Harriet Harman has warned Sir Keir Starmer could be accused of misleading the House of Commons if his statements about Lord Mandelson’s appointment as UK ambassador to the US do not align with recently released government documents. The files detail the vetting process for Mandelson, who was dismissed over his association with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
Government documents reveal vetting concerns
The government published correspondence showing that Sir Keir was informed of significant reputational risks before appointing Mandelson last year. The documents confirm Mandelson’s close ties to Epstein, including a visit to Epstein’s residence while Epstein was incarcerated for procuring an underage girl. They also note Mandelson’s involvement with an ocean conservation group linked to Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s associate.
Sir Keir’s chief of staff at the time, Morgan McSweeney, expressed satisfaction with Mandelson’s responses regarding his Epstein connections. However, National Security Adviser Jonathan Powell reportedly advised caution, warning against a political rather than diplomatic appointment due to potential exposure risks to the Prime Minister.
Harman criticizes Mandelson appointment and Starmer’s response
Baroness Harman, former Labour deputy leader, questioned the wisdom of the appointment, highlighting Mandelson’s prior dismissals and the foreseeable problems stemming from his past associations. She stated the documents should prompt scrutiny of whether Starmer’s Commons statements are fully consistent with the vetting files to avoid allegations of misleading Parliament.
Sir Keir has accused Mandelson of lying during the vetting process. Mandelson has denied wrongdoing but apologized to Epstein’s victims. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch called on Mandelson to resign, accusing Starmer of dishonesty about his knowledge of the case.
Financial settlement and subsequent fallout
Documents show Mandelson initially sought £574,201 as a settlement for his seven-month ambassadorship but accepted £75,000 with minimal dispute. The revelations have intensified scrutiny on Starmer’s judgment and transparency in handling the appointment, with political opponents questioning his credibility.
For more stories on this topic, visit our category page.