Starmer averts ethics probe over Mandelson appointment but faces more
pressure
[April 29, 2026]
By JILL LAWLESS
LONDON (AP) — U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer on Tuesday averted a
parliamentary inquiry over his choice of Peter Mandelson as British
ambassador to Washington, but failed to quell questions about whether he
bent the rules to make the controversial appointment.
In a boost for the prime minister, the House of Commons rejected a move
by opposition politicians to trigger a parliamentary standards
investigation into Starmer. But a former senior official said he could
not confirm that “due process” was followed when Mandelson, a friend of
Jeffrey Epstein, was given the key diplomatic job despite failing
security checks.
Reverberations from the ill-fated appointment have left Starmer fighting
for his job, and at odds with his civil service. The prime minister is
angry he wasn’t told that Mandelson had failed security vetting, while
senior officials say they felt pressure from Starmer’s office to confirm
the appointment quickly at the start of President Donald Trump ’s second
term.
“I was presented with a decision and told to get on with it,” said
Philip Barton, who was top civil servant in the Foreign Office when the
choice of Mandelson was announced in December 2024. “The prime minister
had been made aware of the risks and had accepted the risks.”
Starmer’s former top aide says sorry
Starmer’s former chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, acknowledged Tuesday
he’d made a “serious mistake” by recommending Mandelson, but denied
pressuring officials to ignore security concerns.
McSweeney told lawmakers on the House of Commons Foreign Affairs
Committee that “the prime minister relied on my advice, and I got it
wrong.” He apologized to Epstein’s victims, saying “I am sorry for any
part this controversy has played in causing further hurt or distress.”
But he insisted that he didn’t “ask officials to ignore procedures,
request that steps should be skipped, or communicate explicitly or
implicitly that checks should be cleared at all costs.”
Starmer fired Mandelson in September after new details emerged about the
ambassador’s friendship with Epstein, a convicted sex offender who died
in prison in 2019.
Police opened an investigation into Mandelson in February over
allegations that he passed sensitive government information to Epstein
when he was a member of the U.K. government in 2009. He denies
wrongdoing and hasn’t been charged.
McSweeney, who called Mandelson an adviser and confidant, resigned in
February, saying he took responsibility for the ambassadorial
appointment.
McSweeney said that he felt Mandelson’s experience as a former European
Union trade commissioner would serve the U.K. well in striking a trade
deal with the Trump administration.
“I don’t think the prime minister would have chosen Mandelson if Kamala
Harris had been elected president,” he said.
Government denies pressuring officials
But McSweeney denied allegations that Starmer’s staff pressured
officials to rush through the confirmation.
He said that at the time of the appointment, he had the impression that
Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein was “a passing acquaintance.” When
emails were published showing the friendship was close, “it was a knife
through my soul,” McSweeney said.
Starmer fired top Foreign Office official Olly Robbins earlier this
month after the revelation that Mandelson was approved for the job
against the recommendation of the government’s security vetting agency.
Starmer has called it “staggering” that Robbins failed to tell him about
the security concerns.
[to top of second column]
|
This is a screen grab of former former No10 chief of staff Morgan
McSweeney appearing before the Foreign Affairs Committee about Lord
Peter Mandelson's vetting process at the Houses of Parliament, in
London, Tuesday, April 28, 2026. (House of Commons/UK Parliament/PA
via AP)
Robbins says he was bound by confidentiality rules. He has said the
concerns didn’t relate to Epstein, though he hasn’t disclosed what
they were about.
It’s rare but not unknown for U.K. ambassadors to be political
appointees rather than career diplomats. Barton, who was Robbins’
predecessor at the Foreign Office until January 2025, told the
Foreign Affairs Committee that he was concerned Mandelson’s known
links to “toxic, hot potato” Epstein “could become a problem.”
“There was pressure to get everything done as quickly as possible,”
said Barton — though he denied there was pressure for a specific
outcome.
Starmer has denied that anyone in his office put pressure on the
civil service.
Opponents tried to force an inquiry
Critics say Starmer’s decision to appoint Mandelson is evidence of
bad judgment by a prime minister who has made repeated missteps
since he led the center-left Labour Party to a landslide election
victory in July 2024.
Starmer already defused one potential crisis in February, when some
Labour lawmakers urged him to quit over the Mandelson appointment.
He could face a new challenge if, as expected, Labour takes a
hammering in May 7 local and regional elections, which give voters a
chance to pass a midterm verdict on the government.
He managed to win a vote Tuesday in the House of Commons, where
lawmakers rejected by 335 votes to 223 a demand by the opposition
Conservative Party for Parliament’s Privileges Committee to
investigate Starmer’s claim that “due process” was followed in
Mandelson’s appointment.
The committee has the power to suspend lawmakers, including the
prime minister, for breaches of the rules, and a finding of
deliberately misleading Parliament is usually a resigning offense.
“It’s clear that full due process was not followed,” Conservative
leader Kemi Badenoch said, adding that “appointing a known national
security risk to be ambassador to the United States is a profound
failure of government.”
Badenoch urged Labour lawmakers not to be complicit in a “cover-up.”
Starmer urged Labour legislators to “stick together” and vote
against the motion, calling it a “stunt” timed to damage the party
before the May elections.
Many heeded the call, but several criticized Starmer during debate
in the House of Commons. Labour lawmaker Emma Lewell said that “like
the public, I feel let down, disappointed and I am angry.
“Peter Mandelson should never have been appointed,” she said. “This
was a fundamental failure of judgment.”
___
Associated Press writer Sylvia Hui contributed to this story.
All contents © copyright 2026 Associated Press. All rights reserved
 |
