Downing Street Denies Mandelson Files Cover-Up as Starmer Admits Appointment Error

Downing Street Denies Mandelson Files Cover-Up as Starmer Admits Appointment Error

Downing Street has been compelled to refute allegations of a "cover-up" concerning the release of government files related to the appointment of Peter Mandelson as US ambassador. This follows accusations that Prime Minister Keir Starmer misled Members of Parliament over the vetting process for the controversial peer.

Speaking publicly for the first time since the initial batch of documents was published on Wednesday, Sir Keir Starmer accepted personal responsibility for what he termed a "mistake" in appointing Lord Mandelson to the Washington role. The Prime Minister reiterated his apology to the victims of convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, with whom Mandelson had a known association.

Fresh Scrutiny on Prime Minister's Judgment

Sir Keir is now facing renewed questions about his judgment in granting the ambassadorship to Lord Mandelson, despite explicit warnings of a "general reputational risk" due to the peer's relationship with Epstein. The Prime Minister addressed reporters in Northern Ireland, stating, "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."

—

He added, "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."

The absence of the Prime Minister's own comments in the trove of government papers released on Wednesday has also come under intense scrutiny. This raises significant questions over whether Sir Keir misled MPs when he previously assured them that "full due process" had been followed during Lord Mandelson's appointment.

Missing Information and Allegations of a Cover-Up

The published files revealed that national security adviser Jonathan Powell had raised concerns over Lord Mandelson's appointment, describing it as "weirdly rushed." Tory leader Kemi Badenoch claimed that "a lot of information is missing" from the files, specifically pointing to an empty box that Sir Keir was required to fill beneath advice he received in 2024 regarding the appointment.

No 10 stated that no notes by Sir Keir were redacted, meaning the Prime Minister did not fill out the box reserved for his response. However, the PM's official spokesperson repeatedly insisted that the process was followed and announced that Downing Street would review improvements to both the vetting and due diligence procedures, which they admitted are "not up to scratch."

When questioned about the blank box, the spokesperson told reporters, "I refute the suggestion of a cover up. The government has 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."

The spokesperson further explained, "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."

Controversial Severance Payout Under Fire

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 Tory leader also expressed alarm over the £75,000 taxpayer-funded severance payout handed to Lord Mandelson after his dismissal, describing it as "dodgy." She argued, "If someone has been dishonest and lied, you don't give them a severance payment."

Treasury guidance on public sector exits and severance pay states that "departments should not treat special severance as a soft option, e.g. to avoid management action, disciplinary processes, unwelcome publicity or reputational damage." However, files published on Wednesday show that the Foreign Office, when discussing Lord Mandelson's payout, warned that the former ambassador "has a high profile which could give rise to reputational damage to the FCDO and HMG were a court or tribunal claim to be pursued."

When asked about this discrepancy, the Prime Minister's spokesperson insisted the payout "was approved by the Treasury in line with standard processes." He noted that the sum was "less than a sixth of" the £547,000 demanded by the Labour veteran.

The spokesperson elaborated, "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."