Sir Keir Starmer explicitly questioned Lord Mandelson about his relationship with convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein during the vetting process for the UK ambassador role, asking three specific questions after initial screening flagged concerns, the BBC understands.
The revelation adds a new dimension to the scandal that led to Mandelson’s dramatic sacking on Thursday, just seven months into his tenure as Britain’s most senior diplomat in Washington. It raises serious questions about what the Prime Minister knew before making the appointment and why he proceeded despite the red flags.
According to BBC sources, when Mandelson was under consideration for the prestigious post, the Cabinet Office’s Propriety and Ethics Team (PET) prepared a file containing information about his links to Epstein. After reviewing this file, Sir Keir instructed his chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, to send three specific questions to Mandelson via email.
The questions were: Why had he continued contact with Epstein after his conviction? Why was he reported to have stayed in one of Epstein’s homes whilst the financier was in prison? And was he associated with a charity founded by Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell that the financier had backed?
Mandelson is understood to believe he was “truthful and frank” in his responses, specifically telling Number 10 that he had not stayed in Epstein’s Manhattan apartment in 2009 whilst the paedophile was serving his sentence. A source confirmed Mandelson denied staying there, though court documents from 2023 showed Epstein telling his private banker that Mandelson was planning to stay.
Number 10 sources now believe Mandelson was “economical with the truth” in his answers to the three questions. However, at the time, his responses were deemed sufficient for the appointment to proceed, leading to a second vetting process called “developed vetting” (DV) being carried out under Foreign Office auspices.
The BBC has been told the damaging emails that ultimately led to Mandelson’s dismissal were not available to government officials during the vetting process as they came from a defunct email address. A senior Whitehall figure said it would have been possible to locate those messages had more questions been asked and forensic background digging been undertaken.
The emails, published by Bloomberg and The Sun on Wednesday, included messages where Mandelson told Epstein to “fight for early release” and wrote “I think the world of you” the day before the disgraced financier began his prison sentence for soliciting prostitution from a minor in June 2008.
Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has accused Sir Keir of lying about what he knew and when, after reports emerged that Downing Street had been aware of the emails for two days before Mandelson was sacked. “If No 10 had those emails for 48 hours before acting, it means he lied at PMQs and ministers lied again about new additional information,” she posted on X.
The Foreign Office received a media enquiry outlining details of the messages on Tuesday, which was passed to Number 10, according to PA news agency sources. However, the Prime Minister is understood not to have been aware of the contents until Wednesday evening – hours after he told the Commons he had “confidence” in Mandelson during Prime Minister’s Questions.
The scandal has put intense scrutiny on McSweeney, who Bloomberg reports was instrumental in Mandelson’s appointment and spent recent days defending his position. Several Labour MPs have questioned his judgement, with one government minister saying they were “starting to wonder how sustainable it is” for him to remain as chief of staff.
Former chief of staff Sue Gray, who was later forced out, reportedly did not consider Mandelson appropriate for the position. The Independent has reported that MI6 failed to clear the Labour peer, largely because of concerns over his business links to China, with additional worries that his Epstein connections “would compromise him.
When asked if Sir Keir had pushed through Mandelson’s appointment despite not clearing MI6 vetting, a spokesperson said only: “Vetting done by FCDO in normal way.”
Scotland Secretary Douglas Alexander admitted on Friday that Mandelson would not have been appointed had the full extent of his Epstein relationship been known. “In retrospect, of course, if it had been known at the time what is known now, the appointment wouldn’t have been made,” he told BBC Breakfast.
The controversy represents the second major scandal for Starmer’s government in a week, following Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner’s resignation over tax affairs. Labour MPs are increasingly vocal in their criticism, with Clive Lewis telling the BBC the Prime Minister does not seem “up to the job” and Barry Gardiner warning of “toxic” resentment festering within the party.
Emily Thornberry, chair of Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee, is demanding answers from the Foreign Secretary about the vetting process. Paula Barker said the delay in sacking Mandelson “has only served to further erode the trust and confidence in our government”, whilst Charlotte Nichols said the dismissal was “not immediate enough” and he “should never have been appointed in the first place”.
Downing Street insisted on Friday that Sir Keir has “confidence in his top team” when asked about McSweeney’s future. However, the revelation that specific questions were asked about Epstein during vetting suggests the government was well aware of potential problems but chose to proceed regardless.
In his farewell letter to embassy staff, Mandelson said he felt “utterly awful” about his association with Epstein and had “no alternative” but to accept Starmer’s decision. James Roscoe, previously deputy head of mission at the embassy, will serve as interim ambassador.
The affair has created a diplomatic headache ahead of President Donald Trump’s state visit to the UK next week. It also raises fundamental questions about the government’s vetting procedures and whether political considerations overrode security concerns in what was arguably Britain’s most important diplomatic appointment.
As calls grow for full transparency about what the Prime Minister knew and when, the government faces pressure to release all documentation relating to Mandelson’s appointment and vetting. With Labour MPs openly questioning Starmer’s leadership just over a year into his premiership, the Mandelson scandal may prove a defining moment for his troubled administration.
Both Downing Street and Mandelson have declined to comment on the specific vetting questions revealed by the BBC, adding another layer of opacity to an already murky affair that has severely damaged the government’s credibility.
Follow for more updates on Britannia Daily
