Epstein affair British connections

New details of what Starmer knew – to defend himself today

Prime Minister Keir Starmer was advised that a politically appointed person such as Peter Mandelson should undergo a security check before he is formally appointed as US ambassador, documents seen by Sky News show.

A published letter from the then Cabinet Secretary instructs the Prime Minister to have the person he wants to appoint vetted, to rule out any potential conflicts of interest or to obtain other relevant information.

The letter was sent in November 2024, a month before Mandelson was announced as ambassador. Only then was a security check carried out, which it later emerged he failed. Despite this, he was granted a security clearance by a senior Foreign Office official.

Mandelson was later forced to leave the post after details of his relationship with sex offender Jeffrey Epstein became known.

Starmer has said he was not informed of any issues raised and is expected to defend himself in the House of Commons later today.

Starmer: Would not have appointed Mandelson if I had known

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer will defend himself in the House of Commons on Monday after the events surrounding Epstein-linked ex-ambassador Peter Mandelson.

– I should not have appointed Peter Mandelson, I take responsibility for that decision. And once again I apologize to the victims of paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, whom I let down with my decision, he says.

If Starmer had known that Mandelson had failed the security clearance, he would never have appointed him as US ambassador, the Prime Minister adds.

A series of demands for resignation have been directed at Starmer, who previously maintained that procedures had been followed in Mandelson's appointment.

Analysis: Starmer risks the same fate as Johnson

Keir Starmer stuck to his defense – that he did not deliberately mislead parliament about Peter Mandelson – like “a drowning man clinging to a piece of driftwood”. This is what Gordon Rayner writes in The Telegraph.

Starmer places all the blame on the sacked Foreign Secretary Olly Robbins, who he claims concealed that Mandelson had failed his security clearance when he was appointed US ambassador.

“The problem for him is that Sir Olly will now give his version before a parliamentary committee on Tuesday, which will be another extremely dangerous moment (for Starmer)”, writes Rayner.

Rayner and Sky News political editor Beth Rigby agree on one point: Despite being under heavy pressure, Monday’s parliamentary hearing was not a deathblow for the prime minister. Both note, however, that the danger is far from over.

The central issue now is not Mandelson’s Epstein connections, but whether Starmer lied when he said all procedures were followed regarding the ex-ambassador’s security clearance, says Rigby.

– If he did, he may have been guilty of contempt of parliament. And we know what happened to Boris Johnson when MPs decided that was the case in connection with the partygate scandal.

Peter Mandelson, a former British ambassador to the United States and a Labour politician, left Labour in February after revelations of financial links to Jeffrey Epstein. 

Mandelson and Epstein — the point

• Peter Mandelson, a former British ambassador to the United States and a Labour politician, left Labour in February after revelations of financial links to Jeffrey Epstein.
• Mandelson was accused of receiving £75,000 from Epstein. He is suspected of misconduct and leaking market-sensitive information during his time as trade secretary.
• British police have carried out searches at addresses linked to Mandelson and launched an investigation.
• Mandelson was arrested in London later in February, questioned and later released on bail. He denies all charges.
• The scandal has led to harsh criticism of the British government, which appointed Mandelson despite warnings. Prime Minister Keir Starmer is under pressure to resign.