Labour MPs have warned that Peter Mandelson, the former UK ambassador to the United States, could become a political liability for Prime Minister Keir Starmer after a cache of emails linking the peer to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein emerged in recent reporting.
The Daily Mail and The Times reported that Downing Street was aware of the emails before Mr Starmer stood in the House of Commons to express his "full confidence" in Lord Mandelson. According to those reports, the Foreign Office received details of the correspondence more than 30 hours before they were published by Bloomberg and about 24 hours before the prime minister publicly backed his ally.
The messages, as reported, included effusive language in which Lord Mandelson described Epstein as his "best pal" and urged him to seek early release following his conviction for child sex offences. The content of the messages and the speed of subsequent events have prompted questions from some Labour MPs, who told the Daily Mail that Lord Mandelson — who remains on the government payroll after his dismissal from the ambassadorial role — felt "hung out to dry" and might have information that could damage the prime minister if he chose to disclose it.
Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch seized on the matter at Prime Minister’s Questions, accusing Mr Starmer and Labour MPs of misleading the public about what they knew and when. "Looks like the Prime Minister and Labour MPs spent the week lying to the whole country about what they knew regarding Mandelson’s involvement with convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein," she said, according to reports.
Friends and allies of Lord Mandelson are reported to have told journalists that he was questioned about his association with Epstein during a vetting interview and that he had said he had maintained the connection for many years. They said he was unable to provide the cited emails because they were on an old account to which he no longer had access. Those allies told reporters he felt "ill-treated" by what they described as political pressure that led to his removal.
Officials are reported to be weighing employment-law implications of the handling of Lord Mandelson’s dismissal. Because he refused to resign and remains on the payroll of a post that paid about £200,000 a year, he could be entitled to a substantial payout if the government cannot show he materially misled ministers or officials. The Daily Mail invoked a precedent in which a senior civil servant, Sir Philip Rutnam, received a £340,000 settlement after leaving the Home Office in a high-profile dispute.
Labour sources and MPs cited in reporting said the speed of events — including the prime minister’s public endorsement of Lord Mandelson shortly before details emerged — left the former operative feeling isolated. Supporters of the prime minister acknowledged the embarrassment and defended the decision by saying Mr Starmer had appointed someone who did not disclose the full extent of their past association.
The developments add to scrutiny of how Downing Street and Whitehall handle vetting and disclosure for senior political appointees, and they underscore the potential political fallout when sensitive private communications involving public figures surface. It remained unclear whether further inquiries would be opened to establish exactly when officials knew of the material and what processes were followed in the ambassador’s vetting and dismissal.