A major political crisis has erupted in Westminster following explosive allegations in the House of Lords that Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer misled Parliament over the appointment of Peter Mandelson and that 56 key documents related to the case are now missing.

The damning charges were leveled by a peer during a debate on the government’s response to a Humble Address for papers concerning Mr. Mandelson’s brief tenure as Ambassador to the United States. The focus of the allegations centers on Sir Keir’s knowledge of Mr. Mandelson’s continued association with the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

The peer stated there is now proof the Prime Minister was “directly informed” that Mr. Mandelson maintained his relationship with Epstein after Epstein’s conviction for child sex offences. Despite this knowledge, Sir Keir, a former Director of Public Prosecutions, allegedly delegated due diligence to two of Mr. Mandelson’s personal friends.

“He did not undertake a searching inquiry for the truth,” the peer asserted, describing the process as a “farcical form of due diligence.” The questions posed and answers given in this private inquiry have not been made public, raising immediate questions about transparency and propriety.

Further intensifying the scandal, the peer highlighted a report in The Times that no written record of Mr. Mandelson’s appointment exists. “There simply has to be an audit trail to transmit the prime minister’s decision,” the peer stated, calling the lack of documentation “extraordinary.”

This point draws a direct parallel to the previous administration, referencing the Privileges Committee report that criticized a former prime minister for relying on assurances not from senior civil servants. The peer directly asked ministers if Sir Keir misled the Commons by assuring that “full due diligence” was followed.

The controversy extends to a reported £70,000 payment made to Mr. Mandelson upon his dismissal. The government has argued non-payment would have led to a costly tribunal, but the peer challenged this logic. “The prime minister has said on the record that Mandelson acted dishonestly to gain the post… surely Mandelson’s case would not have been successful.”

The most urgent revelation concerns the whereabouts of official documents. The peer revealed that “at least 56 documents are thought to be missing” in relation to the Humble Address. Ministers have previously stated they must seek advice from lawyers and the Metropolitan Police before disclosing if documents are held for a criminal investigation.

The opposition has repeatedly demanded a schedule showing which documents are being withheld and why, a request that has so far gone unanswered. “For the sake of public confidence… we must be able to see the amount of information that is being withheld and for what reason,” the peer argued.

In a devastating summation, the peer concluded the Prime Minister appointed a man he knew was unfit, based on a sham process, to a pivotal diplomatic role. “The truth is that the misplaced trust is not that of the prime minister’s in Peter Mandelson, but the trust the British people placed in the prime minister at the last election.”

The allegations place Sir Keir Starmer under unprecedented pressure. They strike at the heart of his credibility as a former top prosecutor and a leader who pledged integrity. With the official opposition now demanding answers and at least 56 documents unaccounted for, the Prime Minister faces a monumental challenge to restore parliamentary and public confidence.

The government has yet to issue a comprehensive response to the specific claims made in the Lords. All eyes are now on Downing Street for a clarification on the missing documents and a rebuttal to the accusation that Parliament was knowingly misled on a matter of grave national and diplomatic significance.