PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
UK Ambassador to the US: Appointment Process - 11 September 2025 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

(Urgent Question): To ask the Foreign Secretary if she will make a statement on the process for the appointment of the United Kingdom’s ambassador to the United States.

Mr Speaker, I thank you for granting this urgent question, and I agree with the words of the Minister about 11 September and Charlie Kirk.

This is yet another extraordinary error of judgment by this weak Prime Minister. I pay tribute to the Leader of the Opposition for yesterday securing justice for the victims of Epstein. This raises massive questions. It is not just that Peter Mandelson was Epstein’s “best pal” and said that he loved him, or that he brokered a deal for him while he was Business Secretary, but that, as we now know, he was working for Epstein’s early release after Epstein was convicted.

The simple question is this: is the Minister now saying that the Prime Minister did not know about any of that at the point when Lord Mandelson was appointed? The Minister should not say that the boxes were ticked and the process followed—what did the Prime Minister know at the point of Lord Mandelson’s appointment? The Minister said this morning that his understanding was that all the information was present—is that correct? Did the Prime Minister know? Will the Government now publish all the documents relating to Peter Mandelson’s vetting? If the Minister says that the Prime Minister did not know at the time, when did he become aware of the revelations?

Peter Mandelson quietly stayed at Epstein’s house while Epstein was in prison. Mandelson now says that he was wrong to think that Epstein was innocent. That is his defence—but Epstein had pleaded guilty. There are huge questions here. Did the US State Department give any warnings to our Government ahead of this appointment? Did the Prime Minister’s chief of staff, Sue Gray, give any warning? Have any employees of Global Counsel visited our Washington embassy since Peter Mandelson’s appointment?

Next week will be the state visit. This is huge turmoil ahead of that, and I cannot believe that the Government have put our monarch in this terrible position. I am glad that Peter Mandelson has now gone. The Foreign Secretary has said that protecting women, girls and victims is her priority; how on earth does that square with the behaviour of the Government over recent days, squirming and twisting to try to protect Peter Mandelson, rather than the victims?

To be clear, this is a Government in which we had a corruption Minister having to resign over links to corruption; a former police officer having to resign over having not been clear with the police; a housing Minister having to resign over not paying tax on a house; and now we have our ambassador to Washington in the middle of the biggest scandal in Washington. This is a weak Prime Minister, with error after error of judgment.

I am sure I speak for the whole House in sending our best wishes to my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) on the appalling fire at her office overnight. We send our very best wishes to her and her staff.

May I thank the Minister for his statement? The Prime Minister has made exactly the right decision, and I think that has to be acknowledged. He has moved at pace to put it right—[Interruption.] Don’t be ridiculous. Treat this seriously.

Order. Please—this is very important. A lot of people will be listening to what is going on in this Chamber, so let us give some courtesies to each other.

Clearly the appointment process did not pick up these issues; that is self-evident. Can we have an assurance that there will be an inquiry into why that was not the case and that this House will be kept informed?

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Our thoughts are with the friends and families of the victims of 9/11. I also express my regret and sadness at the murder of Charlie Kirk, and I hope that the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) and her staff are all okay following the incident at her office. Political violence should have absolutely no place in society.

Lord Mandelson was tasked with overseeing the UK’s relationship with Trump, and the accusations surrounding him cast a damning shadow, so it is right that the Prime Minister has withdrawn his support for Lord Mandelson. Yesterday the Prime Minister stood by Lord Mandelson’s appointment and confirmed that rigorous background checks had taken place. What has changed since then? Questions remain over what the Government knew and when about Lord Mandelson’s relationship with the sex offender, whom he had previously described as his “best pal”. Did he resign, or was he sacked?

It is vital that the Civil Service Commission now investigates whether the ambassador broke the diplomatic service code by failing to come clean over these revelations sooner. Was the vetting process pushed through too fast? Will the Minister confirm that an investigation will take place so that no such incidents can happen again? Reports have surfaced that the Cabinet Office suppressed the release of a memo about Mandelson’s relationship because it could compromise relations with the US. Will the Minister confirm whether that was the case?

I associate myself with hon. Members’ condolences and concerns about my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson).

I thank the Minister for his statement. I too am disgusted and appalled by Epstein’s actions, and my thoughts are with the victims of his crimes. Will the Minister confirm that we have an excellent deputy ambassador in Washington, who will ensure that our mission continues and that next week’s visit will go ahead?

I call the Father of the House.

Obviously this is a very sad day for the United States, with 9/11 and the assassination last night. Our relationship with the United States is crucial, and there is a dark cloud over the upcoming state visit, so will the Minister forgive me if I give him some gentle advice? In my experience of such scandals, the cover-up, the lack of due process and allegations of cronyism are much more serious than any original offence, or alleged offence. Will he ensure that every single document about the process is released post haste, including about the meeting that Mandelson requested with Prime Minister Blair over Epstein? We need everything released straightaway, and we need to move on and get a new ambassador.

I would also like to offer my support to my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson). That incident follows a number of others that she has experienced this week. It is out of order.

