A summary of today's developments
MPs have agreed that ministers will have to share papers relating to Peter Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador. Originally the government wanted to retain the power to block the publication of certain papers relating to matters “prejudicial to UK national security or international relations”. Instead, after the government altered plans following backbench pressure, the relevant documents will be referred to the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) in parliament.
Documents relating to Mandelson’s appointment as British ambassador will not be released today, Cabinet Office minister Chris Ward said. Ward did not confirm when the documents would be released but said it would be “as soon as possible”.
The Metropolitan police said it has asked No 10 not to release “certain documents” about Mandelson because it could “undermine” its investigation. However, the speaker, Lindsay Hoyle, said the Met has “no jurisdiction” over the Commons.
Earlier in PMQ’s, Keir Starmer confirmed that he knew, when appointing Mandelson US ambassador in December 2024, that he had remained friends with Jeffrey Epstein after his conviction.
Peter Mandelson’s involvement with the US tech company Palantir must be exposed to full public transparency, campaigners have said, amid fears he may have leaked more sensitive information than is alleged in his emails to Jeffrey Epstein. Palantir, an $300bn startup that provides military technology to the Israel Defense Forces and AI-powered deportation targeting for Donald Trump’s ICE units, has UK government contracts worth more than £500m. Global Counsel, a lobbying company Mandelson co-founded and part-owns, also works for Palantir. The cabinet secretary, Sir Chris Wormald, is being urged to release information about Mandelson’s role when the British embassy arranged for Keir Starmer to visit Palantir’s showroom in Washington DC in February 2025 shortly after Mandelson became ambassador to the US.
Peter Mandelson’s involvement with the US tech company Palantir must be exposed to full public transparency, campaigners have said, amid fears he may have leaked more sensitive information than is alleged in his emails to Jeffrey Epstein, write Robert Booth and Dan Sabbagh.
Palantir, an $300bn startup that provides military technology to the Israel Defense Forces and AI-powered deportation targeting for Donald Trump’s ICE units, has UK government contracts worth more than £500m. Global Counsel, a lobbying company Mandelson co-founded and part-owns, also works for Palantir.
The cabinet secretary, Sir Chris Wormald, is being urged to release information about Mandelson’s role when the British embassy arranged for Keir Starmer to visit Palantir’s showroom in Washington DC in February 2025 shortly after Mandelson became ambassador to the US.
Mandelson and Starmer met the company’s chief executive Alex Karp and were shown the company’s military technology. Karp signed a strategic partnership with the UK defence secretary, John Healey, seven months later and in January the Ministry of Defence (MoD) signed a £241m three-year contract with Palantir to “boost military AI and innovation”.
Updated
A Cabinet Officer minister has set out how documents relating to Lord Peter Mandelson will be released to the Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC).
Chris Ward said: “Release of information will be done, either through the Cabinet Secretary working with independent lawyers, or if the material is deemed to be potentially conflicting with national security or foreign relations, it will be handed to the ISC, who are independent. They can make the decision.
He added: “There will not be political involvement for ministers.
“There will not be political involvement from Number 10 in this process – this is the cabinet secretary and the ISC working with lawyers on it.”
Ward said some documents could touch on sensitive issues, including foreign intelligence and trade.
After the release of a vast tranche of documents and emails that shed further light on the close relationship between Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein, the government has come under intense pressure to release details about its vetting process before Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador in December 2024.
What did Keir Starmer know?
The prime minister confirmed for the first time on Wednesday that he had known about Mandelson’s longer-term relationship with Epstein before appointing him US ambassador, saying the former peer had “lied repeatedly” about the extent of his contact with the late child sex offender.
That Starmer knew Mandelson had kept ties with Epstein after his conviction was widely reported when the former cabinet minister lost his job Washington in September. A Downing Street source said there had been reports linking Mandelson and Epstein before the appointment, including after the disgraced financier was convicted, which had been looked at as part of the appointment process.
“Peter Mandelson lied to the prime minister, hid information that has since come to light and presented Epstein as someone he barely knew,” said a Downing street source.
Reform UK leader Nigel Farage said the European Anti-Fraud Office (Olaf) should start an investigation into Lord Peter Mandelson’s tenure as EU trade commissioner from 2004 to 2008.
The Clacton MP said there were “potential fraud, corruption and ethics violations” committed by Lord Mandelson relating to his relationship with convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein.
Farage said in a letter to new Olaf director-general Petr Klement, who started in the job on Monday, that in May 2010, at the height of the Eurozone crisis, Lord Mandelson leaked to Epstein the EU’s 500 billion euro bailout of Greece hours before it was publicly announced.
Noting that after leaving office Lord Mandelson founded lobbying firm Global Counsel, Farage said commissioners have clear confidentiality and ethical obligations, and are required to behave with integrity, including after they have left office.
“In sum, Lord Mandelson has potentially used his EU office for personal financial gain and/or has leaked information confidential to the Commission to a private individual in breach of his professional secrecy obligations,” the former UKIP leader said.
“His conduct is arguably sufficiently egregious for him to forfeit his pension. I believe that these allegations warrant an investigation by Olaf.”
Following tonight’s agreement in the House of Commons, a Downing Street spokesperson said : “Peter Mandelson’s actions were unforgivable.
“He lied to the prime minister, hid information that has since come to light and presented Jeffrey Epstein as someone he barely knew.
“We will comply with the motion, including publishing documents relating to Peter Mandelson’s appointment, which will show the lies he told.”
Updated
The Metropolitan Police has “no jurisdiction” over the Commons, Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle said, after the force said the release of certain documents related to Lord Peter Mandelson’s appointment as ambassador to the US would “undermine” their investigation into the disgraced peer.
Hoyle told the Commons: “The Metropolitan Police have no jurisdiction on what this House may wish to do. It will be whether the Government provides or not. But just to let you know, they cannot dictate to this House.
“I’m going to leave it at that.”
Conservative former minister Simon Hoare had asked the Speaker if he will be “working with the Cabinet Office to ensure the rights and privileges of members of this House are protected”.
“You know, as well as I do, Sir, the importance of privilege to this place,” Hoare said.
Documents relating to Lord Peter Mandelson’s appointment as British ambassador will not be released today, Cabinet Office minister Chris Ward said.
He told the Commons: “I just want to confirm to the house the material will not be released today because of the conversation with the Metropolitan Police over that, but it will be released as quickly as possible, in line with the process set out before the House.”
Ward did not confirm when the documents would be released but said it would be “as soon as possible”.
“We want to get with this,” he said.
“There is a lot of material here to go through. We will get through this as quickly as possible. Other humble, other humble addresses have taken a number of weeks or months.”
MPs agree to release Mandelson papers to parliament's intelligence committee
MPs have agreed that ministers will have to share papers relating to Peter Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador.
Originally the government wanted to retain the power to block the publication of certain papers relating to matters “prejudicial to UK national security or international relations”.
