PM faces questions over judgment as he is forced to sack Mandelson

Starmer urged to clarify what he knew before decision to appoint peer

- Rowena Mason Dan Sabbagh Pippa Crerar

Keir Starmer is facing serious questions about his political judgment after he was forced to sack his US ambassador, Peter Mandelson, yesterday over his friendship with the sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

In the second damaging departure for the government in a week, the prime minister withdrew support for Mandelson over his emails to Epstein from 2008 suggesting his sentence for soliciting a child for prostitution should be challenged.

The scandal comes at a disastrous time for Starmer, days before Donald Trump's state visit to the UK next week. He is also facing an internal Labour battle over the deputy leadership after his deputy prime minister, Angela Rayner, had to resign last week over her tax affairs.

While No 10 was hoping the sacking would show decisive action by the prime minister, Starmer quickly became the focus of criticism over his decision to appoint Mandelson in spite of warnings about his chequered past and over his defence of the US ambassador up until Wednesday.

The prime minister was also urged to clarify whether there had been concerns from security officials about Mandelson, after Sky News reported that red flags had been raised by intelligence services in the vetting process. The Guardian understands that any concerns about security were likely to have been contained in a risk assessment from government officials, rather than from the intelligence agencies.

However, another government adviser told the Guardian they had raised informal doubts within Whitehall about Mandelson's 2005 association with the Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska, but said they had been reassured that he was a good appointment because he was "such a master of the dark arts".