Prime Minister Keir Starmer has refused to say whether he personally discussed Peter Mandelson’s past association with Jeffrey Epstein before appointing him as the UK’s ambassador to the United States, as pressure mounted in Parliament over the handling of the decision. Facing repeated questions during Prime Minister’s Questions, Starmer did not confirm whether any direct conversation had taken place with Mandelson. Instead, he acknowledged the appointment had been a mistake and reiterated an apology to victims linked to Epstein.

Get today's headlines by email

The issue was raised by Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch, who challenged the prime minister over whether he had personally vetted Mandelson regarding his relationship with the convicted sex offender.

Commons confrontation

Badenoch accused Starmer of avoiding scrutiny and relying on staff rather than exercising direct oversight. She questioned how the prime minister could claim he had been misled if he had not spoken directly to Mandelson before making the appointment.

In response, Starmer said: “This was my mistake in making the appointment, and I've apologised to the victims of Epstein.” He added that the process had since been reviewed and strengthened following advice from an independent standards adviser.

However, he did not directly address whether a personal conversation with Mandelson had taken place, instead turning to criticise Badenoch over her stance on the conflict involving Iran.

Documents raise concerns

The exchange follows the release of official documents indicating that Starmer had been warned about potential “reputational risk” linked to Mandelson’s past association with Epstein.

The files, published after MPs voted to make them public, included references to a 2019 report suggesting Epstein had maintained a close relationship with Mandelson. The documents also noted claims that Mandelson had stayed at Epstein’s residence in 2009 while the financier was in custody.

Mandelson was removed from his ambassadorial role last year after further details about the relationship emerged. Starmer has previously said he was unaware of the full extent of the connection at the time of the appointment.

Questions over vetting process

Reports have suggested that Starmer did not personally question Mandelson, instead delegating inquiries to his then chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, who later resigned amid the fallout.

Mandelson has denied misleading the prime minister, saying he answered written questions about his contact with Epstein “truthfully and fully” and does not recall being asked directly about the matter in person.

A spokesperson for Downing Street said after the Commons session that the correct procedures had been followed at the time and that a formal interview with the prime minister was not required under existing rules.

Political tensions persist

The row underscores ongoing political tensions over accountability and transparency in senior appointments, with opposition figures continuing to press for clarity over the vetting process.

While Starmer has accepted responsibility for what he described as an error of judgement, questions remain over how the appointment was handled and whether sufficient checks were carried out before Mandelson took up the diplomatic post.

Join the discussion?

Already a member?

Adapted by ASEAN Now. Source 19 March 2026

View full article

No surprise there then.

Yes I watched PMQ's. Badenoch's trying to build the 'bad judgement' case against Starmer.

We can guess that Starmer didn't talk the Epstein aspect through with Mandelson personally but it is evidenced that the correct protocols were otherwise followed. Actually, given that Starmer was faced with trying to cope with a new and demonstrably maniacal US President, I think it was a justifiable gamble to appoint the gruesome Mandelson, but unfortunately that didn't pay off. Starmer has apologised and that's that.

Badenoch is a horrible hag and can't move on.

MUCH worse than Starmer's mistake is the Badenoch brainwave to take the UK into the Iran war with idiot Trump ! I wouldn't trust her to be a traffic warden !

The Tories are doomed until they get rid of her.

5 hours ago, TorquayFan said:

Yes I watched PMQ's. Badenoch's trying to build the 'bad judgement' case against Starmer.

We can guess that Starmer didn't talk the Epstein aspect through with Mandelson personally but it is evidenced that the correct protocols were otherwise followed. Actually, given that Starmer was faced with trying to cope with a new and demonstrably maniacal US President, I think it was a justifiable gamble to appoint the gruesome Mandelson, but unfortunately that didn't pay off. Starmer has apologised and that's that.

Badenoch is a horrible hag and can't move on.

MUCH worse than Starmer's mistake is the Badenoch brainwave to take the UK into the Iran war with idiot Trump ! I wouldn't trust her to be a traffic warden !

The Tories are doomed until they get rid of her.

What is it that annoys you so much about the strong black woman Kemi?

Starmer was behaving like the weasel he is at PMQ's. What an embarrassment for Britain.

Johnny F

Badenoch is clever that's in no doubt, but her constant shrewish carping is irrelevant now - she can indulge herself in that carp but Starmer has a hundred bigger problems to deal - while all Kemi has to do is whip up the hysterical 'let's get him' attitude of the British media AND the clueless anti-incumbent brigades endemic to the UK.

Regarding Starmer, call him what you will but that says more about you than him. You have read it wrong, Starmer is much admired by a the quiet majority in the UK and has gained much respect worldwide by refusing the UK to join the USA's criminal offensive in Iran - and God Bless Him for that !!!