Starmer accused of misleading Commons over Mandelson vetting failure

Keir Starmer is facing mounting claims that he may have misled the House of Commons over Peter Mandelson’s appointment as ambassador to Washington after a vetting file flagged the peer as “particularly close” to Jeffrey Epstein and identified a “general reputational risk.”

The key question now is not just whether the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office failed to brief No 10, but what Starmer knew, when he knew it, and why he was still telling Parliament that “due process” had been followed. The prime minister said he was “staggered” last week to discover that civil servants had withheld information from him, and has called it “unforgivable” that he was not told Mandelson had failed security vetting.

According to the government, UK Security Vetting advised against appointing Mandelson in early 2025, but that warning was not passed to Starmer at the time. Downing Street has said officials repeatedly tried to establish the facts and only learned last week that UKSV had effectively overruled the appointment, leaving the impression inside government that Mandelson had been cleared. The episode has now become a test of ministerial oversight and civil-service candour at the heart of government.

The fallout has already cost Sir Olly Robbins, the Foreign Office’s top civil servant, who was dismissed amid the row and is expected to face MPs. Harriet Harman has warned that if the published file trail does not match what Starmer told MPs, opponents could argue he misled the House. Sky News reported that she said there would need to be “absolute consistency” between the documents and the prime minister’s account.

The controversy comes after Mandelson was sacked as US ambassador in September 2025 when emails and correspondence about his friendship with Epstein emerged, including material showing he had urged Epstein to seek early release and described him as his “best pal.” In March 2026, government papers on the appointment and severance deal showed Mandelson had asked for a payout of about £547,201, but was ultimately awarded £75,000.

Pressure is also building from Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch, who has pressed the prime minister over the affair. The Foreign Office has said Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein was materially different from what was known at the time of his appointment, and James Roscoe is now serving as interim ambassador. For Starmer, the political damage lies in the same narrow corridor of responsibility: whether this was a one-off administrative failure, or evidence of a deeper breakdown in how damaging information reaches the prime minister.