Instead, after the government altered plans following backbench pressure from senior Labour MPs Angela Rayner and Dame Meg Hillier, the relevant documents will be referred to the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) in Parliament.
That amendment has now been nodded through by MPs.
Chris Ward, the cabinet office minister, defended the government’s decision to introduce an amendment that would give parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) the right to oversee documents to do with the vetting of Peter Mandelson.
Ward told MPs: “In line with the manuscript amendment, papers determined to be prejudicial to national security or international relations will be referred to the ISC.
“The ISC are independent. They are rigorous. They are highly respected. They will then decide what to do with the material that is sent to them.”
He added the cabinet secretary, Chris Wormald, will work “directly in hand with the ISC” and he will “write to the ISC setting out that process”.
The cabinet office minister, Chris Ward, has insisted that the prime minister “acted” when “new information came to light” about Peter Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.
Ward told the Commons: “It’s clear from all sides of the House today that they share the public’s anger at Mandelson’s treachery, his lies and his deceit.
“As the prime minister said earlier, Mandelson betrayed this country. He lied to the prime minister. He lied during the vetting process, which I will return to because a number of members raised it. Frankly, I suspect he’s still lying now.
“That’s why, since new information came to light, the prime minister over the weekend has acted in a number of ways.”
He also cited Keir Starmer instructing the cabinet secretary to investigate all papers released by the US Department of Justice, the government referred material to the police and since then the Met have launched an investigation.
Ward added Mandelson wouldn’t have come “within a million miles of government” if the PM knew now what he claims that he didn’t know when he appointed him in 2024.
Nigel Farage’s two-day trip to Davos cost more than £50,000 after he was given two guest passes by an Iranian-born billionaire, documents show.
The Reform UK leader officially declared his attendance at the conference on the register of MPs’ interests, after giving speeches at the Switzerland summit in which he pledged to “put the global elites on notice”.
Despite previously having dismissed the World Economic Forum as a jaunt for “globalists”, Farage also accepted £1,100 of luxury hotel accommodation from the conference organisers.
The Guardian revealed last month that Farage had his trip to Davos paid for by Sasan Ghandehari, which the Reform UK leader refused to confirm at the time. He was registered at the forum under the banner of HP Trust, which is the family office of Ghandehari and describes itself as having a portfolio value in excess of $10bn (£7.4bn).
HP Trust said Farage was an honorary and unpaid adviser since about 2018, but the Reform UK leader disputes that he has ever worked for them and declared no role for the firm on the register.
Neha Gohil is a Guardian Midlands correspondent.
Labour MP Matt Bishop told the Guardian he was still unsure whether he would be voting with the government despite the amendment in place that parliament’s intelligence and security committee will play a role in the vetting of files related to Peter Mandelson. He said:
I’m still not there yet. I think there needs to be more … I will seriously consider still voting against the government. I just need to see and understand a little bit more first.
Bishop, the MP for Forest of Dean, said he wanted to see the government acknowledging the victims of Epstein more than they have so far. He said he told Labour whips beforehand that he would walk out of the chamber if victims of Epstein were not mentioned by the government.
“I want to see what we are going to do to give victims the confidence,” he said, adding that he is pushing for the Violence Against Women strategy to be implemented as soon as possible.
The MP described how Labour colleagues who had been “extremely loyal” to the government and had never opposed the Starmer administration were now “voicing concerns”. He said: “There’s anger across the house from all angles.”
Earlier, Bishop told the House he “can not in good faith support a position that risks further eroding trust in our commitment to justice.”
“Not because it’s politically convenient to me, but because it’s morally necessary, I am voting with the victims”, he added.
Met says it has asked No 10 not to release 'certain documents' about Mandelson because it could 'undermine investigation'
Here is the full quote from Cmdr Ella Marriott from the Metropolitan police saying the Met has asked No 10 not to release some of the Mandelson files. (See 6.14pm.)
She said:
As with any investigation, securing and preserving any potential evidence is vital. For this reason, 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. Going forward as material is made available to us, and if we identify further documents that we believe could prejudice our investigation, we will continue to ask the government to pause their release until such time as the risk of prejudice no longer exists.
The integrity of our investigation is paramount to securing justice. We are grateful for their cooperation. We continue to assess all relevant information brought to our attention as part of this investigation.
That is all from me for today. Nadeem Badshah is taking over now.
Updated
In the Commons Alicia Kearns (Con) is speaking now. She starts by quoting from the “fresh, firm and creamy” Epstein email quoted earlier. (See 3.02pm.) She said this may not have been known when Peter Mandelson was appointed ambassador. But it was known that he had stayed at Epstein’s house, after Epstein had been convicted for child sex offences, when he was business secretary. (See 1.01pm.)
Updated
This is from PA Media.
The Metropolitan police has asked the government not to release “certain documents” relating to Jeffrey Epstein because it could “undermine our current investigation”, Cmdr Ella Marriott, from the force, has said.
Updated
Jeremy Corbyn, the Your Party MP and former Labour leader, told Sky News that he wanted a public inquiry into Peter Mandelson. Explaining why he was not happy about the plan for the intelligence and security committee to review Mandelson material being held back, he said:
I don’t think the political establishment in Westminster or the senior echelons of the civil service can be trusted to undertake the kind of inquiry that’s necessary in these circumstances - because the web of Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein goes very wide.
I don’t think merely putting all this into the hands of a security intelligence committee is good enough. I don’t agree with that at all.
He also said that one issue he would like an inquiry to consider were the “strong suggestions that Mandelson was involved in negotiating favours on behalf of various businesses trying to access our health service”.
This was a reference to the contract that Palantir has to provide data services to the NHS.
Zack Polanski, the Green party leader, has also attacked the Palantir deal, claiming that Mandelson was involved. Today he published an open letter to Wes Streeting urging him to rip up the contract. And he asked for an explanation as what role Mandelson played in it. He said:
Mandelson’s malign influence runs right through the heart of this government and the decisions it has made. There are worrying questions to answer about his role in the government’s deal with Palantir – a spy-tech firm co-founded by a man who thinks the NHS should be ‘ripped up.’
Was the government’s decision to trust this controversial company with British people’s most sensitive and personal health data made on the basis of what’s best for our country – or was it yet another dodgy backroom deal brokered by Mandelson for the benefit of his rich pals?
John McDonnell asked a follow-up after hearing Wright. He said he wanted an assurance that the government would not be able to stop the intelligence and security committee from publishing any of the Mandelson material it reviews.
Caroline Nokes, the deputy speaker, said that would be a matter for the minister to address when winding up.
ISC will 'act independently' when it decides what to do about Mandelson material No 10 wants to hold back, MPs told
In the Commons the Labour MP John McDonnell is asking for clarity about the new amendment tabled by the government.
On a point of order, he asks if it means that the intelligence and security committee will have the power to publish the Mandelson files that get referred to it because the Cabinet Office has deemed them “prejudicial to UK national security or international relations”. Or will it just have the right to read them?
