The Government agreed that the intelligence and security committee will decide which Mandelson files are released. Photo / Getty Images
Sir Keir Starmer has accused Lord Mandelson of betraying Britain.
The Prime Minister also claimed the disgraced peer lied to him about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.
Starmer admitted he had known that Mandelson had ties to the convicted paedophile before appointing him as ambassador to the US, but insisted he had not been aware of the full extent of the friendship between the two.
At a highly charged Prime Minister’s Questions on Wednesday, Starmer said: “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 never would have been anywhere near Government.”
The Mandelson files were set to be released by the Cabinet Office and Downing St.
However, senior Labour MPs, including Angela Rayner, insisted that No 10 should not make that decision. Instead, they want Parliament’s intelligence and security committee (ISC) to decide on what is released.
The Government has now yielded to cross-party pressure and agreed that anything prejudicial will now go before the ISC.
This is significant because the ISC will now have the final say over which documents are published in full and which are redacted, rather than civil servants and Government lawyers.
The climbdown by Starmer is a further blow to his authority following several backbench rebellions and more than a dozen about-turns during his time in Government.
The files are expected to include information on how the peer was vetted for the role, as well as details of any severance payment received after his sacking. Issues linked to national security and international relations will be blocked or redacted.
The Tories had planned to use a so-called “humble address” – a parliamentary mechanism – to force the Government to release the files.
During PMQs, Starmer said he had full confidence in Morgan McSweeney, his beleaguered chief of staff, and revealed that the King had agreed to strip Mandelson of his membership of the Privy Council.
Asked by Kemi Badenoch, the Tory leader, whether the official security vetting had mentioned the peer’s ongoing relationship with Epstein, the Prime Minister said: “Yes it did.”
Badenoch said this admission was “absolutely shocking”.
On Tuesday, the Metropolitan Police announced a criminal investigation after emails showed that Mandelson leaked sensitive government information to Epstein.
The peer, who resigned from the House of Lords before Starmer could strip him of his peerage, was Gordon Brown’s business secretary and effective deputy prime minister in 2009 and 2010 when market-sensitive messages were forwarded to the paedophile.
The leaked information, which Epstein could have used to make money, included plans for the potential sale of government land and property.
The emails also suggest that Epstein was given advance notice of an impending EU bailout for Greece to shore up the euro.
During PMQs, Badenoch asked Starmer: “Can the Prime Minister tell us, did the official security vetting he received mention Mandelson’s ongoing relationship with the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein?”
The Prime Minister responded: “Yes, it did. As a result, various questions were put to him.
“I intend to disclose to this House all of the national security prejudices, international relations, to 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.”
Badenoch said: “I think it is shocking what the Prime Minister has just 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.”
She asked Starmer whether he had full confidence in McSweeney, who was instrumental in appointing Mandelson as ambassador.
Starmer replied: “Morgan McSweeney is an essential part of my team. He helped me change the Labour Party and win an election. Of course I have confidence in him.”
A Tory Party spokesman said: “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 Prime Minister 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.”
The Prime Minister said Mandelson had been removed as a Privy Counsellor because he had brought the prestigious body of advisers, which includes past and present Cabinet members, into “disrepute”.
“This morning, I’ve agreed with His Majesty the King that Mandelson should be removed from the list of Privy Counsellors on grounds that he’s brought the reputation of the Privy Council into disrepute,” he said.
In a debate following PMQs, Rayner, the former Deputy Prime Minister, called for the intelligence and security committee (ISC) to have the final say over which files can and cannot be released to the public.
Under the amendment put forward by Starmer, it would instead be up to Sir Chris Wormald, the Cabinet Secretary, and the Cabinet Office legal team to decide which documents were released and which were withheld.
Rayner said: “Given the public disgust and the sickening behaviour of Peter Mandelson and the importance of transparency, in 2022 I proposed a humble address seeking information about PPE [Personal Protective Equipment] which the party resisted ... Should the ISC not have the same role in keeping public confidence in the process?”
Nick Thomas-Symonds, the Paymaster General, replied: “In the first instance let me say that this process now is going to be conducted and led by the Cabinet Secretary, of unimpeachable integrity.
“But secondly, it’ll be conducted by Cabinet Office lawyers. Now the House is asking, quite fairly, a broader question about scrutiny ... There’s existing powers for the ISC in terms of scrutiny.”
Sign up to Herald Premium Editor’s Picks, delivered straight to your inbox every Friday. Editor-in-Chief Murray Kirkness picks the week’s best features, interviews and investigations. Sign up for Herald Premium here.