Sir Keir Starmer apologised for appointing Lord Mandelson as ambassador to the US, acknowledging it was a 'mistake'. Photo / Getty Images
UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has taken personal responsibility for the “mistake” of appointing Lord Peter Mandelson as Britain’s ambassador to the US.
The Prime Minister said he had been wrong to hire the former Labour peer and offered an apology to the victims of Jeffrey Epstein.
His remarks came as he faced growing questions over whether he misled the Commons last year when he insisted “full due process” was followed.
The Mandelson files revealed that Jonathan Powell, the national security adviser, had concerns over the “weirdly rushed” appointment.
Speaking on a visit to Northern Ireland on Thursday, Starmer said: “It was me that made the mistake … and it’s me that makes the apology to the victims of Epstein.”
Published on Wednesday, the papers documented how Starmer ignored warnings from his top aides over Mandelson’s links to Epstein.
One document revealed how Powell, one of the Prime Minister’s closest advisers, found the process “unusual” and thought it had been “weirdly rushed”.
Powell, who worked with Mandelson in the New Labour era, raised his concerns with Morgan McSweeney, Starmer’s chief of staff at the time.
Speaking in the Commons last September, Starmer told MPs: “Full due process was followed during this appointment, as it is with all ambassadors.”
Kemi Badenoch, the Conservative leader, said on Thursday: “I am astonished that the Prime Minister can actually look himself in the mirror right now. It is very clear that he told lie after lie after lie about the appointment of Peter Mandelson.
“He wanted to make this all about Peter Mandelson. This is about his judgments. He has been dishonest with Parliament and with the country.
“And Labour MPs, in good conscience, should be looking at whether or not this man should be leading our country.”
Starmer’s official spokesman insisted that no corners had been cut and that Mandelson had faced the same checks as any other appointment.
The Prime Minister did request that the vetting file be expedited, meaning it was bumped to the front of the queue and “more attention” was given to it.
The spokesman insisted: “Clearance was therefore completed more quickly than some others. But it’s not because the process in itself was different.”
Downing Street also denied suggestions from Badenoch of a “cover-up” after the Government published a “box note” which featured a blank box where the Prime Minister should have written down his approval for the appointment.
It is understood that Starmer simply did not fill out the form, but communicated his support for the appointment to his team in another way.
Starmer’s spokesman said: “I refute the suggestion of a cover-up. The Government has complied fully. I just don’t accept that it’s the case at all.
“There are a range of different ways in which the Prime Minister’s senior team responds to advice.
He added: “The Prime Minister did read the advice, but clearly there are lessons to be learned on the wider appointment processes, and the processes that led up to them.”
Downing Street went on to declare that the due diligence process was “not up to scratch” and “fell short of what was required” – despite the fact it had flagged public reports of an ongoing relationship between Mandelson and Epstein after the paedophile was convicted.
Nick Thomas-Symonds, the Cabinet Office minister, when asked on LBC on Thursday whether due process had been followed, said: “I think there are serious questions about this process.”
Papers published in the Mandelson files on Wednesday showed Mandelson was offered a highly classified briefing from the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) before he finished the formal vetting process.
The documents suggest the peer was offered a briefing just over a fortnight after his appointment had been announced on December 20, 2024.
An email dated December 23 from the head of the US & Canada department at the FCDO said: “We’ll brief you further in person from 6 January onwards, including at higher tiers.”
A separate email does not formally confirm that the peer had vetting clearance until January 30, 2025.
It is understood that Mandelson could be shown sensitive information because he was a member of the Privy Council at the time.
Downing Street said the rules had since been tightened so that political appointees to ambassadorships can only be shown sensitive material after they have been vetted.
Sign up to Herald Premium Editor’s Picks, delivered straight to your inbox every Friday. Editor-in-Chief Murray Kirkness picks the week’s best features, interviews and investigations. Sign up for Herald Premium here.