Mandelson-Epstein latest: Starmer admits he knew about peer’s ties to Epstein when appointing US ambassador

MPs have begun a debate on whether all papers relating to Lord Peter Mandelson's appointment should be released.

A shadow Cabinet Office minister told the Commons those who provided information to paedophile Jeffrey Epstein "share in some of the responsibility for the crimes that were committed".

Labour MP John McDonnell said he will rebel on Sir Keir Starmer's amendment to the motion demanding the release of papers on Lord Peter Mandelson's appointment, arguing that it could lead to a cover-up.

The former shadow chancellor said: "I will vote against the government's amendment today that tries to exclude papers from the inquiry into Mandelson on the grounds 'prejudicial to international relations'.

"This is so wide that it opens up the prime minister to allegations of collusion in a cover-up."

Our political correspondent Athena Stavrou writes:

It is understood that Peter Mandelson went through two vetting processes before taking up his role as US ambassador.

The first due diligence check was carried out by the Cabinet Office, based on information in the public domain - which would have included the fact Lord Mandelson continued his friendship with Epstein after his conviction.

Starmer has now suggested he was then misled by Mandelson about the nature and depth of his relationship with the paedophile.

A second security vetting process then took place.

However, it is understood ministers do not see the this part of the vetting process and are only given a recommendation by the vetting agency. Downing Street said they still have confidence in the vetting process.

Our Whitehall editor Kate Devlin reports:

The Mandelson motion that MPs are debating would require the government to release all documents relating to his appointment as US ambassador.

To counter this the prime minsiter last night tabled an amendment that would release the papers - except those ‘prejudicial to UK national security or international relations’.

But MPs are clearly unhappy.

And now the Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle has told ministers he could accept a so-called ‘manuscript amendment’ - a last minute change - if the government is forced to concede more in order to avoid a damaging defeat over the scandal.

Earlier Sir Keir’s former deputy as prime minister Angela Rayner backed Tory demands that all documents should be run through the Intelligence and Security Committee of parliamentarians, for them to decide what amounted to national security concerns.

National security concerns should not be used to protect the Labour Party’s “blushes”, a former deputy prime minister said.

In the Commons, Tory MP Sir Oliver Dowden said: “There is a vast difference between protecting national security, for example, in direct intelligence reports from agents on the ground or intercept and subjective judgments made about things that may embarrass national security or may embarrass international relations.

“And that’s why the leader of the Opposition was precisely correct to say we need some independent mechanism.

“So why on earth can’t we agree that the ISC should look at each of these exemptions, and if they feel it passes that threshold, fine, we’ll accept it because we need to protect national security, but it can’t be to spare the party opposite’s blushes.”

MPs will vote on a humble address motion tabled by Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch which would require the Government to release all documents relating to Peter Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador.

The Prime Minister has tabled a counter motion which allows the release of the documents, but “except papers prejudicial to UK national security or international relations”.

The Government did not ask the US Department of Justice to see the so-called Epstein files before Lord Peter Mandelson’s appointment as ambassador in Washington, Downing Street appeared to suggest.

No 10 dodged repeated questions on whether a request was made to view documents related to the peer before their publication, given his friendship with paedophile Jeffrey Epstein was known.

Pressed on whether that represented a failure of effort on the Government’s part, Sir Keir Starmer’s official spokesman said: “I don’t accept that.”

The official pointed to the Prime Minister’s remarks that the information that emerged in September and in recent days – revealing the extent of the Labour grandee’s ties to Epstein – was materially different to what was known at the time of Lord Mandelson’s appointment.

Our Whitehall correspondent Kate Devlin writes:

Before he was a peer, Lord Mandelson was for years the Labour MP for Hartlepool.

Today, one of his successors, the Labour MP Jonathan Brash has called him a traitor in the House of Commons.

He told MPs: “I am the Member of Parliament for Hartlepool, and …when I look at the evidence before us I say undoubtedly that Peter Mandelson is a traitor.”

Our political editor David Maddox writes:

Sir Lindsay Hoyle has made a difficult day worse for the government with an intervention from the Speaker’s chair telling the ministers that they cannot hide behind legal process.

The minister Nick Thomas-Symonds had attempted to use the fact that there is a police investigation into Mandelson that he cannot answer questions fully.

But Sir Lindsay has ruled from the chair the sub judice rules do not apply because no charges have been brought. Nor have the Metropolitan Police contacted him personally.

He tells the minister that there is no reason he cannot answer questions and points in full and suggests that he was trying to “hide behind process”.

Kemi Badenoch has said she fears Labour MPs could vote to "withhold anything to do with international relations", which could cover almost anything to do with Lord Peter Mandelson's appointment as London's ambassador to the United States.

The Conservative leader told the Commons: "The Prime Minister is talking about national security - the national security issue was appointing Mandelson in the first place."

Referring to a vote expected in Parliament later on Wednesday, Mrs Badenoch later added: "This is not about national security - this is about (Sir Keir Starmer's) job security.

"His amendment lets him withhold anything to do with international relations but this whole appointment is to do with international relations, so if they're voting for it, they are voting for the cover up.

"If the Prime Minister is serious about national security concerns, then he should ask the Intelligence and Security Committee to decide which documents should be released. Will he commit to doing so here and now?"

Prime Minister Sir Keir replied: "I've set out the process - it won't be a political process, it will be led by the Cabinet Secretary (Sir Chris Wormald), supported by the Government legal teams."

Sir Keir said he hoped MPs would understand "the sensitivity of information about security and intelligence and trade relations that are inevitably caught in exchanges of the nature that have been asked for".

Labour MP John McDonnell said he will rebel on Sir Keir Starmer’s amendment to the motion demanding the release of papers on Lord Peter Mandelson’s appointment, arguing that it could lead to a cover-up.

The former shadow chancellor said: “I will vote against the Government’s amendment today that tries to exclude papers from the inquiry into Mandelson on the grounds ‘prejudicial to international relations’.

“This is so wide that it opens up the Prime Minister to allegations of collusion in a cover-up.”

Our political editor David Maddox writes:

Former deputy prime minister Angela Rayner, a woman now being discussed as a potential replacement for Keir Starmer, has just intervened to support the Tory demands.

She noted that she brought a humble address in 2022 and agreed with the Tory argument that all documents should be run through the Intelligence and Security Committee of parliamentarians for them to decide if they were not appropriate to share because of national security concerns.

This is a significant intervention and will be seen as giving some wavering Labour MPs permission to vote against the government amendment for it to be allowed to sift out documents.