KEIR Starmer has been panned for dodging a brutal grilling in the House of Commons over the appointment of Peter Mandelson as UK ambassador to the US.
In a three-hour emergency debate in the Commons on Tuesday, the Prime Minister was repeatedly torn to shreds by MPs from across the chamber after further details of the Labour peer's ties to convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein came to light last week.
It was a debate that the Prime Minister didn’t attend despite increasing scrutiny over the affair, with Kemi Badenoch calling for him to “publish the Mandelson-Epstein files in full” and accusing him of “hiding from Parliament”.
Several MPs during the debate could be heard calling out: "Where is he?"
"Someone, we don't know who, had politically fatal kompromat" during Mandelson's entire tenure, one Tory MP – Lincoln Jopp – noted.
SNP Westminster leader Stephen Flynn, meanwhile, demolished Starmer in brutal fashion – drawing a mild rebuke from the Deputy Speaker for repeating the words of Mandelson, who said “fuck off” to a journalist who had brought up his Epstein connection.
“That was what Lord Mandelson said. He said it was an FT obsession. Well, guess what? It's our obsession now, and we are going to make sure that we get to the bottom of this," he said.
“The Prime Minister is not above the scrutiny of the House of Commons, neither is he above the scrutiny of the public at home."
David Davis, the Conservative former Brexit secretary who called the emergency debate, said the UK Government needed to show transparency around Mandelson’s appointment, the vetting process, events around his sacking, and how to get more information on what happened.
During his opening speech, Plaid Cymru’s leader in Westminster, Liz Saville-Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) intervened to say: “The Prime Minister staked his special relationship with the US president on the diplomatic skills of an ambassador who had a special relationship with the world’s most notorious child sex offender.
“I’m sure he agrees with me, that the Prime Minister’s judgment and the UK’s presence on the world stage has been diminished by this affair?”
David responded: “There is no doubt she’s correct. Frankly I better try not to make this ad hominem about the ministers who made the decisions, you can make that decision later, as it were, but she’s right, it has diminished the standing of our Prime Minister, and I regret that.”
He also said Mandelson’s association with Epstein showed a “reprehensible attitude” to women, adding that his appointment was “unfathomable”.
“His continued support of Epstein shows an attitude which I find completely reprehensible in exactly that respect because Epstein’s victims were women, young women, girls, children,” Davis said.
“So it’s long been clear he was not suitable for being our ambassador. So the question is, what changed last week?”
He then detailed Mandelson’s business interests, including setting up Global Counsel, a consultancy which he said had acted for “extremely dubious Russian companies” and Chinese firms.
He said Mandelson had voted against a three-line whip on a genocide amendment in the upper chamber, which would have affected trade with China.
Davis said: “China was in the crosshairs on this, so frankly it would appear that Lord Mandelson has subcontracted his conscience for money.”
He later said: “Number 10 was well aware that Mandelson has continued his relationship with Epstein, after his conviction as a paedophile.
“How the Prime Minister could possibly have thought it was a wise to appoint a man, who was on record consulting with alleged murderers and convicted paedophiles for position of privilege and power, to me is utterly unfathomable.”
Emily Thornberry, chairwoman of Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee, also questioned whether those vetting Mandelson were told to “overlook” a “glaring national security and reputational risk”.
The Labour MP said her committee had called for Mandelson to appear before them before his appointment but he had not appeared.
“We need to work together to ensure this never happens again because something went very wrong,” she added.
Former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said there was “obviously not sufficient due diligence done” in vetting Mandelson.
The now-Independent MP told the Commons: “On the day before he was dismissed, apparently there were a lot of emails available to the Prime Minister which he either wasn’t given or didn’t read.”
He also said Mandelson’s behaviour was “apparently very well known to a very large number of people” who should not have supported his appointment.
Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davey urged MPs to “remember the victims” of Jeffrey Epstein and said he believes Starmer “owes them a personal apology”.
Davey asked: “As we remember the victims, how must it have felt for them to see Donald Trump, one of Epstein’s closest friends and a man found liable for sexual abuse himself, become President of the United States?
“How must it have felt for the victims to see another of Epstein’s closest friends made British ambassador to the United States?
“How must it have felt for the victims to see the Prime Minister defend Lord Mandelson last week, even after he’d seen those appalling messages?
“How must it have felt for them to hear ministers say, even after Mandelson was sacked, that his appointment was a risk worth taking?”
He added: “For decades, the victims and their families have seen powerful men escape responsibility for what they did and what they knew.
“It should be a source of deep shame to ministers that the British Government is now part of that story.”
Stephen Doughty, a Foreign Office minister, was sent in his stead and repeated comments made by Starmer yesterday in which he said: “Had I known then what I know now, I’d have never appointed him.”
He was then repeatedly taken to task on the issue in Starmer’s absence, with Tory former minister Alec Shelbrooke saying Doughty had been sent “to the slaughter” by the Labour top brass.
“I have a huge amount of respect for the minister who’s going to have to respond to this debate, but he has been sent to the slaughter today,” Shelbrooke said.
“This was a decision that was made around the Cabinet table.”
Doughty, meanwhile, stressed that the UK Government said ministers are not informed of findings from the independent security vetting process done on behalf of the Foreign Office.
“National security vetting is a long-standing formal process undertaken by UK security vetting on behalf of individual departments and reporting back to them,” he said.
“National security vetting helps departments to identify and manage risks where individuals have access to sensitive assets or sites.”
He continued: “The national security vetting process is rightfully independent of ministers who are not informed of any findings other than the final outcome. Exactly the same procedures on that were followed in this case.”
He said it was the policy of “several administrations” not to comment on which officials have access to confidential information.
