Ambassador to the United States 2025-09-16

Argues that Lord Mandelson was never an appropriate selection as ambassador due to his sensitivity of the role, history of ethical issues, and concerns over who knew what and when regarding his appointment. Mentions previous incidents involving Mr Hinduja, Bofors weapons contract scandal, lavish hospitality from companies while ruling on their commercial interests.

Points out that the Prime Minister's judgment has been diminished by this affair and agrees with David Davis' statement about Lord Mandelson being an inappropriate selection for the role of ambassador.

Agrees with David Davis, stating that the Prime Minister is accountable for his appointment decision and should adhere to the same rules as MPs are accountable for their staff conduct.

Questions why Lord Mandelson retains the Labour Whip in the House of Lords while other members face repercussions, highlighting a double standard within the Labour party and suggesting it is the Prime Minister's decision to retain him.

Raises concerns about insufficient due diligence prior to Lord Mandelson’s appointment and questions why information available was not acted upon, highlighting that his dismissal came after international publicity of his past behaviour.

Miller questioned David Davis about the influence of Russian oligarchs in British politics and the suitability of political parties accepting donations from Russians.

Curtis pointed out that a Conservative candidate had worked for Global Counsel, the company founded by Lord Mandelson after his time as Business Secretary.

Duncan Smith clarified that the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China is a non-partisan organisation with members from all parties, aiming to address the threat from China.

Lewis recalled an instance where the Prime Minister was challenged about appointing Mandelson as ambassador and questioned why the Prime Minister would not be tempted by such a position.

Hobhouse highlighted Lord Mandelson's attitude towards women, given his association with Jeffrey Epstein, who was convicted of paedophile activities.

Evans noted that questions about Mandelson’s suitability were being raised earlier than the recent revelations and questioned why these concerns weren’t addressed sooner by the Prime Minister.

Pritchard highlights the need for pre-confirmation hearings by parliamentary committees, arguing that this would allow candidates to be cross-questioned. He also points out the disparity in vetting practices between political appointments and other public appointments.

Morello questions whether the Prime Minister was aware of a report produced by the Cabinet Office's propriety and ethics team before making the appointment. He emphasises the need for transparency regarding who knew what at each stage.

Robertson criticises the Business Secretary for suggesting that Lord Mandelson's qualities outweighed any ethical concerns. He asserts that it is shameful to make such a trade-off and questions whether Mandelson should be barred from future government roles.

Begum seeks to raise further points regarding the vetting process, but Davis declines to give way due to time constraints.

Questions Thornberry about whether her Committee would have recommended against the appointment if it had been allowed to interview Lord Mandelson. He believes that a proper investigation would highlight issues that could not be overlooked.

Supports Thornberry's stance, suggesting that Parliament should have more authority in the appointment process to avoid future scandals. He believes that Select Committees should play a significant role.

Agrees with Thornberry on giving the Foreign Affairs Committee a greater role in scrutinizing political appointments, particularly for high-ranking positions such as the US ambassador. She emphasises the need to prevent future mishaps.

Suggests that Select Committees should have the power to summon witnesses and access confidential briefings from Privy Counsellors to ensure transparency in appointments. He believes this would improve accountability.

Questions whether due process was followed properly, highlighting the Prime Minister's statement regarding full adherence to procedures despite recent scandals.

Asks Thornberry about the decision-making process behind appointing an individual with compromising information known in another country. He emphasises the importance of protecting national interests.

Compares the situation with a story about a scorpion and a frog, suggesting that it was known Lord Mandelson had problematic associations. Questions why the Prime Minister was surprised by this information.

Asks whether external influence, such as Tony Blair or Mandelson’s friends, played a role in his appointment.

Agrees that the Prime Minister must take responsibility and criticises hiding behind advisers and junior ministers.

Acknowledges victims of Jeffrey Epstein's abuse, discusses civil servants' hard work in contrast to the scandal. Highlights questions about future recruitment processes for ambassadors.

