PM admits he knew of Mandelson’s post-conviction friendship with Jeffrey Epstein as questions mount over vetting and national security
IT took three attempts for Kemi Badenoch to get a straight answer, but when the Prime Minister finally responded, what remained of his authority appeared to drain away.
At Prime Minister’s Questions on Wednesday (Feb 4), the Conservative leader targeted the vetting process behind Peter Mandelson’s appointment as the UK’s ambassador to Washington. The line of attack was widely anticipated. Equally predictable were Keir Starmer’s attempts to deflect.
Eventually, however, disclosure proved unavoidable. The Prime Minister confirmed that when he appointed Mandelson, he already knew that the former Cabinet minister had maintained a friendship with convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein after Epstein’s 2008 conviction for child sex offences.
A packed House of Commons audibly gasped.
Whatever political cover Downing Street hoped to create by suggesting Mandelson had repeatedly misled questioners about the relationship quickly evaporated. The reality was stark. Those responsible for the appointment knew that Mandelson’s association with Epstein had continued after conviction, imprisonment and release — and still judged him suitable for Britain’s most sensitive diplomatic post.
That decision now raises profound questions about the Prime Minister’s judgment and the advice he received from senior officials and security services.
As MP after MP rose to speak, common themes emerged. Conservative members described the appointment as reckless. Labour backbenchers said it demonstrated a callous disregard for Epstein’s victims. Others questioned whether proper security warnings had been heeded at all.
When Mandelson was later removed from the Washington role, the Government claimed the decision followed “new revelations” about his association with Epstein. That explanation was left in tatters by the Prime Minister’s admission that the relationship was already known.
Yet the Epstein connection may not be the most politically damaging element of the affair.
During the 2008 financial crisis, taxpayers rescued Britain’s banking system after years of reckless risk-taking. Public anger led ministers to propose a 50% tax on bankers’ bonuses. Papers from the so-called Epstein files suggest that while serving as Business Secretary in Gordon Brown’s Cabinet, Mandelson briefed Epstein on confidential discussions about that tax.
One email indicates he even advised that a senior US banker should “slightly threaten” then-Chancellor Alistair Darling over the proposal.
Labour MP Emily Thornberry was among those who branded the conduct “treachery”.
Further disclosures suggest Mandelson also shared market-sensitive information about the 2010 General Election, including the progress of coalition negotiations and advance notice that Brown would step down. Even if intended as political gossip, such information could have delivered a significant trading advantage to well-placed investors.
Whether profits were made is beside the point. The mere possibility that privileged Cabinet intelligence reached a convicted sex offender is politically toxic.
Now the Metropolitan Police Service has launched an investigation into whether any criminal offences were committed, placing the Prime Minister in an increasingly awkward position. Detectives have warned against the release of potentially relevant documents, complicating calls for full transparency.
Although the Intelligence and Security Committee will review the material, public confidence may already be too badly shaken.
Mandelson’s long and controversial career in public life appears finished. The unresolved question is whether his downfall will drag the Prime Minister down with him.
With Labour sliding in the polls, internally divided, facing elections in Scotland and Wales and a looming by-election in Manchester, the political crunch may not be far away.
