What systemic implications does the British government’s handling of the Epstein‑related scandal have for public trust and the evolution of ministerial accountability mechanisms in Westminster?
The British government's handling of the Epstein-related scandal represents a watershed moment for Westminster's accountability architecture, exposing fundamental weaknesses in ministerial oversight while simultaneously catalysing the most significant reforms to ethics regulation in decades. The crisis has accelerated institutional change that might otherwise have taken years to materialise, though whether these reforms will prove sufficient to restore public confidence remains deeply uncertain.
The scandal has unfolded across two distinct but interconnected tracks. The first concerns Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, formerly Prince Andrew, who settled a civil lawsuit brought by Virginia Giuffre in 2022 for an estimated $16 million while vigorously denying all allegations against himWhy UK’s Prince Andrew lost his princely title – and his stately home | Sexual Assault News | Al Jazeeraaljazeera . In January 2022, Queen Elizabeth II removed his military affiliations and royal patronages, confirming he would no longer use the style "His Royal Highness" in any official capacityPrince Andrew & the Epstein Scandal - Wikipediawikipedia . King Charles III subsequently stripped him of his remaining titles in October 2025, with Buckingham Palace stating that "their Majesties wish to make clear that their thoughts and utmost sympathies have been, and will remain with, the victims and survivors of any and all forms of abuse"UK police force examines claims ex-Prince Andrew sent ...pbs .
Thames Valley Police confirmed in February 2026 that they are "assessing the information" regarding allegations that the former prince shared confidential trade reports with Epstein during his time as Britain's trade envoyPolice assessing claims about Andrew sharing confidential trade details - BBC Newsbbc . The anti-monarchy group Republic lodged a complaint alleging suspected misconduct in public office and breach of official secretsPolice assessing claims about Andrew sharing confidential trade details - BBC Newsbbc . Emails released by the US Department of Justice appear to show correspondence in which Andrew forwarded reports from visits to Singapore, Vietnam, Hong Kong, and China, as well as a "confidential brief" on investment opportunities in Afghanistan's Helmand ProvinceEx-Prince Andrew Could Face Investigation over Allegations of Sharing Confidential Details with Epsteinpeople .
The second dimension involves Peter Mandelson, whose appointment as Ambassador to the United States in December 2024 has precipitated the most severe political crisis of Keir Starmer's premiership. Documents released by the US Department of Justice in February 2026 suggest that Mandelson, while serving as Business Secretary under Gordon Brown, allegedly passed confidential government information to Epstein, including attempting to influence government policy on bankers' bonuses at Epstein's request and sharing an internal government report during the 2008 financial crisisRelationship of Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein - Wikipediawikipedia +1. The Metropolitan Police launched a criminal investigation on 3 February 2026 into alleged misconduct in public officeRelationship of Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein - Wikipediawikipedia .
The political fallout has been severe. Mandelson was dismissed as ambassador in September 2025, resigned from the Labour Party and House of Lords in February 2026, and has been stripped of numerous honorary titlesRelationship of Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein - Wikipediawikipedia . Morgan McSweeney, Starmer's chief of staff, resigned taking "full responsibility" for advising the appointment, stating that "the decision to appoint Peter Mandelson was wrong. He has damaged our party, our country and trust in politics itself"UK PM’s chief of staff resigns over Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador despite Epstein links | CNNcnn . The Prime Minister himself acknowledged at Prime Minister's Questions that the security vetting he received did mention Mandelson's ongoing relationship with Epstein, admitting "I regret appointing him. If I knew then what I know now, he would never have been anywhere near government"How Epstein-Mandelson files rocked the UK government | Corruption News | Al Jazeeraaljazeera .
The scandal has compounded an already severe crisis of confidence in British political institutions. According to the 2023 OECD Government at a Glance report, only 27% of people in the United Kingdom had high or moderately high trust in the national government, below the OECD average of 39%Government at a Glance 2025: United Kingdom - OECDoecd . The 2022 ONS Trust in Government Survey found that 35% of the UK population stated they trusted the national government, also below the OECD average of 41%, while only 20% reported trust in political partiesTrust in government, UK: 2022 - Office for National Statisticsons .
