Report: Starmer 'forensically removed' from Mandelson files
Keir Starmer's fingerprints were 'forensically removed' from the recently-published Peter Mandelson files, the Tories suggested today.
Downing Street last week finally released the first batch of documents surrounding Lord Mandelson's appointment as Britain's ambassador to the US in December 2024.
But although they confirmed Sir Keir was warned about the disgraced peer's 'particularly close' relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, his response was not recorded.
The documents contained no record of what the Prime Minister thought about Lord Mandelson.
They also did not detail why he pushed through the controversial appointment after being told it was a 'reputational risk' to the Government.
The Missing Paper Trail
In an urgent question in the House of Commons on Monday, senior Tory MP Alex Burghart said there were 'many, many documents missing'.
'It's become increasingly clear that either the Government did not follow due process in its appointment of Peter Mandelson, or that it has not disclosed all of the relevant documents,' the shadow chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said.
'In different terms, either the PM's assurances that full due process was followed was misleading, or the Government has not complied with the Humble Address. Either would be a contempt of Parliament.'
Mr Burghart added: 'There are many, many documents missing. To give a few examples, there is no prime ministerial readout on the advice he received.'
'This is a breach of protocol. A prime ministerial decision, even if made orally, should be formally recorded. Where is that record? It starts to stink of the sofa government we had under Tony Blair.'
Forensically Removed
'There are no minutes of any meeting at which this appointment was discussed, by anyone at any time.
'Were there really no meetings about this? Most suspiciously at all, we have no material from the PM, from his chief of staff, or from Peter Mandelson.
'No box returns, no emails, no forms, no WhatsApps, nothing. It is as though their fingerprints have been forensically removed.'
In response to Mr Burghart's urgent question, senior Cabinet minister Darren Jones told MPs: 'As the PM and the Government has said, the process that was inherited was the process that was followed.'
'However, this has shown that that process was not sufficient, which is why it's being strengthened.'
Mr Jones, who is Chief Secretary to the PM, added: 'He asked me about WhatsApps and other messages, I can confirm those types of documents will be subject to a further tranche being published in due course.'
Not an Individual Decision’
It came after Sir Keir himself had denied misleading MPs by telling them due process was followed in the appointment of Lord Mandelson.
The files released on 11 March showed Sir Keir's national security adviser, Jonathan Powell, had described Lord Mandelson's appointment as 'weirdly rushed' and the peer had been named as the new ambassador before his vetting had been completed.
Asked whether he had misled the Commons by telling MPs that due process had been followed, the PM told a press conference on Monday: 'No.'
Sir Keir added that his ethics adviser, Sir Laurie Magnus, had considered the question last week, 'and answered very robustly that the process had been followed'.
But he continued that the process 'wasn't strong enough', saying: 'Amongst the changes that I intend to put into place is the fact you can't announce something until the vetting is finished.
'It wasn't an individual decision in the Mandelson case, that was the process. We only have to look at that in the light of the appointment to realise that that needs to change.'
Ethics Adviser Rejects Inquiry
'But on due process, that process that was there was followed, the problem was the process wasn't strong enough. Ultimately, it was my mistake and I have apologised for that and quite right too.'
In a letter published on 13 March, Sir Laurie had rejected a call from Mr Burghart for an inquiry into whether the PM had misled the Commons over Lord Mandelson's appointment.
He said: 'I consider that the documentation that has been made public indicates that the relevant process for a political appointee was followed.'
Last week saw the release of the first tranche of documents related to Lord Mandelson's appointment as ambassador to Washington, with further documents set to follow.
The release was compelled by MPs, who backed a Conservative 'Humble Address' motion calling for the publication of a wide range of files connected to the appointment, along with communications between Lord Mandelson and senior ministers and Government advisers.
Police Shield Missing Files
Some material is expected to be withheld either because it relates to a police investigation into Lord Mandelson, or because Parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee believes it could jeopardise national security or diplomatic relations.
Lord Mandelson was arrested last month 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.
The peer has vowed to cooperate with the police investigation and 'to clear his name'.
He has denied the Epstein files show he broke any laws or acted for personal gain and repeatedly said he regrets his friendship with Epstein.
Share your thoughts with us in the comments
