Sir Keir Starmer apologised for appointing Lord Mandelson as ambassador to the US, acknowledging it was a 'mistake'. Photo / Getty Images
UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has taken personal responsibility for the “mistake” of appointing Lord Peter Mandelson as Britain’s ambassador to the United States.
The Prime Minister said he had been wrong to hire the former Labour peer and offered an apology to the victims of Jeffrey Epstein.
It comes after documents relating to the appointment, released on Wednesday, showed Starmer ignored warnings from top aides about Mandelson’s close relationship with the convicted paedophile.
But the Tories accused the Government of a “cover-up” by failing to release certain documents and redacting others.
Kemi Badenoch, the Conservative leader, said: “We need the full details of what the Prime Minister did. There is still a cover-up going on.
“I am astonished that the Prime Minister can actually look himself in the mirror right now. It is very clear that he told lie after lie after lie about the appointment of Peter Mandelson.”
Writing for The Telegraph, below, Alex Burghart, the shadow Cabinet Office minister, also demanded the Prime Minister reveal the questions he put to Mandelson about his relationship with Epstein before his appointment, and the peer’s answers.
Starmer is understood to have asked Mandelson why he continued contact with Epstein after his conviction, why he stayed in one of his homes and why he associated with a charity founded by Ghislaine Maxwell. Sources say the peer was “economical with the truth”.
But Burghart said, “If the Prime Minister put questions to Mandelson that prompted lies, we need to see those questions and those lies. We cannot take the Prime Minister at his word.
“Without the complete publication of those questions and Mandelson’s answers, the assumption must be that it is the Prime Minister that is lying to the public about what he was told.”
Files released on Wednesday show the official due diligence report on the peer, produced by the Cabinet Office, described his potential appointment as a “reputational risk” owing to his “particularly close relationship” with Epstein.
It also emerged that senior No 10 officials warned Starmer that he would be personally exposed “if anything goes wrong” with a political appointee to the role, and that Mandelson had been handed a £75,000 ($171,000) payout after his sacking.
MPs forced their release last month after Badenoch tabled a motion in tmanded the Government make public full details of Mandelson’s appointment.
But Burghart has asked Starmer’s independent ethics adviser, Sir Laurie Magnus, to investigate the Government for “serious deficiencies in the released material”, which mean the humble address is not being complied with.
They include the fact that Civil Service submissions had been released without ministerial annotations, that the conflict-of-interest form Mandelson had to fill in did not include his replies, and a “box note” featuring a blank box where the Prime Minister should have written down his approval for the appointment.
Sir Laurie has also been urged to investigate James Murray, Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who signed off Mandelson’s payout.
Files released on Wednesday show Treasury officials said the payment was made to avoid “reputational damage”. Standards rules for ministers specifically exclude agreeing to a payout to avoid “unwelcome publicity or reputational damage”.
A Treasury source said its internal guidance on severance payments lists larger financial losses from legal action as one justification for them.
Speaking about Mandelson’s appointment during a visit to Northern Ireland on Thursday, Starmer said, “It was me that made the mistake… and it’s me that makes the apology to the victims of Epstein”.
In the House of Commons last September, Starmer told MPs that the “full due process” was followed during the former Labour peer’s appointment.
Starmer’s official spokesman insisted that no corners had been cut and that Mandelson had faced the same checks as any other ambassador.
His spokesman said, “I refute the suggestion of a cover-up. The Government has complied fully. I just don’t accept that it’s the case at all.
“There are a range of different ways in which the Prime Minister’s senior team responds to advice.”
He added, “The Prime Minister did read the advice, but clearly there are lessons to be learned on the wider appointment processes, and the processes that led up to them”.
Responding to Burghart’s letter – in full below – a Government spokesman said: “The Government is committed to complying with the Humble Address in full, while continuing to support the Metropolitan Police in their investigation”.
A Labour source added, “This is conspiratorial nonsense from the Tories”.
The first batch of Mandelson files has now been released, and with it the Prime Minister’s defence of his own record has come to look increasingly shaky.
For weeks, Keir Starmer has insisted that he was misled by Peter Mandelson about the nature of his relationship with the notorious paedophile Jeffrey Epstein.
But a simple question hangs over Downing Street: What, exactly, were the lies that Starmer claims he was told by Mandelson?
The material now in the public domain shows that Starmer knew that Mandelson had stayed at Epstein’s home even after his conviction for soliciting and procuring a minor for prostitution. Indeed, this was something the Prime Minister was forced into admitting when pushed on the point by Kemi Badenoch a few weeks ago.
The defence offered by Downing Street, therefore, rests on the claim that Mandelson misled Starmer about the depth or nature of his friendship with Epstein. Yet given the Prime Minister knew that Mandelson had continued to take Epstein’s hospitality after that conviction (and while he was in prison), the obvious question is, what deception took place and how was it critical to the decision?
This matters because the Prime Minister has framed the issue not as one of judgment but of deception. His explanation is that he relied on assurances that later proved false. In other words, he asks the country to believe that responsibility lies not with him, but with Mandelson.
That is a serious claim. It, therefore, demands serious detail.
What exactly did Starmer ask Mandelson before his appointment? What answers did Mandelson provide? And which of those answers does the Prime Minister now say were false?
None of this has been explained – and the documents published on Wednesday after the Conservative Party’s Humble Address, do not tell the full story.
Instead, the public has been offered the broad accusation that Mandelson lied without any detail.
If Mandelson misled the Prime Minister in a significant way, Downing Street should be able to say precisely how. It should be able to identify the specific claim that was made, the moment it was made, and the information that later disproved it. That is how accountability is meant to work.
Without that clarity, the Prime Minister’s explanation looks like a distraction.
The truth is that Starmer was in possession of more than enough information to block the appointment. He knew Mandelson had maintained an unhealthy relationship with Epstein long past the point where it was excusable.
If the Prime Minister put questions to Mandelson that prompted lies, we need to see those questions and those lies. We cannot take the Prime Minister at his word. Without the complete publication of those questions and Mandelson’s answers, the assumption must be that it is the Prime Minister that is lying to the public about what he was told.
If the Prime Minister chose to believe the assertions of a man who had twice before been fired for misconduct itself shows a woeful lack of judgment. This from a man who was once the most senior prosecutor in the country. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that if the Prime Minister was deceived it was because the Prime Minister was happy to be deceived. He chose to look away.
We know the Prime Minister was told there was a risk – it appears in the due diligence document in bold letters – and he chose to accept Mandelson’s reassurances because he and his team wanted to make the appointment and believed that they would get away with it.
What is most uncomfortable is that the Prime Minister clearly thought there was an acceptable level of association that one could maintain with a powerful and notorious paedophile and still be made ambassador to Washington. At times, Downing Street have tried to claim that they did not know Mandelson had considered Epstein was “innocent” after his conviction. That is absurd. It implies they would have been happy with the friendship continuing if only Mandelson had believed Epstein was guilty.
If the Prime Minister had looked at this honestly, he would have seen that this appointment was entirely inappropriate. As it is, he is blaming Mandelson’s lies for his failures. The decision was the Prime Minister’s. Responsibility lies with him.
Sign up to Herald Premium Editor’s Picks, delivered straight to your inbox every Friday. Editor-in-Chief Murray Kirkness picks the week’s best features, interviews and investigations. Sign up for Herald Premium here.