The gaps in vetting Peter Mandelson for UK ambassador to the US shows that the entire vetting system needs updating, the chair of the foreign affairs committee says.
Dame Emily Thornberry tells Wilfred Frost that Lord Mandelson's appointment "exposes the weaknesses in our vetting process and in our due diligence process".
"We had the mandarins in front of my foreign affairs committee, and we asked them what the vetting process was. And to be honest, it's so clunky and old fashioned. I mean, it's like it kind of harks back to the 50s," she says.
Thornberry adds: "The due diligence just seems to be look at open source, put it in a document, hand it over. They didn't even have Mandelson in to ask him any questions!"
She wants candidates to be ambassadors to appear before her committee.
But she defends Sir Keir Starmer, saying he's a "busy man" and has to rely on others to give him advice.
But "checks and balances exist, and we should have paid more attention to them" Thornberry says - adding that a political appointment to an ambassadorial role was a "huge risk".
She says that the revelations reflect poorly on Lord Mandelson's appointment, but says: "I've yet to hear any convincing evidence that he did anything other than a thoroughly good job when he was ambassador, and that's important."
Lord Mandelson's friendship with Jeffrey Epstein was known about before he was appointed as ambassador to the US, although the government says they didn't know about the details that have been published in the Epstein files.