UK Ambassador to the US: Appointment Process

Neil O'Brien Excerpts

Thursday 11th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)]

(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.

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)]

Before I respond to the question, it is important that as a House we all recognise that today is the anniversary of the 11 September attacks. Many of us will attend commemorations later, and our thoughts are with all the thousands of people who lost their lives in that despicable terrorist attack, including many British and American citizens, as well as those from many other countries.

The whole House’s condolences and thoughts will also be with the family and friends of Charlie Kirk— it was an absolutely appalling attack and murder yesterday. In this House, as we sit under the two shields commemorating our dear colleagues from across the political spectrum, we know too well the terrible consequences of political violence. I know that the whole House will be thinking of Charlie’s family, friends and others, and urging an end to that sort of political violence, which is absolutely appalling.

In light of additional information in emails written by Peter Mandelson, the Prime Minister has asked the Foreign Secretary to withdraw him as ambassador to the United States. The emails show that the depth and extent of Lord Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein is materially different from that known at the time of his appointment. In particular, Lord Mandelson’s suggestion that Jeffrey Epstein’s first conviction was wrongful and should be challenged is new information. In the light of that and mindful, as we all are, of the victims of Epstein’s appalling crimes, Lord Mandelson has been withdrawn as ambassador with immediate effect.

[Neil O’Brien]

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.

[Stephen Doughty]

The first thing that we all need to be clear on across this House is that the victims of Epstein are at the forefront of all our minds—I am sure the hon. Gentleman will not disagree with that. Epstein was a despicable criminal who committed the most heinous crimes and destroyed the lives of so many women and girls.

Obviously the hon. Gentleman wrote his remarks before the events in the last few hours, but I reiterate what I said to him. The emails show that the depth and extent of Lord Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein was materially different from that known at the time of his appointment; in particular, the suggestion that Jeffrey Epstein’s first conviction was wrongful and should be challenged is new information. Lord Mandelson has resigned and that decision has been taken. That is a very clear answer to the hon. Gentleman’s questions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the comments I have already made.

[Neil O’Brien]

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?

[Mr Speaker]

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.