Jeremy Wright, the Tory former attorney general and former culture secretary, who is deputy chair of the intelligence and security committee, uses a point of order to respond.
He says the committee is independent. He says it will review the papers it gets and decide what to do about that material. It will “act independently, consider the material referred to it and then decide how to respond, what to refer to publicly and what not to refer to publicly”.
'Kemi is calling the shots,' Tories claim, after PM backs her call for ISC to play role in pre-release Mandelson files vetting
Kiran Stacey is the Guardian’s policy editor.
Conservative sources have confirmed they will back the government’s amendment to the motion on Peter Mandelson, which gives extra oversight power to parliament’s intelligence committee.
The Tories say the government’s mid-afternoon U-turn meant the prime minister now agreed with the Tory leader Kemi Badenoch. (See 4.14pm.)
A spokesperson added:
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.
Scottish government orders reviews of its dealings with Mandelson to assess potential risks
A bit more now on that investigation into Scottish government dealings with Peter Mandelson.
A Scottish government spokesperson said John Swinney welcomed the probe and that it wouldd assess any associated risks.
They said:
The first minister welcomes the full investigation by all appropriate authorities, including the Metropolitan Police and UK government, into the actions of Peter Mandelson.
The first minister has asked the permanent secretary to commission an investigatory audit of records to identify any meetings, government papers or correspondence involving Peter Mandelson during his time as a member or representative of the UK government.
This will enable the Scottish government to assess any associated risks.
Updated
Tory Esther McVey has described the Mandelson scandal as the “crumbling of Starmer” and has called into question his judgment on other issues, such as the Chagos Islands.
She was speaking in response to as speech by fellow Conservative Christopher Chope, who recounted his dealings with Mandelson in the late 1990s.
Reform’s Rupert Lowe intervenes to make use of the debate to thank Elon Musk and the social media network X “for exposing a great deal of this evil” to retorts of “shame” across the benches.
Andy McDonald said he had “lingering concerns” about the process of releasing documents relating to Mandelson’s appointment despite a government climbdown.
The Labour MP criticised the “appalling failure of judgment” in appointing the peer, telling the Press Association:
I think many of us have still got lingering concerns, firstly about the international relations issue, that could mean anything.
He added that the Intelligence and Security Committee must be “rigorous” in its approach, adding:
You’re still in the situation where the government and No 10 have got to be candid about what it releases.
You’ve got to have a healthy degree of circumspection.
He said he thought it was “reasonable to expect an answer pretty damn quick” on how Mandelson passed vetting. “It beggars belief that we could ever get a security vetting process that would sign off affirmatively on somebody in these circumstances,” he said.
Asked about Keir Starmer’s own judgment given what was already in the public domain about Mandelson, McDonald said:
I think that this is an appalling failure of judgment.
McDonald indicated he would back the new amendment “reluctantly” while stressing the need for “full disclosure.”
Conservative Luke Evans, MP for Hinckley and Bosworth, tells the Commons he is “simply asking was [the prime minister] warned before he wheeled through the trojan horse that is Mandelson into government”.
He says the reason MPs are asking for further details is to better understand what advice was given to Keir Starmer.
“Yet again we are spending parliamentary time about whether there will be more information released, which [Starmer] knows himself,” he says, adding that the prime minister should have attended to answer questions on the issue.
Fellow Tory Stuart Anderson asks Evans if he agrees with him that Starmer’s position is “untenable”, which he says he does agree with.
Updated
John Swinney has ordered an investigation into his government’s dealings with Peter Mandelson to see if the “interests of Scotland have been undermined”.
Mandelson, who resigned from the House of Lords this week after more revelations about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein were revealed, is currently under police investigation over alleged misconduct in public office.
Speaking to ITV Border on Wednesday, Scotland’s first minister questioned Keir Starmer’s judgment in appointing Mandelson to the role of ambassador to the US, given his friendship with Epstein was already known. Swinney said he had instructed the country’s top civil servant to launch an investigation.
“What I’m now concerned about is that now we know there’s information about the supply of material by Peter Mandelson in the financial crash to Jeffrey Epstein, I’m now concerned about the implications of that for Scotland,” he said.
Updated
In the Commons debate, Your Party MP Zarah Sultana says Peter Mandelson was “besties with a convicted nonce” and criticises the way he was “rehabilitated” and brought back into the fold by Labour leader Keir Starmer.
She says the scandal has only come to light because of the files being released in the US and that there is no record of his emails in the UK.
“When ordinary people make mistakes, they pay the price … but if you belong to the Westminster club, you can be linked to one of the most notorious predators of our time and still reach the top,” she says.
She gives way to Lib Dem MP Vikki Slade, who says if Mandelson did leak market-sensitive information to Epstein, “we have all paid the price”.
Updated
This is from the Times’ Aubrey Allegretti, who says Labour MPs are furious. And he says some of them are gunning for Morgan McSweeney, the PM’s chief of staff, who is blamed for persuading Keir Starmer to
More reaction coming through…
Minister: “PMQs made things worse. People [are] really upset.”
A second minister on McSweeney: “He has to go.”
Labour MP and Starmer loyalist: “Inexplicable PMQs today. This has an end of days feel.”
Another backer of the PM: “Fucking car crash.”
MP and ally of Rayner: “Morgan is finished.”
McSweeney’s position has not been helped by this story just published by Catherine Neilan at the Observer. She says:
Morgan McSweeny sought official advice over whether Peter Mandelson, who resigned from the Lords this week in disgrace, could be the UK’s ambassador to the US and chancellor of the University of Oxford at the same time, sources have claimed …
Senior government sources told The Observer that McSweeney asked Cabinet Office officials for advice as to whether Mandelson could carry out the two roles – based thousands of miles apart – simultaneously. McSweeney questioned whether the US ambassador role could be carried out on a part-time basis.
Officials “had to explain that being his majesty’s ambassador in Washington was a full-time job… in Washington”, said one person close to the matter. Another source said that the query was made at Mandelson’s behest.
Tom Ambrose is now taking over the blog for a bit.
Updated
Starmer backs down, and accepts parliament's ISC will play role in pre-release Mandelson files vetting
Lindsay Hoyle says the manuscript amendment, which has been tabled by the PM, has been accepted. (See 3.50pm.) He says a minister will formally move it in the winding up speech.
That means MPs will definitely vote on the amendment. As a Labour amendment, it should be passed easily.
When Alex Burghart was opening the debate, he indicated that the Tories would accept it. At PMQs Kemi Badenoch also floated the idea. (See 12.16pm.) She said:
If the prime minister is serious about national security concerns, he should ask the intelligence and security committee to decide which documents should be released. Will he commit to doing so here and now?
But not all MPs will be happy about this. In the Commons a few minutes ago Jeremy Corbyn, the former Labour leader how is now a Your Party MP, said he would vote for the original Tory motion. He suggested he was not happy about the ISC compromise proposals, which he argued could lead to a hold-up in the release of material.
