1. Mandelson played hardball for his severance pay
The individual’s contract provides for the right to three months’ notice or payment in lieu of notice. Following the advice of his lawyer, the individual has stated that this is insufficient, particularly because he believes that HMG’s actions have permanently damaged his employability.
There has already been some controversy over the fact that Mandelson was paid £75,000. The documents show he was asking for much more: £547,000, which would have been his total payment for the entire ambassadorial contract. Mandelson, they added, had sought advice from a KC specializing in employment law.
While ministers can be fired instantly if they lose the confidence of the prime minister, as a public servant Mandelson was entitled to three months’ notice, given that he had done nothing wrong in the job itself. This notice amounted to £40,330, to which the Foreign Office added a “termination payment” of £34,670.
Because? Darren Jones, Downing Street chief secretary, argued in the House of Commons that this was to save money, as if Mandelson had taken his case to an employment tribunal it would have cost much more.
2. Starmer knew about Mandelson’s ties to Epstein after jail
After Epstein was first convicted of pimping an underage girl in 2008, their relationship continued between 2009 and 2011, beginning when Lord Mandelson was business minister and continuing after the end of the Labor government.
This aspect of the documents is not surprising, especially since Starmer said last month that he knew, before naming Mandelson, that his pick for US ambassador had maintained some contact with Epstein even after the disgraced financier was jailed in 2008.
However, it is striking to see it captured in black and white in a document for Starmer in which the “due diligence” carried out with Mandelson is set out.
According to the report, there was a “general reputational risk” over links to Epstein and other aspects of Mandelson’s life, including his business ties and the fact that he had been forced to resign twice as a government minister.
3. Mandelson was offered sensitive briefings before his background investigation was completed.
We will inform you in more detail in person starting January 6, even at higher levels.
As part of a Foreign Office email from December 2024 setting out details of the job, including receiving a phone, laptop and iPad, Mandelson is told he will receive confidential briefings from January 6, when his vetting was not due to be completed before the end of January.
4. Some in the government had doubts about the appointment
Jonathan Powell found Lord Mandelson’s appointment process strangely rushed.
One document sets out a call between a member of the No. 10 staff and Powell, Starmer’s highly experienced national security adviser, in September last year, after Mandelson was removed from his position.
Reviewing the appointments process, he said Powell thought the decision to make Mandelson a political appointee had been rushed, with Downing Street and the Foreign Office jointly driving the decision, although Philip Barton, the then senior Foreign Office official, had some personal reservations.
Powell “expressed concerns about the individual and reputation” to Morgan McSweeney, who was Starmer’s chief of staff, the memo added. McSweeney “responded that the problems had been resolved.”
5. We only hear very briefly from Mandelson himself.
My main concern is to leave the United States and arrive in the United Kingdom with maximum dignity and minimal media intrusion.
There is only one document in Mandelson’s own words in the entire package, and it is quite prosaic: a response to the head of Human Resources at the Foreign Office on the practicalities and timing of his departure from Washington.
In it, Mandelson agrees that the dates should coincide with obtaining the necessary veterinary clearance for his collie dog, Jock, to travel, but also adds a slightly plaintive note.
“My main concern is leaving the United States and arriving in the United Kingdom with the utmost dignity and minimal media intrusion, which I believe is an advantage for everyone involved, especially as I am still a public and crown official and I expect to be treated as such,” he says.
6. What’s missing: What Mandelson told No 10 about his links to Epstein
This would be the key element of this first set of documents: As part of the investigation process, officials questioned Mandelson in more detail about what ties he had to Epstein. Starmer maintains that the responses were reassuring, but also dishonest.
Number 10 argues that they wanted to include this content. So why is it missing? By police request. As Jones sets out 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.
