Keir Starmer has been forced into a humiliating climbdown following a revolt from Labour MPs over the release of documents relating to Peter Mandelson.
The Prime Minister faced losing a crunch vote in the Commons as he attempted to restrict the release of some files relating to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador on the grounds of national security.
But following a revolt from Labour MPs led by Starmer’s former deputy Angela Rayner, the Government has now agreed it will not have the final decision on what material is released.
Earlier the Prime Minister admitted he was aware of the ongoing relationship between Mandelson and Epstein at the time the peer was dispatched to Washington in December 2024 but was not aware of the ‘depth’ of their ties.
During PMQs, he claimed Mandelson ‘lied repeatedly’ during security vetting and ‘misrepresented’ his relationship with the paedophile financier.
It comes as new emails appear to show Mandelson leaked sensitive information to Epstein while serving in Gordon Brown’s government in 2009.
Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch said the Government’s amendment is ‘not about national security – this is about job security’ as she accused Starmer of trying to ‘sabotage’ the release of documents.
Your browser does not support iframes.
Follow the latest updates on the Epstein files
Breaking:Starmer climbdown as MPs decide which Mandelson files are released
Exclusive:Andrew photo with Virginia Giuffre IS REAL, admits Ghislaine Maxwell
Mandelson’s retirement confirmed by Lords
I announced in the chamber yesterday that Lord Mandelson had given notice of his retirement.
I am now formally notifying the House of his retirement with effect from today pursuant to section one of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014.
Commons vote could be as late as 7pm
ANALYSIS: Starmer bleeds capital over Mandelson saga as premiership hits new crisis
Labour MPs ramp up pressure on Starmer over Mandelson files
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.
Across the House there is a consensus growing that the Intelligence and Security Committee could provide a way forward for independent scrutiny of those documents.
Should we not have the ISC not have the same role now in keeping public confidence in the process?
There are well worn filters through Parliament, through the select committee corridor – and there are various committees that could have locus in this space – to properly and sensitively handle information which has, in my time, never leaked from a committee, in order to make sure that we on the committee corridor, on behalf of Parliament, are holding the Government to account.
Because I think there is consensus that everybody wants as much information as possible in the public domain, so that we can get to the bottom of what has happened in this egregious situation.
Government enters panic mode as it faces losing vote on Mandelson files
‘Starmer’s position is untenable’: Mail readers react after PM’s Mandelson grilling
Stammer knew he was associated with Epstein. He should have had higher, stricter vetting before he put Mandelson in this position. Another big mistake by Stammer, how many mistakes and u-turns is he going to make before this country can get rid of him????
Starmer is weak! Mandelson just ran circles around him. This Labour Government is a shambles but more importantly, a big worry for us all.
This is not a trivial matter, it is a national security issue. The vetting process will have looked at his personal life, as well as his financial dealings so WHO ignored those findings? This issue spans the whole time from Blair, Brown & Starmer – they ignored the elephant in the room – WHY?
Starmer was warned by the security services that he should not appoint Mandelson. Why would our Prime Minister ignore the warnings of the security services. It is obvious that Starmer is compromised and his position is untenable. He must resign.
If he did you employed him in that role so your incompetence put national security at risk. Therefore the buck stops with you. Be a man and resign.


