Starmer weighs Epstein review after pressure from survivors and MPs

Victims minister Alex Davies-Jones says Keir Starmer is “looking at what is possible” for a possible review of Jeffrey Epstein’s activities in the UK, after renewed pressure from survivors and MPs forced the government to confront whether it will do more than issue another statement. Davies-Jones also said on BBC Newsnight: “We are looking into this.”

The pressure is now visible inside Westminster. Davies-Jones previously challenged Starmer at Prime Minister’s Questions on whether he would hold a public inquiry into the Epstein scandal, while Lisa Phillips, an Epstein survivor, watched from the public gallery. The demand from survivors is no longer just for acknowledgement of what happened, but for a process that can answer who enabled it, who protected whom, and why Epstein-linked figures were handled the way they were in public life.

That question sharpened after BBC Newsnight featured Joanna Harrison, who said she felt compelled to speak after her name was unintentionally made public in the release of millions of US government files. In a special Newsnight programme from Washington on 27 March 2026, Victoria Derbyshire brought five Epstein survivors together in the same room for the first time, including two women speaking publicly for the first time.

Starmer’s own handling of the wider Epstein fallout has already become a political liability. In February 2026, he apologised to Epstein victims for believing Peter Mandelson’s “lies” and for appointing him as UK ambassador to the US. He later described that appointment as the “wrong” decision. The Mandelson row has intensified pressure on Downing Street to show that any new response would be more than a defensive exercise.

Davies-Jones herself has become a central figure in the push for answers. She resigned from government earlier in 2026 before returning as victims minister, and she has publicly urged the prime minister to meet Epstein survivors directly and listen to their experiences. That makes the unanswered details around any review more significant: who would lead it, whether it would have the power to compel evidence, whether it would publish findings, and whether victims would get disclosure and accountability rather than another announcement-heavy process.

For Starmer, the test is no longer whether to talk about Epstein. It is whether the government will set out a review with a defined scope, real powers and a route to disclosure, or leave survivors waiting for a promise that never becomes an inquiry with teeth.