Key Points
- Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s Independent Adviser on Ministerial Standards, Sir Laurie Magnus, rejected a request from Shadow Cabinet Office minister Alex Burghart for an inquiry into Peter Mandelson’s botched US ambassador appointment.
- Sir Laurie Magnus wrote: “It is not within my remit to investigate the actions or decisions taken by particular departments, or by the Government more broadly”.
- Energy minister Michael Shanks rejected cover-up suggestions, telling Sky News: “There’s been no cover-up at all, Downing Street is releasing the documents. Unfortunately, there are elements of those documents that currently, because of the Metropolitan Police investigation, not everything has been published, but it will be. We will comply with exactly what we said in Parliament we would comply with.”
- Sir Keir Starmer took responsibility for the “mistake” of appointing Lord Mandelson, but Downing Street denied a cover-up and stated no notes by the Prime Minister were redacted.
- Downing Street spokesman said: “There are a range of different ways in which the Prime Minister’s senior team responds to advice.”
- Shadow Housing Secretary James Cleverly told Times Radio: “There are documents that are clearly withheld…we don’t know what the contents of those documents are. At some point in the future, they may well be released, but the documents that have been put in the public domain are the wrong versions of the documents. They are the documents that give advice from the officials, but not the decisions from ministers. And as the opposition, our job is to hold ministers to account, including the Prime Minister. The fact is we have been denied access to the full disclosure.”
- Lord Peter Mandelson was arrested on 23 February 2026 on suspicion of misconduct in public office, accused of passing sensitive information to Jeffrey Epstein during his time as business secretary in Gordon Brown’s government; he was bailed, later released from bail, but remains under investigation.
- Government released 147 pages of documents on Mandelson’s appointment, warning of “reputational risk” due to his Epstein ties; Starmer was advised but no formal sign-off recorded.
- Conservatives and Liberal Democrats accuse Starmer of misleading Parliament and demand further probes.
- First image emerged showing Mandelson, Prince Andrew, and Epstein together.
London (Britain Today News) March 13, 2026 – The Prime Minister’s ethics advisor has turned down a request from the Conservatives for an inquiry into the botched appointment of Peter Mandelson as UK ambassador to the United States, intensifying political rows over transparency and judgment.
Sir Laurie Magnus, the Independent Adviser on Ministerial Standards, formally rejected the call from Shadow Cabinet Office minister Alex Burghart, stating clearly in his response that his role does not extend to probing departmental actions or broader government decisions. As reported by George Bunn of GB News, Sir Laurie wrote:
“It is not within my remit to investigate the actions or decisions taken by particular departments, or by the Government more broadly”.
The decision comes amid ongoing scrutiny of Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer’s handling of Lord Mandelson’s short-lived nomination, which collapsed following revelations of the peer’s past associations with the late Jeffrey Epstein. Documents released earlier this week highlight warnings of “reputational risk” sent to Starmer in December 2024, yet no formal ministerial decisions appear in the public files.
Who is Peter Mandelson and Why Was He Nominated?
Lord Peter Mandelson, a veteran Labour figure and former business secretary under Gordon Brown, was tapped by Sir Keir Starmer for the high-profile US ambassador role in late 2024. As detailed in PBS reporting, concerns arose due to Mandelson’s documented “particularly close relationship” with Epstein, persisting even after Epstein’s 2008 conviction for underage prostitution offences.
Mandelson reportedly stayed at Epstein’s residence while the financier was jailed in 2009 and allegedly shared sensitive government insights, including post-2008 financial crisis revenue strategies and hints at tax cuts on bankers’ bonuses. Financial transfers totalling $75,000 from Epstein to accounts linked to Mandelson or his partner Reinaldo Avila da Silva have also surfaced, though Mandelson claims no recollection.
These ties led to his arrest by Metropolitan Police on 23 February 2026 on suspicion of misconduct in public office; he was bailed and later released from conditions but remains under investigation. A newly emerged image shows Mandelson with Epstein and Prince Andrew in bathrobes on decking, fuelling public outrage.
What Did Sir Keir Starmer Say About the Appointment?
Sir Keir Starmer admitted on Thursday that appointing Lord Mandelson was a “mistake”, as covered by BBC News. “I made a mistake,” the Prime Minister stated, while his team emphasised standard vetting procedures were followed despite the Epstein links being public knowledge.
Downing Street denied rushed vetting, with officials noting Starmer’s then-communications chief Morgan McSweeney reviewed Mandelson’s Epstein responses and was “content”. A note warned of reputational risks, citing a 2019 JP Morgan report on their close post-conviction ties.
The files also reveal Mandelson requested over £500,000 severance upon dismissal, which Shadow Housing Secretary James Cleverly condemned on Times Radio, questioning payoffs if lies were told to secure the job.
Why Did Tories Demand an Inquiry?
Alex Burghart, Shadow Cabinet Office minister, wrote to Sir Laurie Magnus urging a probe into potential cover-up and misleading Parliament claims. As per Evening Standard and ITV News, Burghart highlighted “missing” correspondence, arguing partial document release may constitute contempt of Parliament.
Burghart noted Starmer’s September 2025 claim of “full due process” appears irreconcilable with files showing no Prime Ministerial input recorded. He described Mandelson’s Epstein involvement as an “embarrassment” built on money transfers and information sharing.
James Cleverly accused the government of publishing “wrong versions” lacking ministerial decisions, telling Times Radio:
“They are the documents that give advice from the officials, but not the decisions from ministers… we have been denied access to the full disclosure.”
How Did Labour Respond to Cover-Up Claims?
Energy minister Michael Shanks dismissed cover-up allegations on Sky News, stating:
“There’s been no cover-up at all, Downing Street is releasing the documents… because of the Metropolitan Police investigation, not everything has been published, but it will be.”
A Downing Street spokesman clarified:
“There are a range of different ways in which the Prime Minister’s senior team responds to advice,”
denying redactions to Starmer’s notes. No 10 insisted documents are final versions, with verbal communications likely used instead of formal records.
Shanks affirmed compliance with parliamentary pledges, attributing delays to the police probe into Mandelson.
What Do Other Parties Say?
Liberal Democrats’ Cabinet Office spokesperson Lisa Smart called it a “shocking scandal”, urging Starmer to self-refer to Sir Laurie Magnus for potentially breaching the ministerial code by misleading Parliament on due process. As per their press release and Express coverage:
“The Prime Minister has not only demonstrated a catastrophic lack of judgment… evidence is accumulating that he misled Parliament.”
Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch claimed Starmer’s remarks were “removed”, insisting:
“There is still a cover-up in progress. We need the complete details of what the prime minister did.”
What Do Released Documents Reveal?
The 147 pages, released Wednesday per BBC and DW, show advice to Starmer on 4 December 2024 noting McSweeney’s satisfaction but flagging Epstein risks through 2009-2011. No PM sign-off appears; critics say this explains “gaps”.
Files confirm Mandelson’s Epstein stay during incarceration and post-government contacts. Police probe stems from US Justice Department Epstein files released last month.
Will There Be Further Investigations?
Sir Laurie Magnus’s rejection closes the immediate ethics door, but Tories vow to pursue parliamentary accountability. Police investigation continues, potentially delaying full disclosure.
Starmer faces mounting pressure as Epstein files yield more revelations, including first joint photo evidence. Opposition demands unredacted files to scrutinise ministerial roles.
