Keir Starmer’s decision to appoint Peter Mandelson his ambassador to Washington was an “unmitigated disaster” the chair of the Commons Foreign Affairs committee has warned, as MPs raised serious questions over how his security vetting was handled.
In a damning new report, the cross-party committee said vital checks seemed to be viewed “as a nuisance” and it was as though “officials were looking for reasons not to bother”.
There were still “unanswered questions” over the process and it was “difficult to understand how (he) was appointed if he were a perceived risk to national security”, they said.
They also said they had found no evidence that the safeguards officials said would mitigate the risks had ever actually been put in place.
The Mandelson scandal engulfed Sir Keir’s government earlier this year after the PM confirmed the peer had failed crucial security vetting – months after it was first revealed by The Independent.
Lord Mandelson had been sacked by Sir Keir in September after the depth of his friendship with the paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein became clear.
But in February he was arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office, following allegations that he had leaked sensitive government information to Epstein.
The chair of the committee Dame Emily Thornberry said: “There are still unanswered questions as to how someone so clearly unfit was appointed British Ambassador to the United States.”
“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.”
She also hit out at No 10’s decision to announce Lord Mandelson’s appointment before he underwent the critical security vetting.
With Mandelson on the payroll “and constant pressure from No. 10, it is no wonder that some civil servants in the Foreign Office felt the appointment was a foregone conclusion”, she said.
“But when our nation’s security is at stake, there can be no exceptions made, regardless of the individual’s public profile or sense of pressure.”
She added: “Peter Mandelson’s 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 report calls for the committee to be given a veto ahead of such appointments in future. Lord Mandelson has been accused of passing the information on to Epstein during his time as business secretary in Gordon Brown’s government.
Emails from 2009 contained in the Epstein files appeared to show that Lord Mandelson had sent on an assessment by one of Mr Brown’s advisers of potential policy measures including an “asset sales plan”.
The emails, released by the US Department of State, appeared to have been sent to Epstein after he became a convicted sex offender.
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.
“We have received the report from the FAC and will respond fully in due course, via the appropriate channels.”
