Sir Keir Starmer would not have appointed Lord Peter Mandelson if he had known the depth of his relationship with the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, a Cabinet minister has said.
Lord Mandelson was sacked as Britain’s ambassador to the US on Thursday after emails emerged in which the peer offered support to Epstein even as he faced jail for sex offences.
Sir Keir, who had said he had “full confidence” in Lord Mandelson before the emails were published, now faces questions over what he knew and when about the ex-ambassador’s ties to Epstein.
Speaking to BBC Breakfast on Friday morning, Scotland Secretary Douglas Alexander said “nothing justifies” Lord Mandelson’s appointment “in light of what has now emerged”.
But asked about what information had emerged during Lord Mandelson’s vetting process, Mr Alexander said he was not aware of the details as vetting was “necessarily a secret matter”.
Questions about what the Prime Minister knew of Lord Mandelson’s connection to Epstein come after allies of the peer told The Times that he had admitted in his vetting interview that he continued his relationship with Epstein for many years.
Lord Mandelson’s friendship with Epstein was known prior to his appointment, but reports in The Sun and Bloomberg showed their relationship had continued after the financiers crimes had emerged.
Emails published on Wednesday afternoon included passages in which Lord Mandelson had told Epstein to “fight for early release” shortly before he was sentenced to 18 months in prison.
He is also reported to have told Epstein “I think the world of you” the day before the disgraced financier began his sentence for soliciting prostitution from a minor in June 2008.
Arguing that the emails had provided “materially new information” that exposed “manifest weaknesses” in Lord Mandelson’s judgment, Mr Alexander said: “When that reached the Prime Minister’s desk, he acted and dismissed the ambassador.”
He added that Lord Mandelson’s original appointment had been a “political judgment” that an “unconventional ambassador” was needed to deal with an “unconventional presidential administration” under Donald Trump.
Mr Alexander said: “On one hand, Peter Mandelson did bring some very particular qualities to that job and to that diplomatic post, and on the other hand, as has been confirmed, there were manifest weaknesses of his judgment that have been brutally exposed by these emails.”
Meanwhile, Labour backbenchers have expressed anger at Sir Keir’s handling of the row over Lord Mandelson, with almost 50 reported to have contacted the Chief Whip, Jonathan Reynolds, calling for the peer to be sacked.
Speaking to the BBC, Mr Alexander said he understood why Labour MPs were “despondent”, as Lord Mandelson’s dismissal came a week after Angela Rayner was forced to resign from the Cabinet and Labour’s deputy leadership.
He said: “These are not the headlines any of us in Government or in Parliament would have chosen or wanted. But the fact is when the evidence emerged, action had to be taken and we are looking forward, therefore, to moving on.”
He added that “while the politics is really hard”, there were still “policy achievements under way”.
Reform UK leader Nigel Farage said Sir Keir had continued to back Lord Mandelson without the support of his party.
Speaking as part of a Reform UK press conference in Caerphilly, Mr Farage said: “I just don’t know what the intelligence briefing that Morgan McSweeney (Sir Keir’s chief of staff), the right-hand man to the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister got, but you sort of begin to get the feeling that the PM ignored the warnings, carried on without really having much support in his own party, and then it took him quite a long time to actually remove Lord Mandelson.
“So, it’s kind of left the PM and McSweeney, his right-hand man, in a very difficult position with their own parliamentary party.”
The Liberal Democrats called for the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee to scrutinise the next US ambassador.
Calum Miller, Lib Dem foreign affairs spokesman, said: “The Prime Minister’s appointment of Mandelson was a clear error of judgment, a mistake that we cannot afford to let him repeat.
“To avoid further national embarrassment for our country on the international stage, the Foreign Affairs Committee must now have a role in scrutinising Mandelson’s successor before they are appointed.”
