Sir Keir Starmer’s standing on the world stage has been “diminished”, Parliament has heard, as MPs scrutinised the Prime Minister’s decision to appoint Lord Peter Mandelson.
Kemi Badenoch accused Sir Keir of “hiding from Parliament” because he was not present for the emergency debate on the former US ambassador’s dismissal and his relationship with paedophile Jeffrey Epstein.
Conservative former minister Sir David Davis argued there are double standards applied to those of “Labour royalty”, with Lord Mandelson retaining the Labour whip.
The debate came ahead of US President Donald Trump’s state visit to the UK, which Conservative leader Mrs Badenoch said risks being overshadowed by scandal.
“It is extraordinary – extraordinary – that on the eve of the president’s state visit, we are talking about the US ambassador who’s been sacked in scandal,” she told the Commons.
Mrs Badenoch added: “The Prime Minister needs to come clean about what he knew and when he knew it, not send his junior ministers to cover for him.
“The Prime Minister needs to publish the Mandelson-Epstein files in full.
“The Prime Minister needs to take responsibility for the appointment of Lord Mandelson as ambassador to Washington.
“But the Prime Minister is not here because he is hiding from Parliament, hiding from questions.”
Prior to the debate, Mrs Badenoch called for Sir Keir to face “serious consequences” if he has not been honest about what he knew.
Meanwhile, the Foreign Secretary suggested her department was not responsible for any failure to recognise risks in the appointment of Lord Mandelson to the Washington job.
The Foreign Office was not asked to contribute to a due diligence process ahead of the decision, nor were any concerns raised with the department about the peer, Yvette Cooper said, amid questions about the vetting process.
Her comments are likely to pile pressure on the Cabinet Office, No 10 and Sir Keir for their role in deciding the Labour grandee was suitable for the position.
During the debate, Dame Emily Thornberry questioned whether those vetting Lord Mandelson were told to “overlook” a “glaring national security and reputational risk”.
The chairwoman of the Foreign Affairs Committee said: “The question is this, did the Cabinet Office miss the glaring red flag of Lord Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein, or did it fail to pass those concerns on.”
She added that her committee had called for Lord Mandelson to appear before them before his appointment but he had not appeared.
In a letter, Ms Cooper said: “The propriety and ethics team in the Cabinet Office conducted a due diligence process, prior to the announcement of Peter Mandelson’s appointment on 20 December 2024 at the request of No 10.
“The FCDO was not asked to contribute to that process and no issues were raised with the FCDO as a result of this process. This was not a security check.
“After Peter Mandelson’s appointment was announced, which started the ambassadorial appointment process, including national security vetting, in advance of him taking up his post.”
Asked if security concerns about Lord Mandelson’s appointment were dismissed during the process, Ms Cooper replied: “We do not comment on individual national security vetting cases in line with long established practice. It is not a process which involves No 10.”
Elsewhere, Labour MP Richard Burgon claimed it is “unfair” that some MPs, including Diane Abbott and those who opposed cuts to disability benefits, have had the Labour whip removed but Lord Peter Mandelson remains as a peer.
The Leeds East MP said: “It surprises me that we have a situation where the honourable member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) has been unfairly suspended from the Labour whip, along with others, for opposing disability benefit cuts.
“The Mother of the House (Diane Abbott) remains suspended from the Labour Party, yet Lord Mandelson retains the Labour whip in the House of Lords.”
He added there are Labour members who “think that’s completely unfair”.
Sir David replied: “The double standard, as it were, that applies to the top of the Labour Party, to Labour royalty if you like, as opposed to other people who have been punished for actually doing their jobs, for representing their people and so on. So he’s got a point.”
Earlier in Sir David’s speech, Plaid Cymru’s Westminster leader Liz Saville Roberts 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?”
Sir David said “there is no doubt she’s correct”, adding: “It has diminished the standing of our Prime Minister, and I regret that.”
