No 10 denies Mandelson files ‘cover-up’ claims as Starmer admits appointment was mistake
Downing Street was forced to reject allegations of a “cover-up” in the release of files on Peter Mandelson’s appointment following accusations that the prime minister misled MPs about the review process.
Speaking for the first time since the first part of the files were published on Wednesday, Sir Keir Starmer took personal responsibility for the “mistake” he made in appointing Lord Mandelson as US ambassador and reiterated his apology to Jeffrey Epstein’s victims.
The Prime Minister is facing fresh questions over his decision to give his peer the ambassadorship despite being publicly warned of the “public reputation risk” due to his relationship with the convicted pedophile.
Sir Keir, appearing publicly for the first time since the documents were published, told reporters in Northern Ireland: “The publication of the information shows what is known.
“This has led to further questions. Unfortunately, due to the Metropolitan Police investigation, we cannot yet release this information.
“But that doesn’t take away from the fact that I was the one who made a mistake and I’m the one who apologized to the victims of Epstein, and that’s what I’m doing.”
The failure to include the prime minister’s own comments among government documents released on Wednesday also came under scrutiny; This raised questions about whether Sir Keir misled MPs when he told MPs that “full due process” had been followed when Lord Mandelson was appointed.
The Liberal Democrats called on Sir Keir to refer him to ethics counsel for potentially misleading parliament and argued that the statements in the emails contradict Sir Keir’s insistence that process was followed.
It comes after dossiers emerged in which national security adviser Jonathan Powell expressed concerns about Lord Mandelson’s appointment, saying it was “grotesquely rushed”.
Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch claimed there was “a lot of information missing” in the files and pointed to an empty box, saying Sir Keir should fill in the advice he received on the appointment in 2024.
No 10 said none of Sir Keir’s notes had been corrected, meaning the prime minister had not filled in the box reserved for his own response.
But the Prime Minister’s official spokesman has consistently insisted that process is being followed and said Downing Street will look at making improvements to both vetting and due diligence procedures, claiming these are “not up to scratch”.
Asked specifically about the empty box, he told reporters: “I reject the allegation of a cover-up. The government fully complied with it. I just simply do not accept that that is the case.”
“There are a number of different ways in which the Prime Minister’s senior team can respond to recommendations.”
The spokesman added: “The Prime Minister has read the advice but it is clear there are lessons to be learned about the wider appointment processes and the processes that lead to them.”
Ms Badenoch previously told the Press Association: “The comments that Keir Starmer would have put in the box notes – these are the cover notes where you explain what you want to happen – are missing.
“These have been removed. We need all the details of what the Prime Minister did. There are still attempts to cover up.”
The Conservative Party leader also raised the alarm over the £75,000 taxpayer-funded payout following Lord Mandelson’s sacking, describing it as “dangerous”.
“If someone is dishonest and lied, you don’t give them severance pay,” he said.
The Treasury’s guidance on public sector exits and severance pay states that “ministries should not treat private severance pay as a soft option, for example to avoid management actions, disciplinary processes, unwanted publicity or damage to reputation”.
But files published on Wednesday show that when discussing Lord Mandelson’s payment, the Foreign Office warned that the former ambassador “had a high profile that could damage the reputation of the FCDO and that HMG had a court or tribunal claim to pursue”.
But when asked about the discrepancy, the prime minister’s spokesman insisted the payment was “approved by the Treasury in line with standard processes”.
He also said the sum was “less than a sixth” of the £547,000 claimed by the Labor veteran.
The spokesman said: “It was approved by the Treasury in line with standard guidance on severance pay.
“We have made it clear that we think Mandelson should repay this money or donate it to a victim’s charity.
“The aim of the authorities dealing with this matter was to terminate Mandelson’s employment quickly while preserving public funds.
“And so an agreement was reached in accordance with the employment contract and standard Civil Service HR processes, avoiding the risk and high costs of protracted legal proceedings and ensuring rapid removal from the payroll.”
Lib Dem Cabinet Office spokeswoman Lisa Smart said: “Not only has the Prime Minister shown a disastrous lack of judgment over the appointment of Mandelson, but there is also mounting evidence that he misled Parliament.
“Keir Starmer should seek independent ethics counsel to determine whether he has breached ministerial rules.
“He promised to clean up politics after years of Tory dirt and scandal, now he needs to lead by example.”
