Sir Keir Starmer’s closest aides in Downing Street twice rejected offers from the Cabinet Office’s ethics chief to properly vet Lord Mandelson regarding his dangerous association with convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, a new report reveals.

What Actually Happened

The Cabinet Office’s ethics unit, led by Darren Tierney, approached senior No10 staff on two separate occasions to question Lord Mandelson. This was in response to a due diligence report compiled in December 2024 by the Cabinet Office’s propriety and ethics team, which explicitly warned that Mandelson’s friendship with Epstein posed a major “reputational risk.”

Mr Tierney first contacted Morgan McSweeney’s private secretary before the ethics dossier was even completed. He then made a second offer to vet Mandelson after the report confirmed the Labour peer had stayed in Epstein’s home, even after Epstein’s conviction. Despite these clear warnings and offers for scrutiny, Starmer’s team, specifically Mr McSweeney who was then his chief of staff, allowed the appointment to proceed without this critical vetting.

This sequence of events directly contradicts Sir Keir Starmer’s repeated claims that he would “never have appointed” Lord Mandelson if he had known the “depth” of the Labour peer’s connection to Epstein. It appears his own team actively suppressed the information that would have revealed this depth, raising serious questions about the integrity of the appointment process.

What The Politicians Said

This was my mistake in making the appointment, and I ve apologised to the victims of Epstein, I do so again.

— Sir Keir Starmer, Leader of the Labour Party

The Prime Minister tried to avoid scrutiny on the Mandelson files by releasing the documents immediately after Prime Minister s Questions last week.

— Kemi Badenoch, Tory Leader

As set out by the Independent Adviser on Ministerial Standards, the process in place at the time for a political appointee was followed.

— A Government spokesman

Why This Matters For Britain

This scandal is a damning indictment of the political establishment’s willingness to prioritise political convenience over public trust and common sense. When a due diligence report explicitly flags a “reputational risk” involving a convicted paedophile, and the ethics chief offers to question the individual twice, a responsible government would jump at the chance for transparency. Instead, Starmer’s team reportedly blocked it.

Ordinary British people are fed up with politicians who say one thing and do another. Starmer claims to be different, yet his team appears to have actively suppressed crucial information to push through a controversial appointment. This isn’t just about Lord Mandelson; it’s about the integrity of our political system and whether those in power genuinely care about accountability or merely about protecting their own.

The failure to properly vet such a high-profile individual, especially given the serious nature of Epstein’s crimes, demonstrates a shocking lack of judgement. It highlights how out-of-touch the political class can be, ignoring clear warnings that would be common sense to any ordinary person.

The Bottom Line

Starmer’s team rejected critical ethics vetting for Lord Mandelson, despite explicit warnings about his Epstein links. This raises serious questions about transparency and accountability, proving once again that the establishment often puts self-preservation before common sense and public trust. The British people deserve better than this hypocrisy.