The 2024 British Social Attitudes Survey recorded that nearly 45% of respondents said they "almost never" trust governments to prioritise national interest over party interest—an increase of 22 percentage points since 2020Trust in UK Public Sector Organisations: Trends, Challenges and ...linkedin . The 2024 Edelman Trust Barometer reported that only 30% of UK citizens trust the government, the lowest level since 2012Trust in UK Public Sector Organisations: Trends, Challenges and ...linkedin . By 2026, only about a third of the UK public expected their government "to do what is right" according to the Edelman barometerUK Crisis of Trust Menaces National Security - CEPAcepa .
Polling specific to the Epstein scandal reinforces these trends. Following Prince Andrew's 2019 BBC interview, a YouGov poll found that only 6% of Britons believed the Duke's account of his friendship with Epstein, while 51% stated they did not believe himJust 6% of Britons believe Prince Andrew’s account of his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein | YouGovyougov . The lack of trust was consistent across society—only 5% of 2017 Labour voters believed him, 8% of Conservatives, and 9% of Liberal DemocratsJust 6% of Britons believe Prince Andrew’s account of his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein | YouGovyougov . Approaching half of Britons (47%) believed the way Prince Andrew responded to allegations had damaged the monarchyJust 6% of Britons believe Prince Andrew’s account of his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein | YouGovyougov .
The political consequences have been dramatic. As of February 2026, only 19% of people in the UK would vote for the governing Labour Party, behind Reform UK on 26% and just ahead of the Conservatives on 18%UK election polls 2026 - Statistastatista . Anas Sarwar, leader of Scottish Labour, called for Starmer to step down, stating "the distraction needs to end, and the leadership in Downing Street has to change"UK government reeling from Epstein fallout as screws tighten ... - CNNcnn . Analysts have described the scandal as "one of the country's biggest political scandals this century"UK government reeling from Epstein fallout as screws tighten ... - CNNcnn .
The scandal has accelerated reforms to the ministerial accountability framework that had been under development since Labour took office. The updated Ministerial Code published in November 2024 incorporated several significant changes from its predecessor:
The Code now integrates the Seven Principles of Public Life (the Nolan Principles) directly into its main textMike Gordon: Labour’s Ministerial Code and Political Standards Reform – UK Constitutional Law Associationukconstitutionallaw . It reinserts a specific reference to the need to comply with international lawMike Gordon: Labour’s Ministerial Code and Political Standards Reform – UK Constitutional Law Associationukconstitutionallaw . Most significantly, the renamed Independent Adviser on Ministerial Standards was granted the power to initiate investigations into ministerial conduct without requiring the approval of the Prime MinisterMike Gordon: Labour’s Ministerial Code and Political Standards Reform – UK Constitutional Law Associationukconstitutionallaw +1.
As the Code states: "If the Independent Adviser believes that an alleged breach of the Code warrants further investigation and that matter has not already been referred to them, they may initiate an investigation after notifying the Prime Minister"Ministerial Code (HTML) - GOV.UKwww . The Prime Minister's Foreword to the new Code explicitly frames it as essential to "restoring trust in politics," declaring that "public service is a privilege" and that "for too long politicians have acted as if service was an entitlement"Ministerial Code (HTML) - GOV.UKwww .
The Code also strengthens post-office restrictions: former ministers must seek advice from the Independent Adviser about any appointments or employment for two years after leaving office, and if found to have "seriously breached" the Business Appointment Rules, they will be expected to repay their full severance paymentMinisterial Code (HTML) - GOV.UKwww . Additionally, former ministers are prohibited from lobbying government for two years after leaving officeMinisterial Codeservice .
However, constitutional scholars have characterised these changes as a "continuity Code" rather than transformative reform. As Mike Gordon of the University of Liverpool noted, "the right of the Adviser to initiate investigations without requiring the consent of the Prime Minister is surely the bare minimum required for the holder of that office to be credibly described as 'independent'"Mike Gordon: Labour’s Ministerial Code and Political Standards Reform – UK Constitutional Law Associationukconstitutionallaw . Crucially, "the final decision rests with the Prime Minister" on both whether to sanction ministers and what that sanction should beMinisterial Code (HTML) - GOV.UKwww .
The Mandelson scandal has directly tested these mechanisms. Constitutional analysis suggests that "the Prime Minister's conduct is susceptible to investigation where a breach of the Code is suspected" under the reformed provisionsMike Gordon: The Mandelson Scandal and the Prime Ministerukconstitutionallaw . The Independent Adviser, Sir Laurie Magnus, now faces a decision on whether to initiate an investigation into Starmer's conduct in making the appointment—exercising precisely the new powers Labour introducedMike Gordon: The Mandelson Scandal and the Prime Ministerukconstitutionallaw .