Raises concerns over perceived double standards regarding suspension from Labour Whip compared to Lord Mandelson's case.

Pays tribute to David Davis for securing the debate and Emily Thornberry's questions. Suggests reforms for confirmatory hearings for public appointments, emphasising transparency and scrutiny by Select Committees.

Supports the argument that the Prime Minister should not have appointed Lord Mandelson due to his known links with a convicted paedophile. She highlights the lasting trauma of sexual violence and calls for accountability in public appointments.

Encourages Ed Davey to ask President Trump about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein during state banquets, emphasising the need for transparency regarding such issues.

Agrees that protecting predators should not be tolerated in public life and suggests reforms are necessary to ensure accountability towards victims' rights.

Draws parallels with the appointment of Andy Coulson as director of communications under David Cameron, suggesting that questions around vetting processes for senior appointments are not unique to this government. Emphasises the need for accountability but also notes that such issues have a history in politics.

Intervenes to ask if Lord Mandelson's connections with Jeffrey Epstein should have been enough reason not to appoint him as ambassador. Emphasises the importance of vetting processes.

Critiques John Slinger for supporting the Whips Office and emphasises the seriousness of how the situation might affect UK-US relations, suggesting President Trump could be furious over the handling of Lord Mandelson's appointment.

Flynn criticised the Government for their handling of the scandal, noting that Labour MPs appeared glum as they recognised the significance of the situation facing their Prime Minister. He argued that this was a political decision by the Prime Minister and questioned why Lord Mandelson was appointed knowing about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein despite Epstein's conviction in 2008.

Shelbrooke expressed despair over the Government’s handling of the situation, criticising the lack of transparency and the contemptuous attitude shown by some Back Benchers. He emphasised that this was a serious matter involving someone with high security clearance who had known links to Jeffrey Epstein.

Stone highlighted the public's strong reaction to the scandal, stating that it would not go away and would only grow larger. He emphasised the need for answers regarding the situation, noting that when constituents speak so firmly about an issue, politicians must take them seriously.

The previous Prime Minister's actions were criticised by Labour; however, the current situation with Peter Mandelson and the PM's knowledge is different. The current PM has an independent ethics adviser.

The Prime Minister cannot use the presence of an independent ethics adviser to deflect criticism; he must answer questions directly regarding his knowledge of the appointment process for Peter Mandelson, who defended a convicted paedophile.

Requested an intervention from Sir Alec Shelbrooke, though he declined to give way due to time constraints.

All agree Peter Mandelson should not have been appointed as ambassador. Ambassadors are critical in projecting soft power and representing the UK, thus their appointments must be transparent and based on integrity. The lack of opportunity to question Lord Mandelson publicly is concerning.

Agrees with Sir John Whittingdale's points about the need for transparency in ambassadorial appointments and the importance of questioning candidates like Peter Mandelson before their appointment.

Supports Sir John Whittingdale, emphasising that understanding past mistakes is crucial for future policy. The debate is about accountability and the PM's role in addressing what went wrong.

The debate represents a 'pyrrhic victory' with the Prime Minister failing to deliver on promises of change, ignoring questions, and not providing clear answers. The public demands truth and accountability.

The Prime Minister's judgment in appointing Lord Mandelson is woefully incompetent, and there are serious questions about whether he inadvertently misled the House of Commons. Full clarity on what was known and when must be provided.

The situation raises fundamental questions about accountability and due diligence. The Prime Minister's failure to ask pointed questions and conduct thorough investigations is concerning, especially given his legal background.

The decision to appoint Lord Mandelson as Britain’s ambassador to the US was extraordinary. The links between Mandelson and Epstein were well known, yet the Prime Minister oversaw the appointment despite having knowledge of media inquiries about the emails. Wendy Morton calls for full disclosure of all documents related to the vetting process and communication with Lord Mandelson.

