Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador was ‘unmitigated disaster’ that should ‘never have been allowed to happen’

The chairman of the House of Commons Foreign Affairs committee has warned that Keir Starmer’s decision to appoint Peter Mandelson as ambassador to Washington is an “unfinished disaster” after MPs raised serious questions about how his vetting was carried out.

The cross-party committee said in a damning new report that vital checks were seen as a “nuisance” and “officials appeared to be looking for reasons not to bother”.

They said there were still “unanswered questions” about the process and that it was “difficult to understand how he was appointed if he was perceived to be a risk to national security.”

They also said they found no evidence that safety measures that authorities said would reduce risks were actually implemented.

The Mandelson scandal rocked Sir Keir’s government earlier this year after the Prime Minister confirmed his peer had failed critical vetting – revealed for the first time in months Independent.

Lord Mandelson was sacked by Sir Keir in September after the depth of his friendship with pedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein became clear.

But in February, he was arrested on suspicion of abuse of public office following allegations that he leaked sensitive government information to Epstein.

Dame Emily Thornberry, chair of the committee, said: “There are still unanswered questions as to how someone so unfit was appointed as Britain’s Ambassador to the US.”

“Processes were rushed or not followed. The usual checks and balances were not made. Vital security checks, which are an integral part of our national security, were seen as a nuisance.”

“Mandelson’s appointment was a complete disaster for the country. This should never have been allowed to happen and can never be repeated.”

He also lashed out at No 10’s decision to announce Lord Mandelson’s appointment before it had undergone a critical security review.

With Mandelson on the payroll and “with constant pressure from Number 10, it is not surprising that some civil servants in the Foreign Office felt the appointment was a foregone conclusion,” he said.

“But when the security of our nation is at stake, no exceptions can be made, regardless of the individual’s public profile or sense of pressure.”

He added: “The appointment of Peter Mandelson has been extremely damaging to the government, painful and offensive to the victims of Jeffrey Epstein, and diminished our country in the eyes of the world.”

The report calls for the committee to be given a veto before such appointments in the future. Lord Mandelson is accused of passing information to Epstein during his time as business secretary in Gordon Brown’s government.

Emails from 2009 in the Epstein files showed Lord Mandelson was sent an assessment of potential policy measures by one of Mr Brown’s advisers, including an “asset sales plan”.

The emails, released by the US State Department, appear to have been sent after Epstein became a sex offender.

A government spokesman said: “We have already improved our processes to ensure that politically appointed Ambassadors undergo security vetting before they are announced or approved.

“The Prime Minister commissioned an independent review of the National Security Review system, led by Sir Adrian Fulford, to ensure lessons are learned.

“We have received the report from the FAC and will respond fully in due course through the appropriate channels.”