The House of Commons refused on Tuesday, April 28, to begin an investigation against British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. The petition of the conservative opponents was rejected with 335 votes against and 223 in favor. The case dates back to the appointment of Peter Mandelson as British ambassador to the US in 2024, despite his links to American sex offender Jeffrey Epstein already being known. A former Starmer adviser took responsibility on Tuesday for an "error in judgment" but denied irregularities in the hiring.

First modification: 04/28/2026 - 16:37 Last modification: 04/29/2026 - 03:40

To display this YouTube content, you must allow advertising and audience measurement cookies.

An extension on your browser appears to be blocking the video player from loading. In order to view this content, you must disable it on this site.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has dodged a parliamentary inquiry into the appointment of Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United States in 2024, despite his background and known links to the late American sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

The House of Commons rejected, with 335 votes against and 223 in favor, the proposal by the leader of the opposition Conservative Party, Kemi Badenoch, that the Privileges Committee investigate the diplomat's appointment.

Although the Government leader assures that all recruitment protocols were respected in Mandelson's appointment, Badenoch accuses him of "repeatedly misleading the House of Commons" by saying that due process was followed.

Read alsoEpstein-Mandelson case: Starmer insists that he was unaware of the security veto before appointing the former ambassador

Before the vote in the Legislative Assembly, the British Prime Minister's office defined the pressure from the opposition conservatives to open an investigation against Starmer as a "desperate political maneuver" and stated that "their claims are baseless," according to the Downing Street statement.

The controversy comes in the middle of the campaign for the local and regional elections on May 7, which are usually interpreted as a mid-term verdict on the management of the Executive.

At Starmer's request, the ruling center-left Labor Party used its large majority in parliament to block the proposal against the prime minister.

Former Starmer adviser takes responsibility

Summoned to testify before the Parliamentary Committee on Foreign Affairs, Morgan McSweeney, former chief of staff of the British Prime Minister and who was his closest advisor, accepted this Tuesday that "the appointment of Mandelson as ambassador was a serious error of judgment."

"I advised the prime minister to support that appointment and I was wrong to do so," he added to the committee. However, he stressed that he never asked any official to "ignore procedures" or "skip steps" during background checks and hiring, supporting the prime minister's version of the legality of the appointment.

McSweeney, who stated before Parliament that he had warned Starmer about the "advantages and disadvantages" of the appointment of Peter Mandelson, said that the Government saw in that Labor veteran a good profile to help achieve a trade agreement with the United States after the return of Donald Trump to the White House.

"I don't think the prime minister would have appointed Mandelson if Kamala Harris had been elected president," he stressed.

The official said he thought Mandelson was "just an acquaintance" of Epstein, so the revelation of a closer relationship "was like a stab in the soul," McSweeney described.

Additionally, he apologized to Epstein's victims as he regretted "any role this controversy has played in causing them further harm or distress."

Pressure for the appointment?

Mandelson was fired in September 2025 after the declassification of a series of emails that showed that his relationship with the deceased American sex offender Jeffrey Epstein was closer than he maintained for years.

British police arrested him in February on suspicion of misconduct in the exercise of public duties and released him on bail, although he has not been charged. He also does not face accusations of sexual misconduct.

The extent of Mandelson and Epstein's friendship has raised questions about Starmer's judgment in hiring him, fueled by the revelation that a security watchdog had advised against the appointment. That criterion was discarded by Foreign Ministry officials apparently without informing the prime minister.

Read alsoThe Epstein files shake the British Government: what do Peter Mandelson's emails say?

Starmer has acknowledged that he was wrong to appoint Mandelson and has expressed regret, but says all proper procedures were followed. He has also criticized Foreign Affairs employees for not informing him of the security agency's statement.

Olly Robbins, a former senior Foreign Office official, described on April 21 that he had faced "constant pressure" from the prime minister's office to fast-track the appointment of his candidate as ambassador to the United States.

Before him, other government officials described some urgency from Downing Street to speed up Mandelson's appointment, although without orders to bypass protocols.

In the run-up to the parliamentary debate, the Government published a letter sent in September by the former cabinet secretary, Chris Wormald, in which he stated that he had reached the conclusion that "appropriate procedures were followed in both the appointment and dismissal" of Mandelson as ambassador.

With the elections just around the corner and an opposition eager to capitalize on a sex scandal with global repercussions, the British Prime Minister has avoided the parliamentary investigation for the appointment of the country's most important diplomatic position, a choice that may have pleased Donald Trump at the time, but which, in light of events, was not the case within its borders.

With information from Reuters and AP and local media.

Related keywords

The content you requested does not exist or is no longer available.