I thank the Minister for his statement, and I am really pleased that Lord Mandelson has been sacked, but I would like to know what due diligence was undertaken prior to his appointment. Everybody knew about his relationship with Epstein before it.

The House needs to understand the sheer size of the failure of the vetting process here. It is in the public domain that Peter Mandelson had to resign for not telling the truth about an interest-free loan, and that he had to resign on a second occasion because he had helped a business friend to get a passport. Beyond that, there are still unresolved doubts about his behaviour as the European Trade Commissioner, when he gave concessions to the Russians, which helped his other dubious close friend, Mr Deripaska.

On the positive vetting process for when Peter Mandelson came to be a Minister again in 2010, section 3.1 of the ministerial code says:

“Ministers…must ensure that no conflict arises, or could reasonably be perceived to arise, between their public duties and their private interests, financial or otherwise.”

Secretaries of State do not have private diaries. He spent time in Mr Epstein flat, it seems quietly meeting other people involved in the Sempra deal. That cannot be seen as following his proper duties as Secretary of State. It was in the Government documents—it does not have to be a private email. Was that investigated, and was a judgment made on it?

I agree with the Minister’s utter condemnation of all the horrendous crimes of Jeffrey Epstein. Does he agree that as soon as this new information came to light, the Government took decisive action very swiftly, which is different from the Conservatives? When they were in government and there were serious misgivings, it was actually the independent ethics adviser who ended up resigning.

I am sure that the Minister is delighted that he has not had to shred his own reputation like his ministerial and Cabinet colleagues have had to do on the broadcast rounds over the course of recent days, including this morning, in trying to defend Lord Mandelson and the lack of judgment shown by the Prime Minister. I do not know what it is about the decades of scandals and being best friends with a notorious child trafficker and paedophile, which should have rung some alarm bells in No. 10 before this decision was taken. If I listened correctly, the Minister did not confirm to the Father of the House that all relevant materials will be published. Did the Prime Minister know about these emails prior to standing up at the Dispatch Box just yesterday to say he had confidence in Mr Mandelson, and does he retain the Labour Whip in the House of Lords?

I associate myself with the comments that others have made about the disgusting crimes of Jeffrey Epstein.

Twenty-four years ago today, on 9/11, I was sat in the TUC Congress as a delegate when we were made aware of what had happened. May I put on the record my tribute to the first responders and public service workers in New York who came to the aid of people? Many of them are still paying the price today.

A lot has changed in politics in the past 24 years. One of the motivations that got me into public life was about the lack of accountability that we saw from senior Ministers when the Conservative party was in government, their failure to resign when scandals came up and the failure of Front Benchers to take action, so I welcome the swift action that this Government have taken now that new information has come to light. Can the Minister assure us that lessons will be learned and that, if these things arise again, this Government will uphold the highest standards and take the action needed to protect public life?

May I just point out that it was as plain as day, after the exchanges between the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition yesterday, that Lord Mandelson could not possibly carry on in his role? Why did the Prime Minister delay—or did he have to wait to be told what to do by Morgan McSweeney? Who is going to be the new ambassador, and how quickly will the new ambassador be appointed at this absolutely critical time, when Russia is testing the defences of NATO countries and we are showing such a weak response?

The Prime Minister has acted swiftly and decisively. What a contrast with the Conservative party. I note that the shadow Foreign Secretary is not in her place today. What happened when she broke the ministerial code? The Conservatives promoted her. Does the Minister agree that we will not take lectures on ethics from them?

Order. The hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) has just mentioned another Member. I presume that he has contacted her to let her know that he was going to do so. Is that the case?

No, Mr Speaker.

Please do not do that again. We are meant to treat each other with respect. This message is for all Members: if you are going to mention another Member, do them the courtesy of ensuring that they are first made aware of the fact.

On the Foreign Affairs Committee, we have seen the high calibre of career diplomats who usually take up the most senior ambassadorial appointments, so it is not obvious to me why the British ambassador to the United States was a former MP. In the emails that have leaked overnight, it appears that Lord Mandelson thinks that to govern is to schmooze. He famously declared in an election victory speech that he was a fighter, not a quitter, yet he urged the convicted paedophile, Jeffrey Epstein, that to fight for early release was the right thing. And Lord Mandelson did not do the decent thing and quit. Does the Minister regret the original appointment?

The Minister is a decent man, and the House knows that the business of the House was delayed while he hurriedly had to rewrite the statement that he was expected to make, but he is stretching the bounds of credibility too far. Yesterday, the Prime Minister told the House that he had full confidence in a man who befriended the vilest of convicted paedophiles. He should not have been appointed in the first place—that was a gross error of judgment and everybody in this House knows it—and the Prime Minister has to take responsibility. Now that Lord Mandelson has gone, will there be a Cabinet Office inquiry into the manner in which Mandelson was negotiating with a convicted paedophile while he was a Minister?

The idea that our country should be represented in America or on the world stage by somebody who tried to get a paedophile out of prison early will fill us all with revulsion. Can the Minister be clearer? He has said that the Prime Minister asked the Foreign Secretary to withdraw the ambassador. He said the Prime Minister made the decision, but he also said in his statement that Mandelson resigned. Did he resign or was he sacked?

