The scandal raised questions about Starmer's authority and whether his staff, including Morgan McSweeney, knew about the emails. Photo / Getty Images
Sir Keir Starmer has insisted he will not quit over the Lord Mandelson scandal and blamed his team for failing to brief him on the peer’s emails with Jeffrey Epstein.
On Monday, the UK Prime Minister admitted that he had known about emails between Lord Mandelson and the convicted paedophile when he defended the former ambassador to the US in the Commons last week.
However, he claimed he only knew that a Foreign Office investigation was taking place and did not know – nor ask – about the contents of the messages, in which it later emerged that Lord Mandelson urged Epstein to fight for early release from jail.
The scandal has fuelled questions over Starmer’s authority and who in his team – including Morgan McSweeney, his chief of staff – knew about the emails.
Speaking on Channel 4 on Monday night, Starmer appeared to blame his staff for failing to alert him to the messages before he defended Lord Mandelson at Prime Minister’s Questions.
He said: “In retrospect it would have been better if I had been shown the details of the material before PMQs.
“If you’re asking me now, days on, would it be better if more of this material had been brought expressly to my attention? Then yes, it would have been. But I’m satisfied the team were doing what they could to get the answers out of Peter Mandelson that they needed.”
The Prime Minister suggested he was cross with Lord Mandelson, adding: “I am angry. I don’t particularly think anger helps here, but I feel let down. I feel that the process was gone through and now information has come to light which, had I known it at the time, I wouldn’t have appointed him.
“Had I known the nature and extent of the relationship, the fact that he was questioning and challenging the conviction. I’ve worked on violence against women for years, for girls, for many years. I know exactly how all this affects victims.”
Asked if he would resign as Prime Minister to prevent a Reform government, he said: “No, because I’m absolutely clear what the task is in front of me, we have a crossroads really in terms of the future of this country.
“We go forward with Labour for national renewal, a patriotic call about this country and taking this country forward, true patriotism or we have division and decline under Reform … and a country in which people feel that they’re not part of the country that we are, that is divisive.”
However, Labour MPs were sceptical of his explanation and said he “should have asked questions in detail”.
On Tuesday, MPs will hold an emergency three-hour debate on Lord Mandelson’s dismissal amid growing questions over Starmer’s account.
Last Thursday, the then-ambassador was sacked a day after Bloomberg released emails showing he had told Epstein to “fight for early release” when the financier was convicted of child prostitution in 2008.
He also told Epstein he felt “hopeless and furious” about the verdict.
Speaking to broadcasters on Monday, Starmer said: “What emerged last week were Bloomberg emails which showed that the nature and extent of the relationship that Peter Mandelson had with Epstein was far different to what I had understood to be the position when I appointed him.
“On top of that, what the email showed was he was not only questioning but wanting to challenge the conviction of Epstein at the time that, for me, went and cut across the whole approach that I’ve taken on violence against women and girls for many years.”
The Prime Minister added: “It was only on Wednesday, early evening, that I knew the contents of the Bloomberg emails.
“It was only very late on Wednesday when Peter Mandelson replied to the questions that have been put to him by government officials. And it was on that, basically, I took my decision that he should be removed.”
He claimed that before Prime Minister’s Questions – at which he told the Commons Lord Mandelson was “playing an important part in the UK-US relationship” – he had only known there had been media inquiries about a new group of emails.
“I didn’t know the content of the Bloomberg emails, and I knew that questions had been put to Peter that he had not yet answered, and he hadn’t answered them by the time I got to PMQs,” Sir Keir said.
“There is, of course, a time lag in America, but I knew that there were questions that [had] been put to him, but I didn’t know what answers he was going to give to those questions.
“That came later on Wednesday, and that’s why, at that point, I gave the answer I did at PMQs. And that’s the extent of what I knew at the time.”
But Labour MPs lined up to question Starmer’s defence.
One said: “The buck stops at the top. If the Prime Minister knew about the emails but wasn’t briefed, he should have asked questions in detail. It would be better now to stop searching for a scapegoat, admit he got it wrong and seek to move on.”
Another said: “It really does seem like death by a thousand cuts. There’s an open sore and people are picking it. It’s a case of amputate quick, or cauterise, and if that means Morgan has to go, so be it.”
Andy McDonald, MP for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East, said “morale is very low” and an urgent change of course from the leadership is needed, and that “the Prime Minister’s future is in his own hands”.
“Dancing on the head of a pin around the minutiae of the timetable in an attempt to allay criticism isn’t working,” McDonald added. “There needs to be transparency over what happened.”
The Labour MP demanded that anyone responsible for failing to inform the Prime Minister of messages that led to the sacking should be fired.
MPs will hold an emergency debate on the appointment of Lord Mandelson on Tuesday morning, following an application by Tory MP David Davis.
The Tory former minister said: “The House needs to know what vetting was done and when, what was the opinion of the Foreign Office, the Foreign Secretary, the Cabinet Office and the security services? And when was the Prime Minister told?
“We need to know who knew what and when. The Government must take the House with it on these appointments. But their behaviour to date on this issue has been marked by obfuscation and delay, by recrimination and cover up.
“And it’s not just a question of the Prime Minister’s political judgment, important as that is, it’s a question of ethics. It’s a question of what is deemed acceptable behaviour when in positions of power. And the House must have the opportunity to debate this matter before the recess.”
Dame Emily Thornberry, chair of the Commons foreign affairs select committee, announced a hearing into whether proper processes were followed when Lord Mandelson was appointed.
Thornberry summoned Sir Olly Robbins, the permanent under-secretary of state for foreign affairs, and Darren Tierney, outgoing head of the Cabinet Office’s proprietary and ethics team, to appear before her committee next month.
The MP, who tried and failed last week to get together enough supporters for a Labour deputy leadership bid, said the dismissal of Lord Mandelson raised “serious questions about the integrity of our vetting and security processes”.
“Were the proper processes followed, and if yes, why was a high-risk appointment allowed to go ahead?” Dame Emily asked.
“This week will see President Trump undertake a second state visit to the UK – a significant diplomatic event that we are now navigating without an ambassador. The public deserve answers as to why we have been left in this difficult position.”
The emails were published just days after it emerged Lord Mandelson had called Epstein his “best pal” and shared a photo of him dressed in a bathrobe alongside the paedophile.
He wrote the gushing tribute in a “birthday book” compiled for Epstein’s 50th birthday in 2003.
A Telegraph investigation disclosed that Lord Mandelson had worked with Epstein on a £1b ($2.2b) business deal after his conviction for child sex offences.
The deal was negotiated while he was business secretary and only months after Epstein had been released from prison.
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.