2 hours ago
2
Keir Starmer will attempt to get ahead of the widening scandal over Peter Mandelson’s conduct with the expected release of files relating to his appointment as Britain’s US ambassador, in what a minister has described as “drawing a line in the sand”.
The Conservatives had been preparing to force the publication of the records – including what Mandelson may have told Starmer about his relationship with the convicted child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein before being appointed to Washington – with a motion in the Commons.
Rather than face a difficult vote amid anger among his own MPs, the prime minister has ordered the publication of those records – emails, documents and messages – apart from those deemed prejudicial to national security or that could damage diplomatic relations.
It is understood the government’s intention is to be transparent while avoiding a situation where all the communications get published.
A government amendment to the Conservatives’ motion that would compel the release of the documents is expected to pass.
The Guardian understands that officials are working through the material but that it is unlikely to be ready to be published on Wednesday. The documents identified for release will need to be assessed to check whether they will first need to be seen by the police.
Scotland Yard has formally launched a criminal investigation into allegations that Mandelson leaked Downing Street emails and market sensitive information to Epstein. Documents from the Epstein files released in the US appeared to show the then business secretary sent confidential details of internal discussions to the disgraced financier in the aftermath of the financial crash.
Wes Streeting, the health secretary, said on Wednesday that the prime minister was going for “maximum transparency” and would be “drawing a line in the sand”.
It was clear from the US Department of Justice’s latest release that Mandelson had not told “the whole truth”, said Streeting, adding that the prime minister’s “worst fears” had been confirmed.
Streeting spoke in a series of morning interviews about his own “deep sense of betrayal” over the revelations about Mandelson, who had backed him as a rising MP. Asked about the deletion of photos from his social media feed that showed him with Mandelson in the past, he said he had done so because others including his mother and Labour volunteers had featured in them.
He told Times Radio: “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.”
Asked about new claims by the prime minister of Poland that Epstein may have been a Russian spy, Streeting told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that he was not in a position to comment on that, but added: “I do think we need to look seriously at Epstein’s connections and in whose interests he was acting.”
Streeting, cast in recent months as a rival to the Labour leader, found himself in the position of having to defend repeatedly the prime minister’s judgment in appointing Mandelson to Washington, as the scandal threatens to engulf Starmer and his chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney.
Asked about Starmer’s judgment, Streeting said: “We took a view and take a view generally that we don’t make people guilty by association but assurances in the vetting process were sought and the prime minister was not told the whole truth about it.”
The government is unlikely to stave off difficult scenes in parliament with the Conservatives seeking to pile further pressure on Starmer and his inner circle.
Kevin Hollinrake, the Conservative party chair, said the government should not seek to use exemptions, such as over national security, in relation to the release of files about the Mandelson appointment.
He told Today: “We will probably learn a lot about Sir Keir Starmer’s judgment, but we are yet to see what these documents will reveal. 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.”
