By Elizabeth Piper and Muvija M
LONDON, Feb 4 – Prime Minister Keir Starmer expressed regret on Wednesday for appointing Peter Mandelson as UK ambassador to Washington, saying the Labour veteran had created a “litany of deceit” about his ties to U.S. sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
Starmer ceded to pressure from the opposition Conservative Party to release documents on how Mandelson was appointed, but was forced to water down an attempt to limit the scope of that disclosure after facing a revolt in his own Labour Party.
Mandelson, a government minister when Labour was previously in power more than 15 years ago, quit the House of Lords on Tuesday over links to Epstein, and is now under police investigation for alleged misconduct in office.
Files released by the U.S. Justice Department last week include emails suggesting Mandelson had leaked government documents to Epstein, and that Epstein had recorded payments to Mandelson or his then-partner, now husband.
OPPOSITION QUESTIONS STARMER’S JUDGEMENT
Mandelson has said he does not recall having received payments. He has not commented publicly on allegations he leaked documents, and did not respond to messages seeking comment.
On Wednesday, Starmer defended his own response, saying he had moved quickly to strip all titles and roles from a man he accused of “betraying” Britain.
But Starmer’s explanation of how Mandelson was appointed did little to quieten opposition voices, who said the ambassador’s selection in late 2024 put a question mark over the judgment of Starmer and his closest adviser, Morgan McSweeney.
It also did little to quell anger in the Labour Party, with lawmakers increasingly frustrated over Starmer’s appointment of Mandelson and a series of embarrassing policy U-turns.
MANDELSON ‘LIED REPEATEDLY’
“I am as angry as anyone about what Mandelson has been up to. The disclosures that have been made this week of him passing sensitive information at the height of the response to the 2008 financial crash is utterly shocking and appalling,” Starmer told a rowdy session of parliament.
“He has betrayed our country, he’s lied repeatedly, he’s responsible for a litany of deceit. But this moment demands not just anger but action, and that’s why we’ve moved quickly,” he said after telling lawmakers he had agreed with King Charles to remove Mandelson from the sovereign’s formal body of advisers.
A chaotic afternoon in the House of Commons, in which lawmakers from all sides lined up to criticise Starmer and demand maximum transparency, culminated in the government agreeing a compromise to avoid an embarrassing defeat.
Plans to not release documents deemed prejudicial to national security or international relations were dropped. They will instead be handed to parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee – seen as a body trusted to handle sensitive information.
EMAILS SENT TO EPSTEIN
Starmer appointed Mandelson in late 2024, arguing that his past work in the governments of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown and as the EU’s trade commissioner made him an ideal person to navigate relations with Washington under President Donald Trump.
Starmer sacked Mandelson in September after seven months in the job, when documents emerged showing he had remained close to Epstein after the financier was found guilty in 2008 of child sex crimes.
Emails released last week appeared to indicate that in 2009 Mandelson had sent Epstein a memo written for Brown about possible UK asset sales and tax changes, and in 2010 gave Epstein advance notice of a 500 billion euro ($590 billion) bailout by the European Union.
Starmer’s government on Tuesday passed a dossier about Mandelson to police, who launched an investigation into Mandelson over alleged misconduct in public office.
“The Metropolitan Police have been in touch with my office this morning to raise issues about anything that would prejudice their investigations,” Starmer told parliament. “We are in discussion with them about that.”
(Reporting by Muvija M, Sam Tabahriti and Elizabeth Piper; Additional reporting by Sarah Young; Writing by Sam Tabahriti and William James; Editing by Paul Sandle, Peter Graff and David Holmes)
Comments