Jim Allister questions how the Prime Minister could have confidence in Lord Mandelson after knowing about media inquiries regarding the emails. He emphasises that the Prime Minister's declaration of having 'confidence' raises serious doubts about his judgment and integrity.

Richard Foord highlights the UK’s tradition of appointing career civil servants as ambassadors, praising the professionalism and impartiality of the British diplomatic service. He notes that this distinction between politicians and officials is crucial for maintaining public trust.

Foord agreed with Davis's argument, praising him for bringing up this issue. He suggested that Karen Pierce would have continued to serve in her role excellently.

Jopp expressed concern about potential blackmail and leverage faced by Lord Mandelson due to kompromat, questioning the integrity of his actions as ambassador. He highlighted instances where Mandelson's conduct seemed at odds with promoting British interests.

Obese-Jecty criticised the Government for ignoring security warnings about Lord Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, describing it as an embarrassment. He questioned why the Prime Minister appointed him despite knowing of his connections to a convicted paedophile.

The hon. Member’s speech reminds me of an earlier episode in UK-US relations, when Donald Rumsfeld referred to known knowns, unknown unknowns and known unknowns. While the Government might be forgiven for not holding Peter Mandelson to account for unknown unknowns, does he agree that it is unforgivable that they have staked Britain’s diplomatic relationship with the US on known unknowns?

I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Member. It is incredible that the Government have engaged in such lax vetting regarding such an obvious conflict of interest.

On Thursday, I came to this House to announce that the Prime Minister had asked the Foreign Secretary to withdraw Lord Mandelson as the UK’s ambassador to the United States. At the outset, may I say—there were many comments to this effect from across the House—that all of us are appalled by Epstein’s crimes, and all those who have suffered as a result need to be at the forefront of our minds today.

Is the Minister effectively telling the House that Lord Mandelson retaining his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein despite him being a paedophile was fine, and that the only problem was that Lord Mandelson thought that Jeffrey Epstein was innocent? Is the Minister conveying the message to the public that if Lord Mandelson had not sent those emails and had said to the Prime Minister that Jeffrey Epstein was guilty, that would not have been a problem?

The Minister is doing a fair job, but I have one simple question for him: why is he, not the Prime Minister, in the Chamber answering the House’s questions? The Minister clearly cannot answer them—no disrespect to him. The Prime Minister said that he did not know something, but now he knows something. Where is the Prime Minister, and why is he not at the Dispatch Box?

Given that the Minister is such a decent Minister, who enjoys respect on both sides of the House, I am tempted to repeat the advice that Lloyd George gave to Churchill during the Norway debate of 1940, which is not to make himself an air raid shelter to protect his colleagues—in this case, the Prime Minister—from the splinters. If the Prime Minister’s case is as strong as the Minister makes out, can he explain why, if I remember correctly, only a single Labour Back Bencher has made a speech in the Prime Minister’s favour?

Questions whether someone with a close association to a convicted paedophile would pass national security vetting, suggesting that such an individual would not be given the highest security clearance.

Requests to intervene on the debate but is denied by Stephen Doughty.

Asks if the Minister expresses confidence in national security vetting, given that Lord Mandelson's appointment was withdrawn due to new information.

Questions why the Foreign Office was not involved in the propriety and ethics team’s due diligence process before Lord Mandelson’s appointment was announced.

Calls for a written response to questions raised about Lord Mandelson's appointment and an apology to Epstein's victims, criticising the Prime Minister for not addressing the issue directly in Parliament.

Points out that concerns regarding Lord Mandelson’s suitability had been raised before last Wednesday, contradicting claims made by Stephen Doughty.

The MP supports transparency and accountability. They cite the unanimity of other party leaders and highlight the importance of releasing documents and allowing relevant individuals to appear before Select Committees for questioning.

This right hon. member emphasises the need for full disclosure of all documents related to the vetting process and accountability measures, highlighting that security concerns do not justify withholding information.

The Father of the House advises on the importance of honesty in addressing errors and cover-ups, suggesting that transparency is crucial for survival in such situations.