Starmer admits ‘mistake’ in Mandelson appointment as No 10 denies cover up

Sir Keir Starmer has taken responsibility for his “mistake” in sending Lord Peter Mandelson to Washington, as Downing Street denied there was a “cover up” in the release of files related to the appointment.

The Prime Minister is facing fresh questions about his judgment in giving the peer the ambassadorship despite being warned of a “general reputational risk” because of his relationship with paedophile Jeffrey Epstein.

In his first public appearance since the publication of the documents, Sir Keir told reporters in Northern Ireland: “The release of the information shows what was known.

“That led to further questions being asked.

“Unfortunately, because of the Metropolitan Police investigation, we can’t release that information yet.

“But that doesn’t take away from the fact that it was me that made a mistake, and it’s me that makes the apology to the victims of Epstein, and I do that.”

No 10’s follow-up questions and Lord Mandelson’s responses, which Sir Keir sees as key in proving that he was lied to about the extent of his ties to Epstein, have been withheld by police because of their probe into allegations of misconduct in public office.

But the published material shows the Prime Minister advanced the recruitment despite being briefed on the peer’s continuing relationship with Epstein after the financier’s conviction for procuring an underage girl in 2008 and concerns raised by senior officials.

The absence of Sir Keir’s comments in the trove of Government papers released on Wednesday has come under the spotlight, sparking questions over whether he followed procedures.

Tory leader Kemi Badenoch claimed that “a lot of information is missing” from the files, pointing to an empty box she said Sir Keir was required to fill beneath advice he received in 2024 ahead of the appointment.

No 10 said no notes by Sir Keir were redacted.

His official spokesman told reporters: “I refute the suggestion of a cover up. The Government’s complied fully. I just don’t accept that it’s the case at all.

“There are a range of different ways in which the Prime Minister’s senior team responds to advice.”

He added: “The Prime Minister did read the advice, but clearly there are lessons to be learned on the wider appointment processes, and the processes that led up to them.”

Mrs Badenoch earlier told the Press Association: “The comments which Keir Starmer would have put on the box notes – those are the cover notes where you explain what you want to happen – are missing.

“They have been removed. We need the full details of what the Prime Minister did. There is still a cover up going on.”

The Opposition leader also described the £75,000 taxpayer-funded payout handed to Lord Mandelson after he was sacked as “dodgy”.

“If someone has been dishonest and lied, you don’t give them a severance payment,” she said.

But Sir Keir’s spokesman defended the sum, noting it was “less than a sixth of” the £547,000 demanded by the Labour veteran.

The official dismissed questions on whether the payment was made to prevent reputational damage to the Government.

He said: “It was approved by the Treasury in line with standard guidance on severance pay.

“We have been clear that we think Mandelson should pay that money back or donate it to a victim’s charity.

“The objective of officials dealing with this issue was to end Mandelson’s employment swiftly whilst protecting public funds.

“And a settlement was therefore agreed in line with his employment contract and standard Civil Service HR processes, avoiding the risk and high costs of drawn-out legal action and ensuring he was quickly removed from the payroll.”

Meanwhile, legislation to strip Lord Mandelson of his title could be broadened out to include any peer who has broken the rules, according to Sir Keir’s spokesman.

He said: “The Prime Minister has asked officials to draft legislation which allows Peter Mandelson’s peerage to be removed as quickly as possible.

“The Government’s preference is to bring forward legislation that could be applied to any peer who has breached the rules and brought the other place into disrepute, rather than Mandelson specifically.

“We have begun the work of looking at the scope and ability for such a Bill to be introduced.

“But a Bill of that nature has not been brought before Parliament since 1478, so we are working on that, and we are liaising with the House authorities to ensure that we get this right.”

The Liberal Democrats urged Sir Keir to refer himself to the ethics adviser for potentially misleading Parliament.

The party suggested that revelations in the emails, including national security adviser Jonathan Powell’s concerns the appointment was “weirdly rushed”, were at odds with Sir Keir’s repeated insistence that “full due process was followed”.

Lib Dem Cabinet Office spokesperson Lisa Smart said: “The Prime Minister has not only shown a catastrophic lack of judgment over Mandelson’s appointment, the evidence is mounting that he misled Parliament.

“Keir Starmer must refer himself to the independent ethics adviser to determine whether he breached the ministerial code.

“He promised to clean up politics after years of Conservative sleaze and scandal, now he must lead by example.”