I concur with the comments about Charlie Kirk that the Minister made at the beginning. It shows that anybody who is brave enough to put themselves up for public service and try to change the world for the better faces such dangers and risks.

May I ask the Minister, first, to reassure us that we will have total transparency about the process that was followed in this ambassadorial appointment? Secondly, assuming we get over that hurdle, can he please explain to the House why the appointment of a man who described President Trump as a “danger to the world”, whom the Americans described as an “absolute moron”, who has close links with China and who has a history of misfeasance in public office was the right appointment for the relationship with the most important and powerful country in the world, and one that is essential to this country?

While the whole House welcomes the withdrawal of Lord Mandelson as head of mission, can the Minister confirm whether he is still being paid as a civil servant?

It seems that there is a broad consensus across the whole House that this felt as though it was a question of when, not if. So during the extended vetting procedure, was there ever any interference or pressure from either No. 10 or the Prime Minister?

The diplomatic service code states that diplomats’

“behaviour, action or inaction must not significantly disrupt or damage the performance or reputation of the Diplomatic Service.”

It also states that diplomats

“must…set out the facts and relevant issues truthfully, and correct any errors as soon as possible”.

In the light of that, did Lord Mandelson set out how many payments he had received from the sanctioned Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska to accounts in this country, Switzerland or other areas, and has there been one set of rules for civil servants and another set of rules for friends of the Prime Minister and Jeffrey Epstein?

On behalf of my party, may I convey my support to the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson)? I was in her company yesterday and she is very much in our thoughts. I also, on behalf of my party, express deep sadness at the assassination of Charlie Kirk, a 31-year-old conservative influencer who engaged with young people across the United States of America. I know he is in heaven. I pray for his wife and children; I think we should all do that.

At times like this, it is essential that we have an ambassador in place to convey our sincere sympathy with our allies. The removal of Peter Mandelson is to be welcomed. In my humble opinion, he should never have been in the post in the first place. Does the Minister believe that it is imperative that we have an ambassador in place, and that they must have adequate history and qualifications, rather than our having a jobs-for-the-boys mentality? What changes will the Minister make to the appointment process to restore confidence in the role?

This is about the Prime Minister’s judgment. By Mandelson’s own admission, there is more very embarrassing information coming, so the Prime Minister could have said to the House yesterday, “I will suspend him, pending further investigation,” but he did not; he backed him. Can the Prime Minister be 100% sure that, in making any trade deals, or in any negotiations, Mr Mandelson has not been compromised by the information that has now come forward, and will he commit to investigating that?

I associate myself with the Minister’s words about 9/11 and the untimely and tragic death of Charlie Kirk.

Yesterday, it was reported that in 2008 Lord Mandelson emailed Epstein and said that his conviction in the United States

“could not happen in Britain”,

and encouraged him to go for early release. The whole House can see that the Prime Minister has an issue when it comes to judgment, acting only when he is pushed to by events in this House. Will there be an investigation of Lord Mandelson’s meetings while he was ambassador, to see if there was any conflict with his current business interests? Will the Government remove the Whip from him in the House of Lords, yes or no? And will Lord Mandelson be entitled to severance pay after this sacking?

The Prime Minister was hiding behind process yesterday, and is doing the same today. Did the Prime Minister know about these messages before Prime Minister’s questions yesterday?

The Minister claims that new information has come to light, which has resulted in the ambassador being sacked. Can he confirm that this is the only new information, and that all the other information was in the Prime Minister’s knowledge?

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister says that the only reason why Peter Mandelson had to resign was the additional information that he had campaigned for the early release of Epstein. The Government are not saying exactly what they did or did not know at the point of appointment. The only way for this House to know exactly what they knew is for the Government to publish the documents relating to his vetting. If the Government will not publish those documents, as the Minister says they will not, would it be possible for this House to attain those documents using the Humble Address mechanism?

That is not a decision for me. The Treasury has heard, and if the Minister wishes to respond, I am more than happy to let him. He is not going to.

I am not going to continue the debate, but I will take a point of order.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would welcome clarity further on points just made. The Minister was asked on numerous occasions when the Prime Minister was made aware of the additional email information that led to Mr Mandelson’s sacking. He has not provided the House with that information. What avenues are available to us Members to find out when the Prime Minister knew this additional information?

The right hon. Member and party leader knows very well the mechanisms that he can use. I do not think that today is the end of the matter. I think this will be returned to at some point. In fairness to the Minister, he said that the House would be updated as and when the Government had the information. The points have been taken, and I expect the questions to be answered at some time. There is a long weekend before we get to Monday. Let us leave it there; I do not want to continue the debate.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This relates to the issue we have been discussing, but is about the House procedures. What I took from the Minister’s answer was that Lord Mandelson, a Member of the House of Lords, had not given a full account of his past actions while going through vetting processes. What disciplinary mechanisms can be used by the Lords to make him accountable for that, if true?

I have enough to do, dealing with the House of Commons. Responsibility for the House of Lords is not for me, and I will certainly not take it.