Labour fulfilled its manifesto commitment by establishing the Ethics and Integrity Commission (EIC) on 13 October 2025, replacing the Committee on Standards in Public LifeIs the government on track to establish a new independent ethics commission? – Full Factfullfact +1. Doug Chalmers, formerly CSPL chair, has continued in the roleIs the government on track to establish a new independent ethics commission? – Full Factfullfact .
The EIC's responsibilities include promoting the Seven Principles of Public Life, conducting research and making recommendations, advising on codes of conduct, reporting annually on standards, and "bringing standards bodies together" across central government and parliamentEthics and Integrity Commission - House of Commons Libraryparliament . However, crucially, "the EIC CANNOT investigate individual cases of alleged ethical impropriety. The EIC is not a regulator and does not have the power to sanction individuals or bodies"Ethics and Integrity Commission - House of Commons Libraryparliament .
This represents a significant departure from what Labour originally proposed. Deputy Leader Angela Rayner's 2023 speech pledged that the commission would "subsume the Independent Advisor on Ministerial Interests" and be placed "on a statutory footing"Is the government on track to establish a new independent ethics commission? – Full Factfullfact . Neither has occurred—the Independent Adviser remains a separate role, and the Commission has no statutory foundationIs the government on track to establish a new independent ethics commission? – Full Factfullfact .
Transparency International UK's analysis reveals that since taking office, the Labour government has implemented only two of the 28 outstanding recommendations made by the Committee on Standards in Public Life in 2021: granting the Independent Adviser the power to initiate investigations and improving consistency of post-employment rulesAnalysis reveals Government has implemented only two of 28 key changes to improve standards in public life | Transparency International UKtransparency . Nine recommendations show "some progress" but fall short of CSPL recommendations, while no progress has been made on 18 recommendations, including broadening the lobbying register and tightening business appointment rulesAnalysis reveals Government has implemented only two of 28 key changes to improve standards in public life | Transparency International UKtransparency .
The Public Office (Accountability) Bill 2024-26, known as the "Hillsborough Law," represents the most significant legislative reform to public accountability currently before Parliament. Introduced on 16 September 2025, it passed its second reading on 3 November 2025 without divisionsPublic Office (Accountability) Bill 2024-26: Progress of the bill - House of Commons Libraryparliament .
The bill's key provisions include:
The bill's report stage and third reading were postponed multiple times, most recently on 19 January 2026, so that amendments could be made to "get the right balance between transparency and national security" regarding the intelligence servicesPublic Office (Accountability) Bill 2024-26: Progress of the bill - House of Commons Libraryparliament . The bill had originally excluded intelligence services from the duty of candour, and campaigners including the Hillsborough Law Now group indicated that government amendments did not meet their expectationsPublic Office (Accountability) Bill 2024-26: Progress of the bill - House of Commons Libraryparliament .
A significant amendment extended the duty of candour to local authorities and inquiries commissioned by local authorities into serious incidents—responding to arguments that the bill would not apply to inquiries into grooming gangsPublic Office (Accountability) Bill 2024-26: Progress of the bill - House of Commons Libraryparliament .
The scandal has exposed critical weaknesses in the mechanisms for removing disgraced peers from the House of Lords. Current law makes removal extraordinarily difficult. As the House of Lords Library confirms, once a peerage has been granted by letters patent, even the Crown cannot cancel it—an Act of Parliament is requiredPeter Mandelson steps down from the House of Lords – but he still has his titletheconversation . The most recent precedent is the Titles Deprivation Act 1917, used to strip peerages from those who had "borne arms against His Majesty or His Allies" during the First World WarPeter Mandelson steps down from the House of Lords – but he still has his titletheconversation +1.
The House of Lords Reform Act 2014 and the House of Lords (Expulsion and Suspension) Act 2015 introduced limited reforms, including automatic expulsion for peers sentenced to more than a year in prison and provisions for expulsion following a Conduct Committee investigationPeter Mandelson steps down from the House of Lords – but he still has his titletheconversation . However, peers can voluntarily resign from the House while retaining their peerage titleHow to remove Peter Mandelson from the Lordsspectator .
Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister Darren Jones announced that the government would "work with the Lords to modernise disciplinary procedures to allow for the removal of peers who had brought the chamber into disrepute," arguing it was "better to update procedures so they applied to all peers, rather than introducing complex pieces of legislation for each individual"Keir Starmer believes Lord Mandelson 'should not be member of Lords'bbc . The Prime Minister stated he has "instructed my team to draft legislation to strip Mandlesson of his title and wider legislation to remove disgraced peers"PMQs | Starmer says Mandelson 'lied repeatedly' before his appointment as US ambassadoryoutube .
The House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill 2024-25 passed the Commons in September 2025, removing hereditary peers' right to sitHouse of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill 2024-25: Progress of the bill - House of Commons Libraryparliament . A committee was appointed in December 2025 to consider a retirement age and participation requirements for Lords members, with a reporting deadline of 31 July 2026House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill 2024-25: Progress of the bill - House of Commons Libraryparliament .
The Mandelson debacle has prompted calls for fundamental reform to senior appointment vetting. Investigation by The Observer revealed that those carrying out developed vetting on Mandelson "failed to ask interviewees about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, despite the fact the pair's connection was in the public domain"Cabinet Office failed to query Mandelson's relationship with Epsteinobserver . One interviewee reported there was "not a single question on Jeffrey Epstein" despite questions on drugs, sex, pornography, and blackmail riskCabinet Office failed to query Mandelson's relationship with Epsteinobserver .
The Cabinet Office's Propriety and Ethics Team carried out "desktop due diligence" covering Mandelson's political career, his lobbying firm Global Counsel, and "what was then known about his links to Epstein—including, crucially, that Mandelson stayed in Epstein's apartment after the latter's conviction"Cabinet Office failed to query Mandelson's relationship with Epsteinobserver . Yet the appointment proceeded.
Former Prime Minister Gordon Brown has called for US-style confirmation hearings for senior government appointments, stating: "There is a systemic failure to do proper vetting, to go through the proper procedures and to actually have, in my view, what should be public hearings for anybody who is going to be in a senior position representing the British government"Cabinet Office failed to query Mandelson's relationship with Epsteinobserver .
McSweeney, in his resignation statement, declared that "the due diligence and vetting process... did need to be fundamentally overhauled. It was flawed and that cannot simply be a gesture but a safeguard for the future"UK PM’s chief of staff resigns over Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador despite Epstein links | CNNcnn .
A Conservative-led humble address motion compelled the release of all papers relating to Mandelson's appointment, including Cabinet Office due diligence, conflict of interest forms, material provided to UK Security Vetting about his interests including "his work in relation to Russia and China, and his links to Jeffrey Epstein," and communications between officials and Mandelson prior to appointmentLord Mandelson - Hansard - UK Parliamentparliament . However, the Metropolitan Police requested the government delay release as it could "undermine" their ongoing investigationWho is Peter Mandelson, and why have his Epstein ties shaken the British establishment? | CNNcnn .
The scandal illuminates fundamental tensions in the Westminster system's accountability architecture. Ministerial responsibility is "a fundamental constitutional principle" ensuring "the accountability of the government to the legislature and thus, ultimately, to the population," based primarily on "constitutional conventions, established by precedents, rather than on positive statutes"Ministerial responsibility | Definition, Principles & Examples | Britannicabritannica .
However, academic analysis suggests these conventions are evolving. As Canadian constitutional scholar Philippe Lagassé observes, "ministerial resignations appear reserved for those instances where 1) ministers didn't act when they knew there was a problem within their portfolio; or 2) the ministers themselves acted improperly"Resignations and the evolution of ministerial responsibilitysubstack . The expectation that ministers should resign for departmental failures is "losing traction" as government has expandedResignations and the evolution of ministerial responsibilitysubstack .
The Ministerial Code itself states that "the Prime Minister is the ultimate judge of the standards of behaviour expected of a minister and the appropriate consequences of a breach of those standards. It is not the role of the Cabinet Secretary or other officials to enforce the Code"Ministerial Code (HTML) - GOV.UKwww . This concentration of judgment in the Prime Minister represents both a strength—clear accountability—and a weakness—potential for self-interested interpretation.
Parliamentary scrutiny mechanisms remain relevant but limited. The Commons Procedure Committee found that "the responsibility for complying with the Code rests with the Government" and recommended that the word "should" in the principle requiring major announcements be made first to Parliament be replaced with "must"Ministerial Statements and the Ministerial Codeparliament . The granting of urgent questions remains "the most effective and timely remedy currently available to Members to elicit information from Ministers in the absence of an oral statement"Ministerial Statements and the Ministerial Codeparliament .
