Starmer Confronted Over Mandelson's Epstein Connections in Ambassador Appointment
The British government is facing intense scrutiny and mounting pressure to disclose comprehensive details about the vetting process that preceded Peter Mandelson's controversial appointment as US ambassador in December 2024. This follows the release of substantial documentation that has significantly illuminated the nature of Mandelson's relationship with the convicted child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
Prime Minister's Knowledge Under Examination
Prime Minister Keir Starmer has publicly confirmed for the first time that he was aware of Peter Mandelson's longstanding association with Jeffrey Epstein before proceeding with the diplomatic appointment. Speaking on Wednesday, Starmer revealed that the former peer had "lied repeatedly" about the true extent of his connections with the disgraced financier.
A senior Downing Street source elaborated that Mandelson had systematically misled the Prime Minister, presenting Epstein as "someone he barely knew" while concealing information that has subsequently emerged. "Peter Mandelson lied to the prime minister, hid information that has since come to light," the source stated, adding that when new revelations surfaced in November showing the relationship was "materially different" from what had been disclosed, Mandelson was swiftly dismissed from his Washington position.
The Two-Stage Vetting Procedure
Mandelson underwent a comprehensive two-stage vetting process before assuming his ambassadorial role. The initial phase involved "due diligence" conducted by the Cabinet Office's propriety and ethics team, which compiled a document containing publicly available information about Mandelson's connections with Epstein.
This preliminary assessment included details about Mandelson having stayed overnight at Epstein's residence and maintaining an ongoing friendship with the financier following his release from prison. After reviewing this file, Prime Minister Starmer personally requested Mandelson to address three specific concerns:
- Why he continued contact with Epstein after his conviction
- Whether he had stayed at Epstein's properties during his incarceration
- If he associated with any Epstein-backed charities connected to Ghislaine Maxwell
Having received satisfactory responses at that time, the appointment proceeded to the second, more confidential stage known as Developed Vetting (DV). This rigorous process examined sensitive areas including financial records, business dealings, sexual history, foreign travel, and personal relationships to assess honesty and potential vulnerability to coercion.
Unanswered Questions and Political Fallout
The ultimate outcome of the DV process remains shrouded in secrecy, as these assessments are never made public and provide only a binary decision with potential mitigations for areas of concern. While Mandelson's appointment suggests he received clearance, it remains unclear whether any specific safeguards were implemented.
Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has directly challenged Starmer's defence during Prime Minister's Questions, asserting that "He did know, it was on Google" and questioning why Downing Street's research failed to uncover information readily available to Conservative researchers. Meanwhile, Labour MPs have privately criticised what they describe as the government's "distinct incuriosity" regarding the Epstein connection.
The controversy has been amplified by revelations that officials did not request access to US Department of Justice documents concerning Epstein before Mandelson's appointment, despite two major criminal investigations producing over six million documents, images, and videos related to the case.
As pressure intensifies for full transparency regarding what was known and when, this developing scandal continues to raise significant questions about appointment protocols and due diligence processes at the highest levels of government.
