should welcome such scrutiny.”