Updated
Labour's Paula Barker says she is 'ashamed' of government amendment tabled today
Back in the debate, Labour’s Paula Barker has just told MPs that she was “ashamed” of the government amendment tabled today. The government had to do “much, much better”, she said.
She said the government should withdraw its amendment, unless it is changed to allow the intelligence and security committee to deal with the document vetting.
If the government did not withdraw its amendment, she would vote against it, she said.
Ministers under pressure to accept last-minute amendment saying ISC should have final say over Mandelson files vetting
Jessica Elgot says he has seen the text of the manuscript amendment that is likely to be agreed later this afternoon. (See 1.57pm.) It is an amendment to the government amendement, which says everything mentioned in the Tory motion should be released “except papers prejudicial to UK national security or international relations”.
Under the manuscript amendment, this would read “except papers prejudicial to UK national security or international relations which shall instead be referred to the intelligence and security committee”.
Given the strength of opposition on the Labour benches to the government amendment, we are expecting the government to agree to this. The minister winding up the debate (possibly Darren Jones, the chief secretary to the PM) may announce at the despatch box in the speech winding up the debate (at about 6.50pm) that the government is accepting that.
The amendment implies that, if the Cabinet Office passed material it considered “prejudicial to UK national security or international relations” to the ISC, the ISC could publish it if it decided that there was no risk from publication”. But MPs are seeking clarification on this point.
Updated
The Labour MP Natalie Fleet said that she was glad that information about Jeffrey Epstein was being released. And she said that she was glad that there seemed to be a “cross-party consensus” in the chamber about the need for the government to release more information about the Mandelson appointment than originally planned.
But she used most of her speech to speak up on behalf of victims. Fleet, who has spoken about being groomed and raped herself when she was a teenager, said:
While the sheer number of victims Epstein preyed upon may put him in a class by himself, he was no outlier.
The way he viewed women and girls as playthings to be used and discarded is not uncommon amongst certain powerful men, who believe they are above the law.
Many of those men still go about their daily lives enjoying the benefit of their power.
Do you know why the world is as bad as it is? It’s because people can only think about their own business and won’t trouble themselves to stand up for the oppressed, nor bring the wrongdoers to light …
I hope for a world in which predators are punished, not protected, victims are treated with compassion, not shamed, and powerful people face the same consequences as everyone else.
Stephen Flynn, the SNP leader at Westminster, said MPs should support the Tory motion for the full disclosure of the Mandelson documents “to ensure that the treachery of Peter Mandelson is not ignored”.
He said Starmer had still not apologised for appointing Mandelson as ambassador. And he said Starmer’s lack of judgment would lead to his departure from No 10.
Speaker tells MPs Mandelson debate will end at 7pm, not 4pm as originally planned
Lindsay Hoyle, the speaker, has just intervened to say that, in response to a request from the Conservative party (whose debate this is – they chose the motion), the debate will run until 7pm.
That means what was meant to be the second Tory debate of the debate – on a motion saying under-16s should not have access to social media – has been cancelled.
Labour MP Polly Billington says 'propriety of public life' on the line in this debate
Back in the debate Polly Billington (Lab) has just finished speaking. She said people voted Labour for change. She went on:
This is the moment where the propriety of public life is on the line.
The actions of this government can go one of two ways; a decision to draw a line under the culture of certain people being worth the risk, or an agreement that there will no longer be situations where particular individuals, because of connections or talent, are exempt from the rules that apply to the rest of us.
The BBC live blog has a good selection of new email exchanges between Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein released in the US.
Here is one where Epstein complains that Mandelson is ungrateful for all that Epstein has done for him. It is from 2012.
Here is one from 2010 where Epstein asks Mandelson to intervene on his behalf with Larry Summers, President Obama’s chief economic adviser.
Here is a smutty exchange sent on the day Epstein was released from jail in 2009.
Lindsay Hoyle, the speaker, says this debate is due to end at 4pm.
But he says that the Tories can ask for extra time if they want.
Speaker tells MPs that rule about not discussing royals in debate no longer covers Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor
Hoare was asked during his speech if he agreed that MPs should pass a bill removing Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor from the line of succession. Hoare said MPs were not able to discuss the royal family. At that point Lindsay Hoyle, the speaker, intervened to say that rule not longer applied, because Andrew is now longer a prince. After that, Hoare said that he did favour legislation like that, although he thought the chance of Andrew ever succeeding to the throne was “so remote as to be unimaginable”.
Simon Hoare, the Conservative chair of the public administration and constitutional affairs committee, is speaking now.
He is urging Labour MPs to vote against the goverment amendment. He says the hardest vote he ever made was voting against the Tory whip when the Boris Johnson government was trying to shelve the standards committee report saying Owen Paterson should be suspended. It was hard because Paterson was a friend, personally and politically. But he has never regretted it, because it was the right thing to do.
He says the government should pull its amendment.
And Labour MPs should speak to their whips, telling them to do this, he says.
Back in the Commons Matt Bishop (Lab) is speaking. He says he could never vote for something that would be seen by his constituents as a cover-up. He is referring to the government amendment. (See 8.54am.) He says he does not believe the government can “mark its own homework” on a matter of such gravity.
He says, because it is moral necessity, he will be voting in the interests of victims and survivors.
This is the statment that the Conservative party put out about Keir Starmer admitting at PMQs he was aware when he appointed Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the US that Mandelson had remains friends with Jeffrey Epstein after Epstein was convicted of child sex offences. (See 12.11pm.)
The prime minister has just admitted that the official security vetting highlighted Mandelson’s ongoing relationship with the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, but he went ahead and appointed him anyway.
This is the first time the prime minister has admitted this and it raises very serious questions over Keir Starmer’s shocking judgment.
The PM is now trying to orchestrate a cover up by having his own government mark his homework. All MPs must now support the Conservatives’ humble address so that we reveal the full extent of this scandal and the shocking failure of Keir Starmer and his operation.
Peter Walker is the Guardian’s senior political correspondent.
For all that the Conservatives are very understandably putting Keir Starmer under pressure about Peter Mandelson, it does seem as if their outrage about his appointment is slightly retrospective.
Asked if the party had raised Mandelson’s continued links to Jeffrey Epstein after the latter had been jailed for trafficking, which was in the public domain at the time, Kemi Badenoch’s spokesperson said this was “a fair challenge” and that he could not recall it being raised by the party.
I imagine there would be various quotes on the record about the fact that this is a man who had been sacked from cabinet twice for misconduct. So I imagine there were some [Conservative] voices around, you know, whether this was a sound appointment.
Asked if the party had actively opposed Mandelson getting the role at the time, he added: “I can’t remember.”
Labour MPs say they will vote down plan to limit Mandelson disclosures
Labour MPs have warned they will vote down a government amendment to limit the disclosures about Peter Mandelson’s appointment as ambassador, with government sources saying they may be forced to change their own amendment, Jessica Elgot reports.
Thomas-Symonds says government intends to start disclosing Mandelson documents 'today'
Thomas-Symonds told MPs that the goverment would comply with the motion as amended.
