LONDON, U.K.: Prime Minister Keir Starmer managed to avert a parliamentary inquiry over his choice of Peter Mandelson as British ambassador to the U.S., but he still faced questions about whether he bent the rules to appoint the ambassador.

In a positive development for the prime minister, the House of Commons on April 28 voted against an opposition attempt to start a standards investigation into Starmer. However, a former senior official said he could not confirm that proper procedures were followed when Peter Mandelson, who had links to Jeffrey Epstein, was given a major diplomatic role despite failing security checks.

The controversy over the appointment has caused serious problems for Starmer, putting his job under pressure and creating tension with civil servants. Starmer is upset he was not told Mandelson had failed vetting, while officials say they felt pushed by his office to approve the appointment quickly at the start of President Donald Trump's second term.

Philip Barton, the top civil servant at the Foreign Office at the time, said he was told to proceed with the decision and that the prime minister had been informed of the risks and had accepted them.

Starmer's former chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, admitted he made a "serious mistake" in recommending Mandelson but denied pressuring officials to ignore security concerns. He told lawmakers that the prime minister had relied on his advice and that he had gotten it wrong. He also apologized to Epstein's victims for any distress caused.

However, McSweeney insisted he never asked officials to skip procedures or clear checks at any cost.

Starmer later dismissed Mandelson in September after new details about his relationship with Epstein, who died in prison in 2019, came to light.

In February, police began investigating Mandelson over claims he shared sensitive government information with Epstein in 2009. Mandelson denies any wrongdoing and has not been charged.

McSweeney resigned the same month, taking responsibility for the appointment. He said he believed Mandelson's experience as a former EU trade commissioner would help the U.K. secure a trade deal with the Trump administration. He also said Starmer might not have chosen Mandelson if Kamala Harris had been elected president.

He again denied claims that officials were pressured to rush approval. At the time, he believed Mandelson's connection to Epstein was minor, but later emails showed they were close, which he said shocked him deeply.

Earlier this month, Starmer removed senior Foreign Office official Olly Robbins after it was revealed Mandelson had been approved despite advice from the security vetting agency. Starmer said it was "staggering" that he was not told about these concerns.

Robbins said he could not share the details due to confidentiality rules. He added that the concerns were not related to Epstein but did not explain further.

While it is uncommon, some U.K. ambassadors are political appointees rather than career diplomats. Barton said he had worried that Mandelson's known links to Epstein could become a serious issue.

He also said there was pressure to move quickly, though not to reach a specific decision.

Starmer has denied that his office pressured civil servants in any way.