Lord Mandelson was not interviewed for US ambassador job

Lord Mandelson, who was sacked as the UK’s ambassador to the US over his close ties to convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, was never formally approached for the job, civil service bosses told MPs.

Sir Chris Wormald, head of the civil service, said there had been no discussions as Lord Mandelson had been appointed directly to the role.

MPs heard the process meant Lord Mandelson was not asked directly about any conflicts of interest with the interviewers in person, but rather had to fill in a form addressing potential financial conflicts.

Sir Chris said this process had been changed since Lord Mandelson’s departure to ensure a formal and detailed discussion took place.

Lord Mandelson replaces career diplomat Dame Karen Pierce When Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer decides he is the best candidate to link up with the newly elected Trump administration in Washington DC in December 2024.

Concerns were raised at the time about Lord Mandelson’s friendship with Epstein, but his ability to deal with President Trump, as well as his ability to build a network and ability as an experienced political operator, were seen as a valuable asset.

This changed when emails were published showing Lord Mandelson sending supportive messages to Epstein, who was facing sex crimes charges in 2008; The government insisted this was new information about the “depth” of the couple’s relationship.

Sir Keir banished him In September, a day after he told MPs his Labor counterpart retained “full confidence” in PMQs.

The ambassadors are managed by the Foreign Office and the civil service, and the bosses of both were answering questions from MPs in the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Asked whether Lord Mandelson had gone through the normal process of appointing an ambassador, Foreign Office chief Sir Oliver Robbins told MPs: “No, it was different because it was not run as a standard civil service process.”

Labor MP Fleur Anderson asked whether Lord Mandelson’s interview specifically included the opportunity to share “anything that would bring the government into disrepute”.

Sir Chris said: “There was no discussion with Mr Mandelson, as Sir Oliver described this was by direct appointment by ministers and therefore there was no panel discussion.

“This was the normal practice in direct ministerial appointments.”

Sir Chris added that changes have been made since Lord Mandelson’s sacking, “so we can effectively replicate what would normally happen in a panel interview where there is a brief conversation with the candidate”.

Sir Oliver said Lord Mandelson had completed the conflict of interest form, but when asked whether it involved “friendships” he said: “No, it is not the sort of conflict of reputation that this form targets, it is about the reality of the perception of economic or financial conflicts.”

The pair were also quizzed about why Sir Keir appeared not to have been fully informed by civil servants about the seriousness of the new information before defending Lord Mandelson at Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs).

Conservative MP Sir John Whittingdale told how the Foreign Office was emailed by journalists at Bloomberg on Tuesday evening.

He said: “You must have realized before the Prime Minister got up at 12 o’clock on Wednesday that this was quite explosive and that someone had not said to No 10 ‘hold on, there’s something here you might want to be aware of just before you express your full confidence in Lord Mandelson’.”

Arguing that the material was handled as “sensitive and a management matter”, Sir Oliver told Lord Mandelson that he should have treated him “as an employee to whom I owe a duty of care”.

Sir John replied: “So you’re saying that to protect Lord Mandelson you gave No 10 no indication before the PMQs that you had come across information that might cast serious doubt on the appropriateness of his position?”

Sir Oliver said Lord Mandelson had not had a chance to respond to the Foreign Office about the “accuracy and risks” of emails ahead of PMQs, adding: “I have not spoken to the Prime Minister personally, no.”