He said going through all the Mandelson documents – “a significant amount” – would take some time.
But the government would “start that process of disclosure, to the extent it can do, today”, he said.
Lindsay Hoyle, the speaker, said that there would be a “high bar” for accepting a manuscript amendment this afternoon (see 1.57pm), but he said that there was a lot to clear up and he was willing to do that.
Jeremy Wright (Con) said Thomas-Symonds’ comment about the ISC was helpful. (See 1.59pm.) He said it would be helpful to have an assurance that everything would be disclosed, either to the ISC or to the whole house.
Thomas-Symonds said his previous comment was “in good faith”.
Thomas-Symonds told MPs that the ISC would play a role in the Cabinet Office process deciding what Mandelson material gets released.
Speaker suggests MPs could be allowed to vote on last-minute amendment saying ISC should vet Mandelson files for release
Clive Efford (Lab) intervened to ask if it would be possible for someone to produce a manuscript amendment (that is a last-minute amendment submitted on the day, not one printed in the order paper) saying the ISC should take over the process. He said there was a “consenus in the house” that this would be a good way forward.
Lindsay Hoyle, the speaker, said a manuscript amendment would be a matter for the chair. He was the chair, he said. And he said he would be “sympathetic to what the house would need”.
Thomas-Symonds said, again, he would take this issue away.
Jonathan Brash, the Labour MP for Hartlepool, where Peter Mandelson was one of his predecessors, intervened to say, speaking on behalf of people in the town, he could says that Mandelson was “a traitor”. He said that it was important for the public to have confidence in this process.
That sounded like a call for the ISC to take over the process of deciding which material should be withheld.
Treasury committee chair Meg Hillier joins those saying ISC should be allow to vet Mandelson material for release
Meg Hillier, the Labour chair of the Treasury committee, also intervened to urge the government to let the intelligence and security committee (ISC) decide what Mandelson material is released. She said that was a tried and tested mechanism in this place in these sort of circumstances. She says committees could be trusted to do this; they did not leak.
Thomas-Symonds repeated the point about taking this proposal back to No 10.
The Conservative MP Bradley Thomas asks Thomas-Symonds to explain why “paedophile-adjacent” Peter Mandelson was appointed as an ambassador.
From my colleague Jessica Elgot
I have never seen anger like this on the Labour benches in private and in public. This is the kind of territory where things can move very fast.
Thomas-Symonds resists Tory call for government to pull its amendment inserting exclusions to disclosure order
Derek Twigg, a Labour member of the intelligence and security committee, also told Thomas-Symonds said he also thought the ISC should get to decide what Mandelson documents are released.
Oliver Dowden, the former deputy prime minister, also urged Thomas-Symonds to involve the ISC. He said that would give the public confidence in the process. He said Thomas-Symonds sounded “sympathetic” to that argument, and he asked him to confirm that.
Thomas-Symonds said he “heard what the house is saying”.
Simon Hoare, the Tory chair of the public administration and constitutional affairs commtitee, said that, in the light of what MPs are saying, the government should decide not to move its amendment.
Thomas-Symonds would not give that assurance. He said there were important public policy issues at stake.
UPDATE: 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.
Updated
Thomas-Symonds says government will consider call for ISC to take over document vetting role
In his response to Angela Rayner, Thomas-Symonds said the cabinet secretary, a man of “unimpeachable integrity”, would decide what material should be released assuming the motion is passed with the government’s amendment. And he says Cabinet Office lawyers would be involved.
But he added:
I am hearing what the house is saying and I will take that point away.
Angela Rayner backs Tory calls for intelligence and security committee to decide what Mandelson files released
Angela Rayner, the former deputy PM, has urged the government to agree to the Tory proposal (see 1.15pm) for the intelligence and security committee to decide what Mandelson files are released, and what are held back.
In intervention while Thomas-Symonds was speaking, she said that she had table a humble address on PPE in 2022.
She said:
Given the public disgust and the sickening behaviour of Peter Mandelson and the importance of transparency … should we not have the ISC not have the same role now [as in relation to a previous humble address] in keeping public confidence in the process?
Cabinet Office minister Nick Thomas-Symonds responds to Tories in Mandelson debate
Nick Thomas-Symonds, the Cabinet Office minister, is replying to Burghart on behalf of the government.
He started by saying the “depth and extent” of Peter Mandelson’s ongoing relationship with Jeffrey Epstein after Epstein’s first conviction was not known when Mandelson was appointed ambassador
Burghart ended his speech by asking about a secret visit that Keir Starmer made to the Palantir HQ in Washington when he visited the city while Mandelson was ambassador. He said Palantir was a client of Global Counsel, the firm set up by Mandelson. He says Palantir subsequently won a big government contract. He says that should be investigated.
Shadow minister Alex Burghart suggests intelligence and security committee should get to decide what Mandelson material released
Burghart said that, if the government has concerns about releasing some of the material in the Mandelson files, it should agree to letting the intelligence and security committee deciding what is made public.
Tories says claims Epstein was Russian asset 'must be investigated'
Burghart referred to claims that Jeffrey Epstein may have been a Russian asset. He said these were issues that must now now be investigated and investigated very seriously”.
Burghart said a report in the New Statesman today says a due diligence report on Peter Mandelson before he was appointed ambassador highlighted various conflicts of interest.
He is referring to this story by Ailbhe Rea. She says:
The report on Mandelson warned of potential conflicts of interest surrounding Global Counsel, the lobbying company Mandelson co-founded, in which he had a 28 per cent stake (worth about £8.5m). It highlighted the company’s clients, in particular Russian and Chinese links, according to someone familiar with the report’s contents …
And then there was a section on Epstein. Sources familiar with the report confirm that it clearly stated that Mandelson’s relationship with the paedophile continued after his conviction for soliciting a minor for prostitution. It contained links to photographs of Mandelson with the paedophile, and drew particular attention to evidence that Mandelson had stayed at Epstein’s apartment while he was in prison. It was sent directly to the prime minister.
The cabinet secretary, Chris Wormald, was asked about the report in November and told MPs that it contained “a summary of reputational risks” associated with appointing Mandelson, including his “prior relationship with Jeffrey Epstein”.
Yet “Morgan [McSweeney, the PM’s chief of staff] was relaxed” when he saw the report, according to one person who observed him at the time, because the chief of staff said that Labour had already broached a conversation with Mandelson about these issues years before. (A No 10 source disputes this characterisation, emphasising that the prime minister and McSweeney followed up on details raised by the report.)
MPs debate Tory motion calling for release of files relating to Mandelson's appointment as ambassador
MPs are now debating the Tory motion on Peter Mandelson.
Alex Burghart, the shadow Cabinet Office minister, started by saying that Keir Starmer knew full well about Peter Mandelson’s ongoing relationship with Jeffrey Epstein after Epstein’s first child sex conviction. He says, not only had the FT published it; journalists had even told Starmer about it, he says.
