Tories call on Starmer’s ethics adviser to investigate Mandelson ‘cover-up’

Sir Keir Starmer’s ethics adviser must investigate whether he broke the ministerial code in his handling of the Peter Mandelson scandal, the Tories have said.

The Opposition has written to standards watchdog Sir Laurie Magnus calling for him to investigate a “potential cover-up” after the Government’s release of files relating to the peer becoming US ambassador.

Details of his appointment and subsequent removal from the Washington job were disclosed in the first batch of documents published on Wednesday in response to a Commons motion.

Senior officials had concerns about Lord Mandelson taking up the role and the Prime Minister was warned there was a “general reputational risk” over the peer’s relationship with paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, the papers said.

But in a letter to Sir Laurie, shadow Cabinet Office minister Alex Burghart suggested there was “missing” correspondence in the published material, and that complying only partially with the demand by MPs may be a contempt of Parliament.

“There is no document disclosing whether these reservations were communicated to the Prime Minister,” he said.

Mr Burghart also questioned why published files relating to a fact-finding process surrounding Lord Mandelson’s dismissal did not include discussions with figures like then-No 10 chief of staff Morgan McSweeney or the Prime Minister himself.

“Either further records exist and have been withheld, or the investigation was woefully inadequate,” the Tory frontbencher said.

The 31 files released by the Government on Wednesday did not include correspondence between No 10 and Lord Mandelson, in which a number of follow-up questions were asked about his relationship with Epstein.

MPs have been told those exchanges remained subject to the Metropolitan Police’s ongoing investigation into the peer over allegations of misconduct in public office.

But Mr Burghart’s letter also asks whether Sir Keir misled Parliament by saying he would not have appointed Lord Mandelson had he known the full extent of his association with Epstein – a claim which it says is “irreconcilable” with information laid bare in the files.

“The documents published on 11 March 2026 raise serious questions.

“They demonstrate that: the Prime Minister was warned of the risks of appointing Lord Mandelson and proceeded regardless; his own national security adviser described the process as ‘weirdly rushed’; his assurance to the House that ‘full due process was followed’ was not an accurate representation of events; and his subsequent claim that he would not have made the appointment had he known the facts is contradicted by the due diligence document he himself reviewed,” Mr Burghart wrote.

“I therefore ask you to undertake an investigation into whether the Prime Minister has broken the ministerial code.”

Earlier on Thursday, Sir Keir took responsibility for the “mistake” of appointing the peer, but No 10 denied suggestions of a “cover-up” and said that no notes by the Prime Minister were redacted.

“There are a range of different ways in which the Prime Minister’s senior team responds to advice,” his official spokesman said.

He added: “The Prime Minister did read the advice, but clearly there are lessons to be learned on the wider appointment processes, and the processes that led up to them.”

Some files which touch on national security or foreign relations matters will be redacted but the final say on that rests with Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee.

Just one of the documents released on Wednesday was redacted in agreement with the committee.

The Government has also agreed a framework with the Metropolitan Police on which documents can be released without prejudicing the ongoing investigation into the former ambassador.

Lord Mandelson was arrested on February 23 on suspicion of misconduct in public office, having been accused of passing sensitive information on to Epstein during his time as business secretary in Gordon Brown’s government.

He was subsequently bailed, but later released from his bail conditions, although he remains under investigation.