Starmer appointed Peter Mandelson as US ambassador before security vetting, MPs told

Prime Minister Keir Starmer appointed Lord Peter Mandelson as the United Kingdom's ambassador to the United States last December before the peer was vetted by security services, MPs were told, prompting fresh questions about the appointment process and the government's handling of the fallout.

Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper told Parliament in a terse letter that the Foreign Office had not been asked to contribute to the due diligence that preceded the December announcement. Cooper said a Cabinet Office team had carried out "due diligence" but that the Foreign Office, which is reported to have opposed the plan, was not consulted on whether Mandelson was a fit and proper person to take up the sensitive diplomatic role.

The revelation came amid an emergency debate in the House of Commons that exposed deep anger in Parliament and within Labour ranks over the handling of Lord Mandelson's relationship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Conservatives seized on the disclosure to challenge the Prime Minister's judgment and to say the appointment appeared to have been pushed through by Downing Street.

Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch accused the prime minister of allowing the appointment to be "forced through by the Prime Minister and/or his chief of staff," and said the episode showed "no courage, no judgment, no backbone." Badenoch urged Starmer to "come clean" and accused him of "hiding from questions" after he missed the Commons debate.

Dame Emily Thornberry, chair of the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee and a member of the Labour front bench, said there had been a "rush" to appoint Mandelson and that "red flags were either missed or ignored." In her remarks during the debate she questioned whether the Foreign Office had been leaned on to sign off on the appointment and asked whether the vetting process had failed to identify "a glaring national security and reputational risk, or was it told to overlook it?"

Labour sources said the prime minister had defended Mandelson last week, asserting that the appointment had followed "full due process," only to later conclude the peer should be removed after additional material emerged about his friendship with Epstein. Starmer has blamed staff for failing to brief him in full before his earlier public defence, saying in remarks to colleagues that "in retrospect it would have been better if I had been shown the details" of the emails that raised concern.

Foreign Office minister Stephen Doughty told MPs that Starmer had been "explicitly clear that the new information is and was not compatible with the duty that we owe the victims of Jeffrey Epstein's horrendous crimes." The controversy has strained relations within the government and left Labour MPs scrambling to defend the prime minister. Government whips made concerted efforts to secure support during the three-hour Commons debate; only one Labour MP, Rugby's John Slinger, spoke in public support of the prime minister and was heckled by opposition members when he praised Starmer as a "man of integrity."

Senior Conservative Sir David Davis, who called for the debate, said Lord Mandelson should never have passed vetting for such a sensitive role and criticised his business links in China and Russia. "Frankly, it would appear that Lord Mandelson has subcontracted his conscience for money," Davis said. Other critics highlighted Lord Mandelson's proximity to wealthy and powerful figures as a factor that should have prompted greater scrutiny.

The timing of the disclosures intensified scrutiny: MPs noted the saga had unfolded as President Donald Trump arrived in the UK for a State visit, with Thornberry saying the affair had "damaged Britain's reputation" abroad. The government's handling of the appointment has also prompted questions about whether conventional security checks and the Foreign Office's assessment of personal associations were bypassed in favour of political considerations.

Downing Street has not released a detailed public account of how the appointment progressed through the official clearance process. Cooper's letter to Parliament confirmed that the Cabinet Office conducted due diligence but did not address why the Foreign Office had been excluded from that process or whether security vetting had been formally completed prior to the public announcement.

Labour figures have voiced disappointment at the internal turmoil. Some backbenchers said the episode underlined weaknesses in decision-making and oversight in No. 10, while others defended Starmer's swift action once the additional material was revealed. The prime minister has said the decision to remove Mandelson followed the emergence of information that made his continued appointment untenable.

The Commons debate closed without a formal vote, but it left the government dealing with sustained criticism from across the political spectrum and fresh demands for clarity about how senior diplomatic appointments are vetted and approved. Parliament has asked for the details of the process that led to Lord Mandelson's appointment, and MPs signalled they expect further answers in coming days as the Foreign Office and Cabinet Office are pressed to explain their roles.

The controversy remains a developing story as officials consider whether procedural changes are needed to ensure that security vetting and departmental input are mandatory before any future ambassadorial appointments are announced.