The current scandal fits within established patterns of crisis-driven institutional reform in Westminster. Academic study of the 2009 MPs' expenses scandal found that "the disclosure of information on MPs' detailed expenses items led to a wave of resignations and eventually to voters' punishment of the most involved MPs"—but that punishment "does not appear to be overwhelming"[PDF] Accountability Channels Following the MPs' Expenses Scandal - LSElse . The primary mechanism for accountability was "the standing down of the most involved MPs" rather than electoral defeat[PDF] Accountability Channels Following the MPs' Expenses Scandal - LSElse .
Transparency International UK argues that "frequent scandal overshadows the good work that the House [of Lords] does and undermines its legitimacy, to the extent that the status quo is untenable"[PDF] Reducing Corruption Risks In A Reformed House Of Lordstransparency . Their analysis concludes that "many of our proposals do not require primary legislation, could be introduced swiftly, and without too many cost implications"—yet reform has proceeded slowly[PDF] Reducing Corruption Risks In A Reformed House Of Lordstransparency .
Spotlight on Corruption warns that "the current proposals for the Commission are based on more of the same 'good chaps' approach to regulating ethics in government, which are not enough to future-proof UK politics against rogue and unscrupulous actors"New Ethics and Integrity Commission announced: Spotlight statement - Spotlight on Corruptionspotlightcorruption . They argue that "standards regulation—including standards regulators and the new Commission itself—must be put on a more robust legislative footing to ensure that there are statutory checks and balances to protect good governance"New Ethics and Integrity Commission announced: Spotlight statement - Spotlight on Corruptionspotlightcorruption .
The Epstein-related scandal reveals several structural vulnerabilities in Westminster's accountability framework:
Vetting Deficiencies: The failure to adequately investigate Mandelson's Epstein connections despite public reporting demonstrates that neither security vetting nor propriety checks are designed to detect reputational or ethical risks as opposed to national security threatsCabinet Office failed to query Mandelson's relationship with Epsteinobserver .
Prime Ministerial Discretion: The concentration of appointment power and ethical judgment in the Prime Minister creates inherent conflicts of interest when the Prime Minister's own judgment is at issueMike Gordon: The Mandelson Scandal and the Prime Ministerukconstitutionallaw .
Lords Accountability Gap: The near-impossibility of removing disgraced peers creates a two-tier system where members of the upper house face weaker accountability than elected MPsPeter Mandelson steps down from the House of Lords – but he still has his titletheconversation +1.
Convention-Based Vulnerability: The reliance on conventions rather than statutory mechanisms means that accountability depends heavily on political will and can be circumvented when politically convenientMinisterial responsibility | Definition, Principles & Examples | Britannicabritannica +1.
Trust Deficit Reinforcement: The scandal compounds existing low trust in political institutions, with the Mandelson affair specifically damaging "trust in politics itself" according to the Prime Minister's own former chief of staffUK PM’s chief of staff resigns over Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador despite Epstein links | CNNcnn .
The More in Common "Shattered Britain" report described a nation where "trust has been hollowed out, creating a functional vacuum in state authority"—an "agency gap" where 70% of Britons feel the state has lost control of its core functionsUK Crisis of Trust Menaces National Security - CEPAcepa . From a national security perspective, this constitutes "a material weakness as it indicates a shrinking ability to command public consent and collective action in a crisis"UK Crisis of Trust Menaces National Security - CEPAcepa .
The reforms now underway—strengthened Independent Adviser powers, the Ethics and Integrity Commission, the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, and proposed Lords disciplinary modernisation—represent genuine institutional development. However, the gap between Labour's opposition rhetoric and governing reality suggests that systemic reform remains constrained by the same political incentives that perpetuate accountability failures. As Transparency International UK concluded: "the Government's approach to improving standards remains piecemeal, falling short of the comprehensive change needed. The measures announced so far do not amount to meaningful reform"Analysis reveals Government has implemented only two of 28 key changes to improve standards in public life | Transparency International UKtransparency .
The ultimate test will be whether the current crisis generates sufficient political momentum to overcome the structural constraints of a system where those with the power to implement reform are often those with the least incentive to do so.