4 hours ago
5
We now have the first tranche of documents promised by the government connected to the appointment of Peter Mandelson as the UK’s ambassador to Washington – 147 pages from a mass of information believed to total in the hundreds of thousands.
Mandelson has previously denied any wrongdoing, and his lawyers have said he does not intend to make any further statement at this time. Here is what we have learned from the files – and what we do not yet know.
1. Mandelson played hardball over his severance payout
The individual’s contract states an entitlement to three months’ notice or payment in lieu of notice. On advice of his counsel, the individual has stated this is insufficient, particularly as they believe the actions of HMG have permanently damaged their employability.
There has already been some controversy about the fact that Mandelson was given a £75,000 payoff. The documents show that he sought much more – £547,000, which would have been the total pay he was due for the entire ambassadorial contract. Mandelson had, they added, sought advice from a KC specialising in employment law.
While ministers can be instantly dismissed if they lose the confidence of the prime minister, as a civil servant, Mandelson was entitled to three months’ notice payment, given he had not done anything wrong in the job itself. This notice totalled £40,330, to which the Foreign Office added a “termination payment” of £34,670.
Why? Darren Jones, the chief secretary to Downing Street, argued in the Commons that this was to save money, as if Mandelson had pursued his case at an employment tribunal, it would have cost much more.
2. Starmer knew about Mandelson’s post-jail links to Epstein
After Epstein was first convicted of procuring an underage girl in 2008, their relationship continued across 2009-2011, beginning when Lord Mandelson was business minister and continuing after the end of the Labour government.
This aspect of the documents is unsurprising, not least as Starmer said last month that he knew before appointing Mandelson that his choice for US ambassador had maintained some contact with Epstein even after the disgraced financier had been jailed in 2008.
It is nonetheless striking to see it laid out in black and white in a document for Starmer setting out the “due diligence” carried out on Mandelson.
There was, the report said, “general reputational risk” from the links to Epstein, and other aspects of Mandelson’s life, including his business links and the fact he had been twice forced to resign as a government minister.
3. Mandelson was offered sensitive briefings before his vetting was completed
We’ll brief you further in person from 6 January onwards, including at higher tiers.
As part of a Foreign Office email from December 2024 setting out details of the job, including receiving a phone, laptop and iPad, Mandelson was told he would receive confidential briefings from 6 January – when his vetting was not due to be completed before the end of January.
4. Some in government had their doubts about the appointment
Jonathan Powell found the appointment process … of Lord Mandelson weirdly rushed.
One document sets out a call between a No 10 staffer and Powell, Starmer’s hugely experienced national security adviser, in September last year, after Mandelson had been removed from the job.
Going over the appointments process, it said Powell thought the decision to put Mandelson in as a political appointee had been hurried, with Downing Street and the Foreign Office jointly pushing it through – although Philip Barton, the then-top civil servant in the Foreign Office, had some personal reservations.
Powell “raised concerns about the individual and reputation” to Morgan McSweeney, who was Starmer’s chief of staff, the memo adds. McSweeney “responded that the issues had been addressed”.
5. We hear from Mandelson himself only very briefly
My chief concern is leaving the US and arriving in the UK with the maximum dignity and minimum media intrusion.
There is only one document in Mandelson’s own words in the entire bundle, and it is a fairly prosaic one – a reply to the Foreign Office’s head of HR about the practicalities and timings of his departure from Washington.
In it, Mandelson agrees that the dates should tally with obtaining the necessary veterinary clearance for his collie dog, Jock, to travel, but adds a slightly plaintive noted in addition.
“My chief concern is leaving the US and arriving in the UK with the maximum dignity and minimum media intrusion, which I think is to the advantage of all concerned, not least because I remain a crown/civil servant and expect to be treated as such,” he says.
6. What is missing: what Mandelson told No 10 about his Epstein links
This would be the key element to this first set of documents: as part of the vetting process, officials quizzed Mandelson in more detail about what links he had to Epstein. Starmer argues that the responses were reassuring, but also dishonest.
No 10 argues that they wanted to include this content. So why is it missing? Because of a police request. As set out by Jones in the Commons, the Metropolitan police believe this material could be relevant to their ongoing investigation into allegations of misconduct in public office by Mandelson.