I have beefed up some of the earlier posts with direct quotes from the Starmer/Badenoch exchanges. You may need to refresh the page to get the updates to appear.
PMQs - snap verdict
That felt like a preview of the debate that is just starting now. And it may even turn out to be spikier, which is being opened by Alex Burghart, the shadow Cabinet Office minister. Keir Starmer is on the defensive, he knows it, and he came armed with at least two nuggets of news intended to blunt the Tory attack: an announcement about Peter Mandelson adding the privy counsel to the list of organisations that has know kicked him out, and a reference to the police warning Downing Street about the risk of prejudicial material being disclosed. The latter was a not-so-subtle hint to MPs about the danger of passing the Tory motion about the release of Mandelson files without the Labour amendment exempting some documents.
But none of this was enough to blunt the force of Badenoch’s main point – which was that appointing Mandelson as an ambassador when he knew that Mandelson had remained friends with Jeffrey Epstein after his first child sex conviction was a colossal mistake.
And of course Starmer knew. It had been in the Financial Times.
Given that Starmer himself now realises what a terrible error appointing Mandelson was, it is not surprising that Badenoch’s arguments about this carried the day.
David Davis, the former Tory cabinet minster, says today’s debate on Peter Mandelson will not covere his relationship with Oleg Deripaska. He says this was just as bad as the relationship with Jeffrey Epstein because Deripaska is also an alleged paedophile, murderer, gangster, specialist in bribery and corruption, and Putin favourite. He says that, as EU trade commissioner, Mandelson took decisions that favoured Deripaska’s companies.
Lindsay Hoyle, the speaker, says Davis is an experienced MP and will be able to find other ways of raising this.
Suella Braverman, the former Tory home secretary who defected to Reform UK, gets the final question. She asks about a rape gang survivor. Her first rapist was convicted. But she was then abused by a police officer who remains on active service, she says. She asks if the PM will meet the survivor to hear her story.
Starmer says he is “deeply concerned” about what Braverman has said, and he will arrange a meeting.
Christine Jardine (Lib Dem) asks if helpline will be set up to support women triggered by the Jeffrey Epstein stories.
Starmer says the govenment is continuing its work on tackling violence against women and girls.
Layla Moran (Lib Dem) says her residents in Oxford West and Abingdon are sick of being let down by Thames Water. Will he admit that Thames Water should be “put out of its misery” and turned into a company for public benefit.
Starmer says if necessary the government will go further in taking control over the company.
Neil Hudson (Con) asks about migrants being housed in the Bell hotel in his Epping constituency.
Starmer says the government is committed to ending the use of all asylum hotels.
Charlie Dewhirst (Con) asks if Starmer was ever instructed by Phil Shiner to act in any public interest case relating to Iraq.
Starmer says, as soon as there were allegations about Shiner, he has “absolutely nothing to do with him”.
That was a reference to this Telegraph story last week.
Starmer sidesteps question about whether he agrees with Polish PM about Epstein being possible Russian spy
Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, says Starmer has admitted that he knew Mandelson’s links with Epstein continued after his conviction. Did the PM think about the victims when he appointed Mandelson?
Starmer says he expressed concern the victims in his opening statement today.
Davey calls for a public inquiry. The Polish governemnt think Epstein may have been spying for the Russians. Does the PM worry that Mandelson may have been leaking to a Russian agent?
Starmer says the criminal investigation will follow the evidence wherever it goes.
Starmer confirms he still has confidence in Morgan McSweeney
Badenoch says the cabinet secretary is not independent.
She says the PM should agree to the ISC deciding what gets released.
And she asks if Starmer still has confidence in Morgan McSweeney, the Downing Street chief of staff.
Starmer says of course he has confidence in McSweeney.
And he criticises Badenoch for questioning the integrity of the cabinet secretary, Chris Wormald.
Updated
Badenoch says the national security problem was Mandelson being appointed in the first place.
She claims humble addresses already include a national security exemption.
And she says the PM has included an international relations exemption – when the whole appointment was about international relations.
She asks if the PM will agree to the intelligence and security committee (ISC) deciding what should be released.
Starmer says the cabinet secretary will decide what gets released.
And he says only material prejudicial to international relations will be excluded – not all material relating to international relations.
He says Badenoch does seem to have accepted the first exemption, on national security.
Updated
Badenoch says Starmer’s reply was “shocking”.
She asks if Starmer can guarantee that Labour MPs who vote against the government today won’t lose the whip.
Starmer says when he was in opposition and tabled humble address motions, he always included exemptions for national security.
UPDATE: Badenoch said:
How can he stand up there saying that he knew, but he just asked Peter Mandelson if the security vetting was true or false? This is a man who had been sacked from Cabinet twice already for unethical behaviour.
That is absolutely shocking, and that is why later today, my party will call on the government to release all documents relating to Mandelson’s appointment. Not just the ones the prime minister wants us to see.
Because this government is trying to sabotage that release with an amendment to let him choose what we see. Labour MPs now have to decide if they want to be accessories to his cover up. Can the prime minister guarantee that he won’t remove the whip if they refuse to vote for his whitewash amendment?
And Starmer replied:
The first exemption is in relation to anything that could compromise national security. That is not a small matter, and many members on the benches opposite will know precisely why that needs to be in the exemption.
The second exemption is in relation to things that would prejudice international relations. There will be discussions about security and intelligence and trade which are highly sensitive to the two countries involved and to third countries.
Updated
Starmer confirms he knew, when appointing Mandelson ambassador, he had remained friends with Epstein after his conviction
Badenoch says Starmer should have known Mandelson’s friendship with Epstein continued after Epstein was convicted. It was “on Google”, she says.
Starmer says it was known that the friendship continued, and that is why Mandelson was asked about it duing vetting. Mandelson misrepresented the friendship, he says.
UPDATE: Badenoch said:
The prime minister cannot blame the process. He did know, it was on Google. If the Conservative research department could find this information out, why couldn’t Number 10?
On 10 September, when we knew this, I asked him at that despatch box, he gave Mandelson his full confidence at that despatch box, not once, but twice. He only sacked him after pressure from us.
Can the prime minister tell us did the official security vetting he received mention Mandelson’s ongoing relationship with the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein?
Starmer replied:
Yes it did. As a result, various questions were put to him.
I intend to disclose to this House all of the – national security prejudice to international relations on one side – I want to make sure this House sees the full documentation so it will see for itself the extent to which time and time again Mandelson completely misrepresented the extent of his relationship with Epstein and lied throughout the process, including in response to the due diligence.
Updated
Starmer does not deny knowing that Mandelson stayed friends with Epstein after his first child sex conviction
Badenoch says Starmer did not answer the question. Did he know Mandelson’s friendship with Epstein has continued.
Starmer says he did not know the extent of that friendship.
(It is a matter of public record that the friendship continued, because the FT ran a story about Mandelson staying in Epstein’s flat after the first convicton.)
He says he accepts the Tory humble address, with exemptions.
