Commons debate sparse as Labour MPs stay away and Foreign Office denies role in Mandelson 'due diligence'

A Commons "emergency" debate on the fallout from Peter Mandelson's appointment as UK ambassador to the United States was marked by sparse government benches and the absence of many Labour MPs on Tuesday, as the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) said it had not been asked to carry out any "due diligence" on Lord Mandelson prior to his appointment.

The letter, provided to the Foreign Affairs Committee and cited by ministers, says the Cabinet Office propriety and ethics team undertook a due diligence process at the request of No. 10 in advance of the December 20, 2024 announcement of Mandelson’s appointment. The FCDO said it "was not asked to contribute to that process and no issues were raised with the FCDO as a result of this process," adding that the activity referred to was not a security check and that national security vetting began after the appointment was announced.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer has come under mounting pressure after he acknowledged publicly that officials had been looking into fresh emails between Lord Mandelson and the late Jeffrey Epstein when he expressed confidence in Mandelson at Prime Minister's Questions last week. Starmer told parliament he was aware of an inquiry by officials but said he did not know the contents of the material and that "in retrospect" it would have been better if detailed allegations had been put before him before he spoke.

Mandelson was removed from the ambassadorial role following revelations about his relationship with Epstein, who was convicted of sex offences during his lifetime. The sacking has prompted questions about the vetting and appointment process and about who in government had responsibility for assessing propriety and national security risks.

On Tuesday, the Commons chamber saw many empty seats on government benches during a three-hour debate. There was no sign of the prime minister in the chamber at the start of the session, and Labour MPs on the backbenches were noticeably underrepresented compared with the opposition. Ministers gathered in Downing Street for a cabinet meeting on Tuesday morning; Foreign Secretary David Lammy and Welsh Secretary Jo Stevens were among those photographed arriving for the meeting.

The controversy has led to broader scrutiny of Downing Street operations. A senior No. 10 aide, Paul Ovenden, resigned after historical WhatsApp messages emerged in which he recounted lewd jokes about a former shadow cabinet minister. The departure of a close aide has intensified calls from some MPs for a wider review of the prime minister’s team.

Public opinion data published since the revelations show a dip in support for Labour in some polls. A YouGov survey cited by media outlets put Reform on nine points ahead of Labour and found Labour support at 20 percent. Separate polling by More in Common indicated a negative personal rating for Starmer. Former prime minister Gordon Brown publicly defended Starmer on Monday night, saying the prime minister faced "very difficult decisions" and that he believed Starmer would be "completely exonerated" once the full record was available.

Criticism has extended beyond No. 10 staff to the prime minister himself. Several backbench and veteran Labour figures quoted by media described Starmer’s handling of the episode as politically damaging. Some called for greater accountability for Downing Street advisers, while others suggested that removal of the prime minister would require either his resignation or an extraordinary Cabinet-led move; Labour’s large Commons majority means a simple rebellion over party management would be unlikely to trigger an immediate election.

The government has also signalled hope that the state visit to the United Kingdom by the US president, scheduled to begin on Tuesday evening, could shift public and parliamentary attention. Officials said the visit will proceed as planned; ministers briefed that diplomatic and ceremonial obligations continue despite the domestic controversy.

In its response to the Foreign Affairs Committee, the Cabinet Office confirmed the propriety and ethics team conducted due diligence before Mandelson’s announcement, and it reiterated established practice that national security vetting is not a process involving No. 10 and that the government does not comment on individual vetting cases. The FCDO’s statement that it had not been involved in the earlier due diligence drew fresh questions about how and by whom potential concerns were escalated within government when they surfaced.

Labour’s leadership has moved to contain the political damage while the process of review continues. Starmer’s brief public explanations and the resignation of a senior aide have not, however, settled unease among some party members and opposition MPs alike. Parliamentary debate and committee inquiries are expected to press departments and officials for further detail about the timeline of checks and who held responsibility for raising security and propriety concerns as new material came to light.

The controversy remains an active issue in Westminster, with further statements and document disclosures anticipated as committees pursue lines of inquiry into the appointment process and the handling of material relating to Lord Mandelson. The government has said it will cooperate with parliamentary scrutiny in line with established procedures.