Starmer’s authority in doubt as Labour MPs vent fury over Mandelson
Sir Keir Starmer was under mounting pressure last night after he admitted he had been warned about Peter Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein prior to appointing him as ambassador to Washington.
Starmer’s attempts to handle the release of files relating to Mandelson’s vetting process were then thwarted by furious Labour backbenchers demanding independent scrutiny of the documents, something Starmer had wanted handled by the Cabinet Office.
Mounting political pressure and the anger of his own MPs forced the Prime Minister into a shambolic parliamentary climbdown.
A rebellion led by his former deputy Angela Rayner and backed by opposition parties meant the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC), which is made up of parliamentarians from across the Lords and Commons, would have oversight of the documents’ contents and advise on any redactions.
Starmer had initially pushed to allow the Cabinet Office to look over any details which may be “prejudicial to UK national security and international relations” in an amendment to a Tory-led motion on transparency around the vetting process.
Tory leader Kemi Badenoch urged Labour backbenchers earlier in the day to prevent the Cabinet Office from looking over the contents of documents before publication, adding it equated to a “cover-up”.
Starmer admits he knew of Mandelson’s ties with Epstein
At Prime Minister’s Questions, Starmer admitted that he was aware Mandelson had maintained a close relationship with Epstein after the first conviction for child sex offences in 2008, based on public news reports.
Starmer insisted Mandelson had “lied” about the nature of his relationship throughout the vetting process and said he regretted the appointment.
“If I knew then what I know now, he would never have been anywhere near my government,” Starmer said, adding that Mandelson had “betrayed” his country, parliament and the Labour Party. Labour Andy McDonald said Starmer had shown an “appalling failure of judgment” in appointing Mandelson as US ambassador.
Mandelson was sacked last September – less than a year into his post in Washington – after emails emerged showing Mandelson telling the paedophile that he felt “hopeless and furious” about Epstein’s conviction.
The US Department of Justice’s release of some 3m files last week has shown Mandelson and Epstein exchanging crude messages after the financier’s first release from prison.
Starmer is facing questions over the vetting process and the extent of due diligence conducted on the former business secretary before he was appointed ambassador.
Chair of the foreign affairs select committee Emily Thornberry, a Labour MP, criticised Mandelson’s failure to appear before the group of MPs scrutinising the work of diplomats.
Released messages and other documents are set to uncover the depth of checks made on Mandelson by the Cabinet Office. However, a separate check by security services is conducted independently of ministers.
The debate on the Tory-led motion last night exposed the fury among several Labour backbenchers, including the likes of John McDonnell and Paula Barker, over Starmer’s handling of the appointment process.
Downing street chief of staff under fire
Labour MPs are also raising the alarm on Mandelson’s previous influence over the government, with Starmer’s chief of staff Morgan McSweeney – a close Mandelson ally – in the firing line.
Simon Opher, a backbencher, questioned the chief of staff’s judgment and his close relationship with Mandelson, who once said of McSweeney: “I don’t know who and how and when he was invented, but whoever it was . . . they will find their place in heaven.”
During PMQs, Starmer said his chief of staff was “central” to his government.
Mandelson is meanwhile facing a police investigation over alleged leaks of market-sensitive information to Epstein at the height of the financial crisis. He maintains that there is no indication of criminal wrongdoing.