But he says the police have been in touch with No 10 to make sure material prejudicial to a trial is not released.
UPDATE: Starmer 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 …
So I can be totally open with the house, I should also disclose that the Metropolitan police have been in touch with my office this morning to raise issues about anything that would prejudice their investigations. We’re in discussion with them about that, and I hope to be able to update the house, but I do think I should make that clear.
Updated
Starmer says Mandelson has been stripped of role as privy counsellor
Kemi Badenoch says all MPs will be disgusted by the latest Jeffrey Epstein revelations. But the decision to appoint Peter Mandelson as an ambassador reflects on the PM’s judgment. Was he aware that Mandelson had continued his friendship with Epstein after Epstein’s first conviction?
Starmer says Mandelson betrayed his country and his party by leaking secrets. He lied before the appointment process. The government has referred him to the police. He says he has asked officials to draft legislation to stop Mandelson of his title.
This morning he has agreed with the king that Mandelson will be removed from the list of privy counsellors.
UPDATE: Starmer said:
To learn that there was a cabinet minister leaking sensitive information at the height of the response to the 2008 crash is beyond infuriating, and I am as angry as the public and any member of this House – Mandelson betrayed our country, our parliament and my party.
He lied repeatedly to my team when asked about his relationship with Epstein before and during his tenure as ambassador. I regret appointing him.
If I knew then what I know now, he would never have been anywhere near government.
That is why, yesterday the cabinet secretary, with my support, took the decision to refer material to the police, and there is now a criminal investigation.
I have instructed my team to draft legislation to strip Mandelson of his title and wider legislation to remove disgraced peers, and this morning, I have agreed with His Majesty the King that Mandelson should be removed from the list of privy counsellors on grounds that has brought the reputation of the privy council into disrepute.
Updated
Johanna Baxter (Lab) refers to the government’s Pride in Place programme, and accuses the SNP of not supporting it. This has led Paisley down, she says.
Starmer says Baxter is a super champion for Paisley. He says 14 Scottish communities have benefited from the Pride in Place programme.
Keir Starmer starts by saying it is world cancer day, and the national cancer plan is being published. He says it will lead to faster diagnosis and treatment. And treatment-related costs for child cancer patients will be covered.
Starmer faces Badenoch at PMQs
PMQs is starting soon. Here is the list of MPs down to ask a question.
Lee Anderson dismisses evidence Reform UK's pub plan 'doesn't add up', telling BBC he's 'not interested' in debating costings
The Reform UK MP Lee Anderson has dismissed claims that his party’s plan to support the pub industry would cost far more than the £3bn it claims.
At a news conference yesterday, Anderson and Nigel Farage unveiled the plan, saying they would fund the £3bn programme by keeping in place the two-child benefit cap for most families. Labour is legislating to get rid of the cap.
Reform’s five-point plan includes halving VAT for the hospitality sector. An analysis by the IPPR, a left-leaning thinktank, says this alone would cost £5.6bn.
In an interview on the Today programme, when it was put to Anderson that his sums did not add up, Anderson claimed that was “absolute nonsense”.
When the presenter, Jonny Dymond, said that halving VAT for hospitality would cost around £5.5bn, and that the BBC had not found anyone who accepted the Reform figures, Anderson replied:
To be honest with you, we’re not interested in who you’ve been talking to. We’re more interested who we’ve been talking to, and we’ve been talking to landlords and small businesses up and down the country, and every landlord that I speak to … they want this VAT cut.
When Dymond challenged him again, Anderson replied:
We can go on all day about the numbers. I’m not interested in the numbers that the BBC have sourced. You’re hardly a bastion of truth at the BBC when it comes to things like this.
Dymond was referring to IPPR figures. This morning the thinktank has restated its criticism of the Reform plans. The IPPR says:
This doesn’t add up. This is an unfunded tax cut which also pushes hundreds of thousands of children into poverty.
Reform says that reinstating the two-child limit for most, but not all, families would save £2.29bn in 2026/27. The party claims its package of tax cuts would also cost £2.29bn – making it cost neutral – with the bulk coming from a proposal to halve VAT on hospitality, which it estimates would cost £1.7bn.
However, even allowing for increased demand from lower prices, halving VAT would cost £5.6bn – substantially more than the £1.7bn set out in the proposals, and far more than would be saved by reinstating the two-child limit.
The IPPR has also published a more detailed note on its analysis here.
Tories says national security exemption to Mandelson files release should not be used to protect PM from embarrassment
Kevin Hollinrake, the Conservative party chair, told the Today programme this morning that he was glad Keir Starmer was “caving in” today and accepting that some documents relating to Peter Mandelson’s appointment as an ambassador should be released.
Starmer should never have appointed Mandelson in the first place, he said.
The reality is Keir Starmer knew he was appointing one of the dodgiest people in politics to the role of ambassador to the US – one of the best jobs in politics. He knew of his background and he knew of his relationship with Epstein and he still pushed ahead and appointed him.
Asked about the exemptions to the Tory motion proposed by the government (see 8.54am), Hollinrake said it would be wrong for anything to be held back “just because it might embarrass Keir Starmer or the Labour government”.
He said national security would be an acceptable reason for some material to be held back. But that should not be used as a “smokescreen”, he said.
(Critics would argue that Hollinrake’s party also appointed “one of the dodgiest people in politics” to an even more senior post – when they made Boris Johnson prime minister.)
Kemi Badenoch has said that her humble address motion is intended to end the “cover-up” over Peter Mandelson’s appointment as an ambassador. In a post on social media, she said:
Today MPs have a choice: support our efforts to reveal the truth about how & why Mandelson was appointed Ambassador despite his links to paedophile Epstein; or they can help Starmer and Morgan McSweeney dodge scrutiny over this sordid affair.
This cover up has gone on too long.
Labour MP Andy McDonald says he may vote with Tories against PM's exemptions to Mandelson files release order
The Labour MP Andy McDonald, a leftwinger, has said that he might vote with the Conservatives against the government’s amendment to the humble address motion (see 8.54am and 10.09am) because he is worried it will lead to too many of the Peter Mandelson files not being published.
Speaking on Sky News, McDonald said:
I’ve seen the amendment and it brings in issues of national security, international relations and foreign affairs … If this amendment were to stand at face value, it would be to throw a cloak over the entire Mandelson affair.
McDonald said he would “probably” vote with the Tories on this.
Other Labour MPs may be feeling the same way. How they vote may depend on the assurances given by the minister speaking in the debate, and whether he or she can persuade MPs that the government does not intend to use the national security and international relations exemptions as an excuse to hold back a lot of information that parliament would like to see.
Starmer should not use 'international relations' exemption as excuse for Mandelson files 'cover-up', SNP says
Libby Brooks is the Guardian’s Scotland correspondent.
The SNP’s Westminster leader Stephen Flynn has warned Keir Starmer against “a Labour party cover-up” over the hiring of Peter Mandelson as US ambassador, after the prime minister tabled an amendment to a parliamentary motion that would enable him to keep back documents relating to national security.
