Sir Keir Starmer's judgement has come under renewed scrutiny after newly released papers revealed he was warned in detail about the dangers of appointing Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United States. The documents show that the prime minister was briefed that Lord Mandelson had maintained 'close ties' with Jeffrey Epstein even after the paedophile financier was convicted in 2008, and that hiring him would bring a 'general reputational risk' for the government.
The files indicate that Sir Keir ignored the warnings after his then chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, and former director of communications, Matthew Doyle, who was described as a 'personal friend' of Lord Mandelson, appeared to give their support to the Labour peer. The documents also revealed that Lord Mandelson received a taxpayer-funded £75,000 payout after he was sacked in September, having initially demanded more than £500,000.
The 31 files released by the government did not include correspondence between No 10 and Lord Mandelson regarding his relationship with Epstein, as those exchanges remain subject to an ongoing police investigation into allegations of misconduct in public office. Sir Keir has insisted that Lord Mandelson 'lied repeatedly' about the extent of his relationship with Epstein, but the papers show senior officials had concerns about his appointment.
Tory leader Kemi Badenoch criticised the prime minister, saying: 'Mandelson reportedly leaked sensitive government documents. Starmer knew Mandelson had stayed close friends with Epstein after the conviction for child prostitution, but made him ambassador anyway. Now we see he paid Mandelson almost £80k of our money. His judgement is shocking.' Labour MP Richard Burgon added that Sir Keir would not have allowed Mandelson to stand as a Labour candidate for town council, yet elevated him to a key diplomatic post.
Defending the payout, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster Darren Jones told MPs the settlement was agreed to avoid higher costs from a drawn-out legal claim. A second batch of potentially more damaging papers is due to be published once police confirm it will not interfere with their investigation.
