PMQs erupt as Starmer eays Mandelson “lied again and again” over Epstein ties, admits regret over Ambassador appointment

Prime Minister’s Questions descended into one of the most extraordinary and emotionally charged sessions in recent memory as Sir Keir Starmer publicly accused Lord Peter Mandelson of repeatedly lying about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, admitting he now regrets appointing him as the UK’s ambassador to the United States.

What was expected to be a routine PMQs quickly transformed into a high-stakes confrontation over judgment, transparency, national security, and political accountability, with opposition leaders pressing Starmer on what he knew, when he knew it, and why Mandelson was appointed in 2024 despite well-documented concerns.

“He Lied Again and Again”: Starmer’s Strongest Language Yet

In unusually blunt and emotional language, Starmer told MPs that Mandelson had “lied repeatedly” to his team during the vetting process, describing a “litany of deceit” that left him feeling “beyond infuriated”.

The prime minister said Mandelson had betrayed the country, Parliament, and the Labour Party, confirming that he would release all material relating to the ambassadorial appointment, except documents that could compromise national security or international relations.

Starmer also confirmed that he has agreed with the King to remove Mandelson from the Privy Council and that legislation is being drafted to strip him of his peerage.

Badenoch and Opposition Challenge Starmer’s Judgment

Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch led a sustained assault on the prime minister’s decision-making, accusing him of attempting to “sabotage transparency” by limiting which documents would be released.

She confirmed that the official vetting process did reference Mandelson’s ongoing relationship with Epstein, including contact after Epstein’s 2008 conviction for child sex offences, a point Starmer acknowledged.

Badenoch argued that Mandelson’s ties were publicly available and questioned why Number 10 failed to grasp the “depth” of the relationship, calling the appointment “shocking” and politically reckless.

READ ALSO

Andrew Griffith takes centre stage at PMQs as Business rates clash exposes Labour–Tory divide

What the Vetting Found, and What It Missed

Starmer told the Commons that while security vetting flagged Mandelson’s Epstein relationship, the former ambassador misrepresented its extent, repeatedly downplaying his contact and influence.

Newly surfaced emails and files appear to show Mandelson lobbied the US government over banking rules at Epstein’s request in 2010, alongside personal correspondence that suggests a close and prolonged relationship well into the 2010s.

Despite these revelations, Mandelson has not responded publicly, though the BBC understands he maintains he acted lawfully and was not motivated by financial gain.

Calls for Inquiry and National Security Fears

Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey raised concerns about the victims of Epstein and demanded a full public inquiry, warning that allegations linking Epstein to foreign intelligence services could have serious national security implications.

Starmer said the government would fully cooperate with police investigations, stressing that the immediate priority is criminal accountability rather than political theatre.

Mandelson Resigns From House of Lords as Pressure Mounts

Separately, Mandelson has resigned from the House of Lords, intensifying debate about whether disgraced peers should be allowed to retain titles. While resignation removes him from parliamentary life, only legislation or death can formally strip him of the title “Lord.”

The episode has reignited wider criticism of the House of Lords appointment system, with growing calls for reform of political patronage.

Why This PMQs Moment Matters

Political editors described the session as defining for Starmer’s leadership, with anger and betrayal visible in a prime minister known for emotional restraint. While Starmer sought to decisively distance himself from Mandelson, questions about judgment, oversight, and accountability are expected to dominate Westminster for weeks.

FAQ

What is PMQs?

PMQs, or Prime Minister’s Questions, is a weekly parliamentary session where MPs question the UK prime minister in the House of Commons.

Why was today’s PMQs significant?

The session was dominated by allegations that Lord Peter Mandelson repeatedly lied about his ties to Jeffrey Epstein, prompting rare public anger from Prime Minister Keir Starmer.

What did Keir Starmer say about Peter Mandelson?

Starmer said Mandelson “lied again and again,” betrayed the country, and that he regrets appointing him as US ambassador in 2024.

Did the vetting process mention Epstein?

Yes. Starmer confirmed that Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein was referenced during vetting, but said its true depth was concealed.

Will Mandelson lose his peerage?

Starmer says legislation is being drafted to strip Mandelson of his title, though this requires parliamentary approval.

Has Mandelson responded to the allegations?

Mandelson has not commented publicly but is understood to deny criminal wrongdoing or financial motivation.

Are documents about the appointment being released?

Yes, with exceptions for national security, intelligence, and international relations.