Describing the government as being “in panic mode”, Flynn told BBC Radio Scotland:
They’ve put forward an amendment, which suggests they’ll give as much information as they can unless it impacts national security or international relations. Well I hate to break it to the government but being an ambassador is intrinsically linked to international relations, so they should not be allowed to be the arbiters of this.
If they have any concerns regarding national security then there are independent processes through parliament where parliamentarians can still get access to that information. So there should be absolutely nowhere for the UK government to hide in relation to the vetting procedures that led up to Peter Mandelson becoming the UK’s ambassador to the United States of America.
Flynn said Mandelson’s hiring showed that the prime minster was “completely out of touch with reality”.
Everyone across these isles right now is dwelling very heavily on the prime minister’s judgment - or lack of ... The prime minister, despite knowing all of this, still decided to appoint this man as our representative in the United States of America and I think that alone is unforgivable.
Here is Ben Quinn and Jessica Elgot’s story about the government agreeing to release files relating to Mandelson’s appointment as ambassador to the US – subject to an exemption for information relating to national security and international relations.
Starmer says his brother's death from cancer 'hit me like a bus' as he promotes national cancer plan
Keir Starmer has posted this on social media about why the national cancer plan matters to him personally.
I lost my brother to cancer.
I was with him when he was told his diagnosis – a moment I will never forget. Throughout, the NHS respected and cared for him.
When he passed away, it hit me like a bus – even though I knew it was coming.
I’m determined that every person diagnosed with cancer gets the best possible chance of beating it.
Our National Cancer Plan is the most ambitious in a generation. It means earlier diagnosis, slashing waiting lists and investing in cutting-edge technology to build an NHS fit for the future.
Streeting says Labour members feel 'bitterly' betrayed by Mandelson
Wes Streeting, the health secretary, has been giving interviews this morning on behalf of the government. He was supposed to be talking about the national cancer plan (see 9.32am), but he ended up taking a lot of questions about Peter Mandelson. He told Times Radio that people in the Labour party felt “bitterly” betrayed by Mandelson.
You can see the outrage across the political spectrum and from people up and down our country.
I cannot state strongly enough how bitterly that betrayal feels for those of us in the Labour party who feel very personally let down and also feel that he, as well as betraying two prime ministers, betraying our country and betraying Epstein’s victims, has fundamentally betrayed our values and the things that motivate us and the things that brought us into politics, which is public service and national interest, not self-service and self-interest.
Three-quarters of cancer patients in England will survive by 2035, government pledges
Three in four cancer patients in England will beat cancer under government plans to raise survival rates, as figures reveal someone is now diagnosed every 75 seconds in the UK. As Andrew Gregory reports, today the government is publishing its national cancer plan and in it ministers will pledge £2bn to resolve the crisis by transforming cancer services, with millions of patients promised faster diagnoses, quicker treatment and more support to live well.
PM agrees to release some files on Mandelson appointment
Good morning. The government has agreed to release potentially a large amount of information relating to how Peter Mandelson came to be appointed ambassador to Washington. The decision marks a win for Kemi Badenoch, who forced this decision by tabling a humble address motion in the Commons which the government does not have the confidence to fully oppose.
Ironically, it was Keir Starmer himself who encouraged the use of the parliamentary weapon that Badenoch is using. Opposition parties can table motions for debate, but most of them are not binding. However, if they table a humble address (“That an humble address be presented to His Majesty, that he will be graciously pleased to give directions to require the government to lay before this house all papers relating to” etc), and it passes, the government has to compy.
In 2017 Starmer, the then shadow Brexit secretary, won a humble address vote that forced the release of documents relating to the economic impact of Brexit. It was the first time for years the device had been used successfully. Since then humble addresses have become almost commonplace.
Here is the motion tabled by the Conservatives for debate today.
That an humble address be presented to His Majesty, that he will be graciously pleased to give directions to require the government to lay before this house all papers relating to Lord Mandelson’s appointment as His Majesty’s ambassador to the United States of America, including but not confined to the Cabinet Office due diligence which was passed to Number 10, the conflict of interest form Lord Mandelson provided to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO), material the FCDO and the Cabinet Office provided to UK security vetting about Lord Mandelson’s interests in relation to Global Counsel, including his work in relation to Russia and China, and his links to Jeffrey Epstein, papers for, and minutes of, meetings relating to the decision to appoint Lord Mandelson, electronic communications between the prime minister’s chief of staff and Lord Mandelson, and between ministers and Lord Mandelson, in the six months prior to his appointment, minutes of meetings between Lord Mandelson and ministers in the six months prior to his appointment, all information on Lord Mandelson provided to the prime minister prior to his assurance to this house on 10 September 2025 that ‘full due process was followed during this appointment’, electronic communications and minutes of all meetings between Lord Mandelson and ministers, government officials and special advisers during his time as ambassador, and the details of any payments made to Lord Mandelson on his departure as ambassador and from the civil service.
The government has a working majority of 168 and, in theory, the PM could have just ordered his MPs to vote this down. For obvious reasons, he has concluded that would not be acceptable to Labour MPs. So the government has decided it will accept most of this; it has tabled its own amendment, saying it agrees to publish all of this “except papers prejudicial to UK national security or international relations”.
Potentially, that could be a very large exemption. And ultimately it will be the cabinet secretary who will decide what gets released if the motion, as amended, is passed (which seems inevitable). Some humble addresses have resulted in significant information being released, but in 2022, after MPs voted for a humble address asking for the release of information relating to Boris Johnson’s decision to give a peerage to his friend Evgeny Lebedev, despite the security services having some misgivings about this, the government mostly ignored the vote, and only released a few pages of largely irrelevant information.
Here is the agenda for the day.
9.45am: Wes Streeting, the health secretary, launches the national cancer plan at the Royal Free hospital.
10am: Shabana Mahmood, the home secretary, gives evidence to the Commons home affairs committee.
Noon: Keir Starmer faces Kemi Badenoch at PMQs.
After 12.30pm: MPs debate the Tory humble address motion that would force the release of government information relating to the appointment of Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the US. The votes on the motion, and the government amendmernt, will come at about 4pm.
2pm: Streeting takes part in an LBC phone-in.
If you want to contact me, please post a message below the line when comments are open (between 10am and 3pm), or message me on social media. I can’t read all the messages BTL, but if you put “Andrew” in a message aimed at me, I am more likely to see it because I search for posts containing that word.
If you want to flag something up urgently, it is best to use social media. You can reach me on Bluesky at @andrewsparrowgdn.bsky.social. The Guardian has given up posting from its official accounts on X, but individual Guardian journalists are there, I still have my account, and if you message me there at @AndrewSparrow, I will see it and respond if necessary.
I find it very helpful when readers point out mistakes, even minor typos. No error is too small to correct. And I find your questions very interesting too. I can’t promise to reply to them all, but I will try to reply to as many as I can, either BTL or sometimes in the blog.
Updated
