UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer defended on Monday before the House of Commons that he was unaware Peter Mandelson failed initial security checks before his appointment as ambassador to the United States. The appointment, controversial due to Mandelson's Epstein links and Chinese business ties, has renewed questions about Starmer's leadership. Opponents demand greater accountability.
Keir Starmer appeared on Monday in the House of Commons to defend his 2024 appointment of Peter Mandelson as ambassador to Washington. Mandelson was dismissed last September over his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and is under police investigation for allegedly leaking confidential information during his roles in London and Brussels. He was detained in February and released without charges.
The latest controversy emerged because Mandelson failed the Foreign Office's initial security vetting due to conflicts of interest from his consultancy working with Chinese firms like TikTok, Shein, and WuXi AppTec, as reported by The Guardian and the Financial Times. Olly Robbins, the responsible official, overruled the initial veto, a decision he will defend on Tuesday before the Foreign Affairs Committee. Starmer insisted: "If I had been told that Peter Mandelson had not passed the security vetting, I would never have appointed him".
Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch retorted: "It seems he asked no questions. Why? Because he did not want to know". Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davey compared it to Boris Johnson's case and called for Starmer's resignation. Reform MP Lee Anderson was expelled for accusing the prime minister of lying.
Despite criticism from some Labour MPs like Diane Abbott, there is no imminent party rebellion ahead of the May 7 local elections. Labour sources view the appointment as Starmer's "original sin".
