A report by the UK's Foreign Affairs Committee has concluded that Downing Street "forced" the appointment of Peter Mandelson as US Ambassador onto the Foreign Office and that the selection process was "being made up as it went along." The committee's findings reject Prime Minister Keir Starmer's previous assertions that "due process" was followed in the appointment, which it described as "disastrous."
The report criticizes "appalling" record-keeping by both Downing Street and the Foreign Office, stating that crucial security checks for the former New Labour politician were treated as an "afterthought." The committee also accused Starmer of dismissing the Foreign Office's top diplomat, Sir Olly Robbins, over Mandelson's vetting without possessing all the facts.
Dame Emily Thornberry, chair of the committee, stated that "processes were rushed or simply not followed" and that "vital security checks, integral to our national security, seemed to be viewed as a nuisance." She added that Mandelson's appointment was an "unmitigated disaster" that "should never have been allowed to happen, and it cannot ever be repeated." Thornberry recommended that "no public appointments should be made without security vetting having already taken place."
Mandelson's appointment became highly damaging for the government and "painful and offensive to the victims of Jeffrey Epstein," and it "has diminished our country in the eyes of the world," according to Thornberry.
The report specifically challenges a statement made by Starmer in the House of Commons the day before Mandelson was dismissed last September over his association with financier Jeffrey Epstein. Starmer had stated that "full due process was followed during this appointment." However, the new report asserts that "this advice has been shown to be incomplete" and that Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) officials should have provided the Prime Minister with more information.
Following Mandelson's dismissal, the Foreign Affairs Committee sought information regarding security concerns but reported receiving "evasive" answers. Despite reviewing over 1,500 pages of evidence, the MPs found "no evidence" detailing the initial consideration of candidates for the Washington posting or the process of narrowing down to a shortlist.
Furthermore, the report notes that there is no record of Starmer's response to the recommendation for Mandelson's appointment or of the meeting where the decision was made, making it "impossible to know" his reaction.
The report highlighted that the incoming Trump administration had wished for Dame Karen Pierce to remain as ambassador. It also cited Mandelson's history of losing political positions due to poor judgment, his vulnerability to outside influence, potential conflicts of interest with his consultancy Global Counsel, and his "known closeness to Jeffrey Epstein."
The MPs expressed surprise that the Foreign Office was not consulted on the appointment and that Downing Street held a "dismissive view" towards vetting Mandelson. Sir Olly Robbins reportedly believed he was acting on the Prime Minister's instructions when approving the appointment, especially as vetting experts had deemed the case "borderline."
In conclusion, the report stated that Sir Olly Robbins' subsequent dismissal "therefore seems to have been taken without full due process and the establishment of the facts."
A government spokesperson stated that processes have been improved to ensure politically appointed ambassadors undergo security vetting before announcement or confirmation. The Prime Minister has also commissioned an independent review of the National Security Vetting system, led by Sir Adrian Fulford, to ensure lessons are learned.