Prime Minister Keir Starmer appointed Labour peer Peter Mandelson as the United Kingdom’s ambassador to the United States before the Foreign Office had completed or been asked to contribute to security vetting, MPs were told on Tuesday.
In a letter to Parliament, Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper said a Cabinet Office team carried out due diligence prior to the December announcement of the appointment, but the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) was "not asked to contribute to that process." The disclosure prompted criticism from opposition parties and questions among Labour MPs about who authorised and advanced the post without formal Foreign Office endorsement.
The revelations emerged during an emergency three-hour debate in the House of Commons that saw Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch accuse the prime minister of having "pushed ahead" with the appointment and of hiding from scrutiny. Badenoch said it appeared the appointment had been "forced through by the Prime Minister and/or his chief of staff," and urged Starmer to "come clean" about why the FCDO was not asked to vet Lord Mandelson.
Dame Emily Thornberry, chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee, said there had been a "rush" to appoint the former Labour spin doctor and asked whether the FCDO vetting process had missed a significant national security and reputational risk or had been told to overlook it. She said the episode had "damaged Britain’s reputation" on the eve of a state visit by U.S. President Donald Trump.
Labour sources told MPs that Starmer defended the appointment publicly last week, saying it had been subject to "full due process," only to conclude hours later that Lord Mandelson should be sacked after fresh material suggested a closer relationship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Starmer has since said he was not fully briefed before issuing his initial defence and that "in retrospect it would have been better" to have been shown the details of the emails in question.
Foreign Office minister Stephen Doughty said the new information about Lord Mandelson "is and was not compatible with the duty that we owe the victims of Jeffrey Epstein’s horrendous crimes." Conservative veteran Sir David Davis, who called the debate, said Lord Mandelson should never have been likely to pass vetting for such a sensitive diplomatic role and raised concerns about the peer’s business links in China and Russia.
Government whips worked to secure Labour support during the debate, but MPs from the governing party were widely critical and only one Labour backbencher, Rugby MP John Slinger, spoke in Starmer’s defence. Slinger described the prime minister as a "man of integrity" who acted swiftly to remove Lord Mandelson when he became aware of the full extent of the peer’s relationship with Epstein.
Critics questioned why senior Downing Street figures — including chief of staff Morgan McSweeney, who has been pictured with the prime minister — had not ensured a full FCDO assessment before the public announcement. The timing of the disclosure and ensuing row coincided with an official U.S. state visit by President Trump, intensifying scrutiny of the decision to nominate a high-profile envoy without a completed FCDO contribution to vetting.
The FCDO has not publicly detailed its internal position on whether it opposed the appointment prior to the announcement, and Ms. Cooper’s letter said only that the department was not asked to contribute to the Cabinet Office’s due diligence process. MPs from multiple parties called for further clarity on who signed off the nomination, what materials were considered by the Cabinet Office team, and whether normal security and reputational checks had been bypassed.
The sequence of events now under examination spans the December announcement, subsequent emergence of emails and other material concerning Lord Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein, the prime minister’s public defence of the peer, and the later decision to remove him from the post. Parliamentary calls for transparency include requests for documents and briefings that could clarify whether procedures were followed or whether judgment was exercised appropriately in advancing the ambassadorial nomination.
Downing Street did not immediately respond to requests for comment during the debate. The parliamentary exchanges are likely to continue as MPs seek documentary evidence of the vetting process and as Labour grapples with dissent within its own ranks over the handling of the nomination and the timing of its withdrawal. The episode has raised broader questions about vetting procedures for high-profile diplomatic appointments and how departments and the Cabinet Office coordinate on sensitive nominations.