Sir Keir Starmer will be forced to publish files related to Peter Mandelson’s appointment as the UK’s ambassador to the US after MPs passed a binding motion mandating the move.
The Conservative Party used an arcane motion known as a “humble address” to force the government to publish the documents amid outrage over revelations about the scale of Lord Mandelson’s relationship with convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein.
Although the government signalled on Tuesday that it would publish most documents after Labour MPs said they would not oppose the Tory motion, No 10 initially sought to amend it to prevent the publication of “papers prejudicial to UK national security or international relations”.
Tap here for the latest on the Epstein files
However, it triggered outrage from Labour MPs, and led the Tory leader to accuse the government of attempting to “cover up” documents it did not want parliament or the public to see.
Wednesday’s six-hour debate saw outspoken interventions from senior Labour MPs Angela Rayner and Dame Meg Hillier, and led to the government backing down after an afternoon of frantic negotiations with the opposition and their own backbenches.
A new government amendment was tabled at the 11th hour that will instead see documents related to “national security and international relations” passed to parliament’s independent Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC), which will decide what to do with them.
Postponed local elections – what is happening?
Tories ‘on the right but appeal to the majority’, says Kemi Badenoch
Farage says the right is uniting. The reality is very different
The change was enough to placate MPs on all sides of the House, and the amendment, along with the binding Conservative motion, was passed by the Commons without a vote – but it leaves Sir Keir in the most perilous position of his premiership so far.
Following the vote, a Downing Street spokesperson said that Lord Mandelson “lied to the prime minister, hid information that has since come to light and presented Jeffrey Epstein as someone he barely knew”, pledging to “comply with the motion” to publish the documents demanded by parliament.
But the Conservative Party said in a statement: “You could feel in the Commons that was the moment Labour MPs stopped backing the prime minister. The government have now had to cave to Kemi’s demand for all documents to go to the ISC. Starmer is no longer in control, Kemi is calling the shots.”
Police probe delays publication
However, it is unclear when any documents will be shared with parliament and published by the government amid a police investigation into Lord Mandelson for misconduct in public office.
The Metropolitan Police said in a statement this evening: “When approached by the UK government today with their intent to publish material, we reviewed it immediately and advised that the release of specific documents could undermine our current investigation. We therefore asked them not to release certain documents at this time.”
No 10 insists that it wants to release documents as soon as possible, because they say it will confirm Sir Keir’s statements at Prime Minister’s Questions earlier that the New Labour grandee had “lied repeatedly to my team when asked about his relationship with Epstein before and during his tenure as ambassador”.
‘I regret appointing him’
The prime minister told the House of Commons that a due diligence process had taken place, but said: “What was not known was the depth, the sheer depth, and the extent of the relationship.
“He lied about that to everyone for years, and new information was published in September showing the relationship was materially different from what we’d been led to believe. When the new information came to light, I sacked him.”
He added: “I regret appointing him. If I knew then what I know now, he would never have been anywhere near government.”
Being named in the Epstein files is not a sign of wrongdoing, and Lord Mandelson has expressed regret about his past ties to the paedophile, saying in a statement: “I was wrong to believe Epstein following his conviction, and to continue my association with him afterwards. I apologise unequivocally for doing so to the women and girls who suffered.”
Lord Mandelson has not responded to the latest allegations. However, in an interview with The Times carried out last week, but published on Monday, he referred to a “handful of misguided historical emails, which I deeply regret sending”, and described Epstein as “muck that you can’t get off your shoe”.
How did we get here?
Lord Mandelson was appointed by the prime minister to take over as the UK’s top diplomat in Washington – a role he started in February last year just after Donald Trump’s second term in the White House began.
He was subject to “due diligence” checks by the Cabinet Office ahead of his appointment, after which he underwent “developed vetting”, which is an investigation into his life to determine if he could at risk of compromise, and is suitable for security clearance.
Follow our channel and never miss an update.
Downing Street concedes that the prime minister was aware of Lord Mandelson’s links to Epstein when his appointment was confirmed, but accused him of having “lied repeatedly” about the scale and nature of the relationship.
In September, new emails between the ambassador and Epstein were published, which led to the prime minister firing him.
Then, on Friday, the US Department of Justice published a tranche of over three million Epstein Files documents, which included emails that appear to show that Lord Mandelson shared sensitive internal government information with the paedophile financier while serving in Gordon Brown’s government.
It has led to the Metropolitan Police opening an investigation into Lord Mandelson for alleged misconduct in public office, which followed referrals from both the Cabinet Office and Mr Brown.
Sky News has approached representatives for Lord Mandelson for comment on the leaking of sensitive information claims.
Lord Mandelson resigned his membership of the Labour Party on Sunday night. He denied any record or recollection of the payments, but said he did “not wish to cause further embarrassment to the Labour Party”.
