Britain's Civil Service ethics watchdog was prevented from interviewing Lord Mandelson about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein before his appointment as US ambassador, The Telegraph has revealed—rebuffs by Downing Street that came despite internal warnings that the peer's ties to the convicted sex offender posed reputational risk.
According to documents obtained by the newspaper, Darren Tierney, then head of the Cabinet Office's propriety and ethics team, approached senior No 10 staff twice in late 2024, offering to conduct formal interviews before Lord Mandelson's appointment. Both offers were declined by Morgan McSweeney's private secretary, effectively shutting the Civil Service out of the vetting process for one of the government's most sensitive diplomatic posts.
A due diligence report compiled by Tierney's team in December 2024 explicitly warned that Lord Mandelson's association with Epstein posed a reputational risk to the government. The report noted that the two men remained friends after the financier's conviction for soliciting child prostitution, and that Lord Mandelson had stayed in Epstein's home while he was in prison for that offense.
To understand today's headlines, we must look at yesterday's decisions. Lord Mandelson, a Labour Party grandee who served as a cabinet minister under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, has been a controversial figure throughout his career. His appointment as ambassador to Washington was intended to leverage his experience and connections during a turbulent period in US-UK relations. But the decision to bypass thorough ethics vetting now threatens to overshadow the diplomatic mission itself.
The relationship between Lord Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein spanned two decades, according to previous reporting by The Telegraph in January 2024. The peer visited Epstein's homes in New York, Florida, and the Caribbean, and the two socialized in both private and semi-public settings. Critically, some of these interactions occurred after Epstein's 2008 conviction for sex crimes involving minors.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer has stated publicly that he would have never appointed Lord Mandelson if he had known about the depth of the friendship with Epstein at the time. But the newly revealed documents suggest that the government was, in fact, warned about precisely this issue before the appointment—and chose to proceed without allowing its own ethics officials to investigate thoroughly.
Sources close to the vetting process, speaking to The Telegraph on condition of anonymity, suggested that a proper Civil Service interview could have uncovered more information about the Epstein links. Standard ethics reviews for sensitive appointments typically include detailed questioning about personal relationships, financial arrangements, and potential vulnerabilities to blackmail or embarrassment.
By blocking these interviews, No 10 effectively placed political considerations above institutional safeguards. The decision fits a pattern that has troubled some career civil servants: political advisers in the Prime Minister's office exercising authority that traditionally resided with non-partisan officials responsible for maintaining government standards.
The Epstein connection is not the only potential ethics concern that ethics officials sought to examine. The due diligence report also referenced historical lobbying by Lord Mandelson's company, Global Counsel, and raised questions about potential conflicts of interest. Again, No 10 declined to allow formal interviews on these matters.
For the opposition, the revelations provide ammunition for attacks on the government's judgment and transparency. Conservative MPs have demanded that the Prime Minister explain why standard vetting procedures were circumvented and who specifically made the decision to block ethics officials from questioning Lord Mandelson.
