By Megan Kenyon

Copyright newstatesman

Keir Starmer’s headache over Peter Mandelson’s links to Jeffery Epstein continues. During an emergency debate in the House of Commons this afternoon the former US ambassador, who was sacked on Thursday, was described by one Tory MP as less the “Prince of Darkness” and more a “grovelling Lord Yum Yum”, to many giggles from the opposition benches. No one on the frontbenches was laughing.

The emergency debate – which lasted for three hours this afternoon – was granted to the Conservatives last night by the Speaker Lindsay Hoyle. The PM wasn’t in attendance. Nor was the Foreign Secretary, Yvette Cooper, under whose brief these proceedings fell. Instead, a raft of junior ministers filed neatly into the Chamber and proceeded to spend the rest of the debate looking thoroughly miserable. As one keen observer pointed out, such public displays of despondency haven’t been seen on the frontbenches since the rushed dying days of Liz Truss’s premiership.

The purpose of this debate was to call for more transparency from the government over the vetting processes which led to the appointment of Mandelson as the UK ambassador to the US last year. David Davis began proceedings running through Mandelson’s torrid political career, and the allegations which led to his sacking last week. Davis offered MPs a damning verdict on Mandelson’s character: “It would appear that Lord Mandelson has subcontracted his conscience for money.”

Shortly before the debate began, news broke that the vetting of the disgraced New Labour grandee had not even started before he was appointed to the role on 20 December last year. In a joint letter to Emily Thornberry, the chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, Cooper and the Foreign Office’s permanent under-secretary Oliver Robbins wrote: “After Peter Mandelson’s appointment was announced on 20 December 2024, the FCDO started the ambassadorial appointment process, including National Security Vetting.” The letter pointed out that Mandelson was, however, the subject of a due diligence test conducted by the Propriety and Ethics Team, which sits inside the Cabinet Office.

This series of events feels muddled. And MPs were vociferous in their questioning of who knew what and when. This was the first on the list of asks from the Conservative leader, Kemi Badenoch, who did not pull her punches over the PM’s absence. She called on Starmer to “come clean” on what he knew about Mandelson and when he knew it and accused him of “hiding from parliament”. Badenoch, in an uncharacteristically strong performance, called on Starmer to take accountability for Mandelson’s appointment to rapturous cheers from the opposition benches.

Other MPs equally pointed to what they perceive as a deep lack of scrutiny and accountability from the No 10 leadership over this scandal. Thornberry pointed out that despite the Foreign Affairs committee requesting to speak to Mandelson when his appointment was still only a rumour, no meeting was forthcoming. She also refuted reports of a meeting in the press when the Committee was on a visit to the US, clarifying: “the reality is, of course, that we had a 15-minute interaction over breakfast while receiving a formal briefing from the diplomatic staff”.

Thornberry – who just last week put herself forward as a candidate to be the Labour Party’s deputy leader – added: “When Lord Mandelson was appointed, red flags were obviously missed or ignored, and on the day that the American President lands in Britain for a state visit, the government is materially worse off.” This is clearly not a good look for No 10. And with Donald Trump landing in the UK later today, it remains unclear how Starmer will handle things. As the Lib Dem MP Max Wilkinson pointed out, Trump also features in the Epstein Files. He asked Davis: “If the Prime Minister is to be discussing this issue with President Trump later in the week, and the Prime Minister has to have influence over President Trump for very good reasons, that if the issue of Lord Mandelson relationship with Jeffrey Epstein comes up, because President Trump is also in that birthday book, we understand with the very infamous poem, what’s the Prime Minister going to say?” Davis replied, referring to the resignation on Monday of Paul Ovenden, No 10’s former Director of Strategy and the PM’s speechwriter: “I’m not the Prime Minister’s speechwriter.” (“There’s a vacancy,” one MP replied).

Many Labour MPs are furious with the government and tensions are mounting. In the days since Mandelson’s sacking, some have pointed out the hypocrisy in Mandelson remaining the Labour whip in the House of Lords despite the allegations levelled against him, while others within the Parliamentary Party sit without it. Rachael Maskell, the MP for York Central, lost the whip in July for voting against the government’s welfare reforms. Maskell and Diane Abbott (who is also sitting without the whip) spent most of the debate watching quietly from the front of the Labour benches. The Labour MP Richard Burgon, who is an ally of Maskell and Abbott, described the upkeep of their suspension in light of the allegations behind Mandelson’s dismissal as “completely unfair”.

This debate was an embarrassment for Starmer, and for the government. That no senior cabinet minister was present to offer a defence or insight into how Mandelson’s appointment was eventually allowed reasserted the sense that this is an administration that lacks control. Mandelson may be out of the government, but his toxic legacy remains. If Starmer leaves it unchecked, his authority will continue to erode.