Starmer overruled warning of ‘reputational risk’ over Mandelson appointment, files show | Peter Mandelson

Keir Starmer rejected officials who warned of the “reputation risk” of choosing Peter Mandelson as US ambassador, despite being given a dossier of evidence about Peter Mandelson’s relationship with sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, documents have revealed.

The revelations in the newly released dossiers will raise new questions about Starmer’s decision and review procedures at the highest levels of government.

The files show that Mandelson was offered a highly classified State Department briefing even before completing the formal vetting process.

They also show that two of the government’s most senior security and foreign policy officials – national security adviser Jonathan Powell and FCDO permanent secretary Philip Barton – expressed concerns about Mandelson’s appointment due to his involvement in previous public scandals.

Despite a document prepared by authorities warning that Mandelson continued his relationship with Epstein after his conviction, the emails said the prime minister’s close aides were “delighted” by Mandelson’s statements about their friendship.

The documents were released after the Conservatives pushed for explanations for the appointment of Mandelson, who was sacked in September last year over new revelations about his close relationship with Epstein.

The documentation shows:

• Mandelson was offered severance pay of £75,000 after initially asking the Foreign Office to pay him more than £500,000;

• Before appointing Mandelson, Starmer had been warned that the financier had remained in contact with Epstein after his first conviction for procuring an underage girl in 2008;

• Powell told an investigation that he thought the appointment was “oddly rushed”;

• Matthew Doyle, Mandelson’s former communications chief and Mandelson’s friend, reassured Starmer about Mandelson’s friendship with Epstein. Doyle said he was “pleased” with Mandelson’s explanation of the relationship.

Starmer has since said he believes Mandelson misled his team about the depth of his friendship with Epstein, including maintaining contact while he was in prison and urging him to fight for early release. Mandelson appears to have denied this.

Starmer’s principal private secretary, Nin Pandit, said in a December 2024 memo to the prime minister that Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein had been discussed with Starmer’s then-private secretary Morgan McSweeney, but Doyle was “satisfied” with Mandelson’s answers.

Early documents from when Mandelson was first accepted as ambassador reveal that the prime minister was informed that his relationship with Epstein continued beyond his conviction.

In the due diligence dossier, Starmer was warned of “public reputation risk” in Mandelson’s links to Epstein. It was reported that Mandelson’s friendship continued, “their relationship continued between 2009 and 2011, after Epstein was first convicted of procuring an underage girl in 2008… Mandelson reportedly stayed at Epstein’s home.” [Epstein] He was in prison in June 2009.”

The emails also suggest that official procedures for Mandelson’s appointment were overridden. An email shows officials offered Mandelson a high-level briefing shortly after his appointment was announced.

A Dec. 23 email to Mandelson from the head of FCDO’s U.S. and Canada department outlined his hiring arrangements. In that email, the official says: “Starting January 6, we will personally keep you informed further, including to higher tiers.”

An email does not formally confirm Mandelson’s enhanced review clearance through Jan. 30, 2025, along with a formal offer of employment.

Mandelson was then asked to apply for an even higher level of review (Leave clearance), which would not begin until February 4th. The emails suggest he will receive higher-level briefings before any of these processes are completed.

The FCDO’s own security rules, outlined in the official appointment letter attached to the same email, stated: “If a Strap permit is required… you must submit a new Strap application form for your new position at least three months before starting duty.”

Speaking in the House of Commons following the release of the first part of the documents, the prime minister’s principal secretary, Darren Jones, appeared to acknowledge the unorthodox timeline for Mandelson’s appointment and subsequent review.

“We are changing the process for direct ministerial employment, including for politically appointed diplomatic roles, so that where the role requires access to highly classified material, the candidate must have passed a national security review before such appointments are announced or approved,” Jones said.

The cache of documents also reveals discussions surrounding Mandelson’s dismissal as ambassador; These discussions come after new documents emerged in the U.S. Department of Justice’s Epstein files, including emails in which Mandelson urged Epstein to “fight for early release.”

Mandelson was offered severance pay of £75,000. initially asked the Foreign Office to pay him more than £500,000 Newly released documents reveal the balance of his contract.

Exchanges in documents released by the Cabinet Office suggested that officials “were good at getting this deal down to this low with minimal fuss” following Mandelson’s sacking. Mandelson is understood to have claimed the £574,000 stated in the documents and vehemently disputed that sum was used as a reference.

The documents suggest Mandelson raised the possibility of suing the State Department for unfair dismissal until a settlement was reached. The department’s HR boss, Mark Power, said Mandelson had consulted an employment ROC, who said there were doubts about “the reasonableness of the Prime Minister’s decision to dismiss him”.

He wrote in an email: “There is carefully placed language around the public consequences of failure to resolve and the nature of the employment tribunal case… In the absence of a positive indication there is a possibility that Peter will make some of his allegations public so there is some urgency.”

The cache also includes records from the prime minister’s chief adviser Mike Ostheimer’s internal investigation into Mandelson’s appointment following his dismissal. They reveal that concerns about Mandelson’s appointment were raised by two senior officials, Powell and Barton.

Powell told Ostheimer that he had raised issues with Mandelson’s reputation directly to McSweeney, and McSweeney said “the issues have been addressed.” Barton also “had reservations about the appointment”.

Opposition parties called on Starmer to explain how Mandelson was given access to classified briefings before the review process concluded.

Alex Burghart, shadow chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, said: “The error in the Prime Minister’s judgment knows no bounds. Allowing a scandal-ridden former minister to access highly sensitive information without the necessary consents is sheer carelessness. What is even more disturbing is that this occurred at a time when the government was aware of Mandelson’s long-standing close links to Epstein.”

“Labour must make clear what ministers knew, when they knew it, and why national security measures were treated with such indifference.”