Starmer ignored warning that hiring Mandelson posed Epstein risk

LONDON – British Prime Minister Keir Starmer appointed Peter Mandelson as US ambassador despite an official vetting process that warned his ties to disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein entailed “reputational risks”.

The Premier’s national security adviser Jonathan Powell later described the hiring process as “weirdly rushed” – albeit after Mr Mandelson had already been fired, according to documents published online on March 11 by Mr Starmer’s Labour administration.

The papers are being released in tranches after their disclosure was forced by the opposition Conservative Party. The first instalment on March 11 showed the Premier was presented with a vetting file ahead of the appointment that confirmed Mr Mandelson maintained ties with Epstein even after the late paedophile financier pleaded guilty to charges that included procuring a minor for prostitution.

The files also detailed Mr Mandelson’s demands for a severance package exceeding £500,000 (S$853,000). The government eventually agreed to pay him £75,000, a sum that included cash in lieu of his three-month notice period. Before that was agreed, the Labour grandee remained on the Foreign Office payroll for more than a month after being fired as ambassador.

Mr Mandelson left his post in Washington in September, after a Bloomberg investigation revealed that his ties to Epstein went further than had previously been known. 

Mr Starmer has insisted he did not know the full extent of their links, arguing at the time: “If I’d known then what I know now I’d have never appointed him, because what emerged last week were e-mails, Bloomberg e-mails, which showed that the nature and extent of the relationship that Peter Mandelson had with Epstein was far different to what I had understood.”

Mr Starmer’s chief secretary Darren Jones echoed that line in the House of Commons on March 11: “Whilst the documents point to public reports of an ongoing relationship between Mandelson and Epstein, the advice did not expose the depth and extent of their relationship, which became apparent only after the release of further files by Bloomberg and then the United States Department of Justice,” he said.

The papers relate to both the vetting process surrounding Mr Mandelson’s appointment and correspondence during his tenure as envoy before Mr Starmer fired him in September over his ties with Epstein.

The government has said that police looking into whether Mr Mandelson committed misconduct in public office have asked ministers to withhold some documents, so as not to risk prejudicing their investigation. “There are specific documents this government would like to have been able to disclose today, but which the Metropolitan Police have asked us not to,” Mr Jones added.

As the government releases more papers, in cases where it deems information is sensitive on national security grounds, ministers are passing them to Parliament’s cross-party Intelligence and Security Committee to make a judgment about whether they can be published.

The Tory motion in February that forced disclosure of the papers was backed by Members of Parliament from Mr Starmer’s own Labour Party amid a growing clamour over the Premier’s judgment in appointing to such an important role a former politician whose connection to Epstein was already a matter of public knowledge. 

Eleven days later, police arrested Mr Mandelson and held him for questioning for several hours, before releasing him without charge pending further investigation. A lawyer for the former envoy declined to comment. Mr Mandelson has previously denied wrongdoing.

The fallout from the Epstein e-mails has already forced changes to Mr Starmer’s administration. Mr Morgan McSweeney quit as his chief of staff in February, taking ownership of his advice to appoint Mr Mandelson. That now leaves Mr Starmer – who ultimately made the decision – more exposed, and the danger for the Prime Minister is that the series of documents set to be released amplifies calls for him to quit.

The US Department of Justice released a fresh trove of documents showing exchanges between Mr Mandelson and Epstein in late January, including e-mails in which the Brit allegedly appeared to disclose sensitive government information to his American friend while serving as a Cabinet minister from 2008 to 2010.

Given the breadth of information covered by the motion that MPs approved, the government will likely have to release thousands of pages of data. 

The motion mandated publication not just of the direct documentation relating to Mr Mandelson’s vetting, but also “electronic communications between the Prime Minister’s Chief of Staff and Lord Mandelson, and between ministers and Lord Mandelson, in the six months prior to his appointment”. 

It also called for disclosure of “electronic communications and minutes of all meetings between Lord Mandelson and ministers, government officials and special advisers during his time as ambassador”.

The documents published on March 11 show that Mr Starmer indicated a preference for a political appointee as his US ambassador rather than a career diplomat, arriving at Mr Mandelson as the lead candidate after discussions with his top aide Mr McSweeney.

Mr Mandelson appears to have been asked questions by government officials about his relationship with Epstein as part of a due diligence process in which Mr McSweeney and Mr Starmer’s then communications chief Matthew Doyle, a friend of Mr Mandelson, were involved.

Mr Doyle expressed satisfaction with Mr Mandelson’s responses “to questions about contact”, the documents show, although details of those questions and answers have been temporarily withheld by the government at the request of the police.

The documents also include a 2002 e-mail from Mr Mandelson to Mr Powell – who was former prime minister Tony Blair’s chief of staff at the time – in which he recommended Mr Blair meet Epstein.

In his missive, Mr Mandelson described Epstein as “someone who has his finger on the pulse of many worldwide markets and currencies”.

“He is young and vibrant,” he wrote, adding: “He is safe (whatever that means).”

The documents also show that after leaving his post, Mr Mandelson fretted about the timing of his return to Britain in an exchange with the Foreign Office’s HR department.

“My chief concern is leaving the US and arriving in the UK with the maximum dignity and minimum media intrusion, which I think is to the advantage of all concerned, not least because I remain a crown/civil servant and expect to be treated as such,” Mr Mandelson wrote. “How is the FCDO (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) assisting in this?” Bloomberg