Minister denounces Mandelson for interview in which he claims outrage about his Epstein links ‘disproportionate’

Good morning. Keir Starmer tried to assuage public and political outrage about Lord Mandelson yesterday by saying that he would like to see him kicked out of the House of Lords for good, but that is not enough for the many people saying that the government should pass primary legislation to remove his peerage. One of them is Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, who told Radio 4 this morning a “very short bill” could be passed “today”. As Jessica Elgot and Emine Sinmaz report in our overnight story, it may turn out that Mandelson ultimately gets punished by the criminal justice system, because the police are reviewing the evidence to see if it justifies a full inquiry.

Davey is also calling for a public inquiry into Mandelson. Harriet Harman, the former Labour deputy leader, has been saying Mandelson should be kicked off the privy council. I’ll quote more from what they, and others, have been saying about ‘what to do about Mandelson’ shortly.

But the most interesting words about Mandelson around this morning come from the man himself. The Times has published a long interview with the peer and former ambassador conducted by Katy Balls. Balls is based in Washington, but she interviewed him at his home in Wiltshire early last week, for what looks like what was originally planned as a magazine feature. But then she also spoke to him on Sunday night, after the release of another 3m Jeffrey Epstein documents led to fresh revelations about his friendship with Mandelson and after the peer resigned from the Labour party as a consequence.

What is striking about the interview is lack of contrition.

In what seems to be a line from the main, pre-Sunday interview (which focused on the September Epstein revelations that led to his being sacked as ambassador to the US) Mandelson says:

Hiding under a rock would be a disproportionate response to a handful of misguided historical emails, which I deeply regret sending. If it hadn’t been for the emails, I’d still be in Washington. Emails sent all those years ago didn’t change the relationship that I had with this monster.

But Balls also quotes him as saying:

I feel the same about the recent download of Epstein files, none of which indicate wrongdoing or misdemeanour on my part.

This quote seems to come from the Sunday chat, but the article is not clear on this point.

Balls also says that on Sunday, after announcing that he was resigning his Labour membership, Mandelson was still talking about making a future contribution to public life. He said:

I am a New Labour person and always will be, wherever the party situates itself. But I think I want a sea change. I want to be more of an outsider looking in rather than the other way round. I want to contribute ideas that enable Britain to strengthen and to work for all, in every part of the country.

Karin Smyth, the secondary care minister, was on the interview round for the government this morning, and she was asked about the Times article. She said Mandelson still did not seem to understand what he had done wrong. She told the Today programme:

Like, sadly, many other men I’ve seen in similar positions over the years, there is a lack of real reality and understanding about the depth of this now demonstrated in that interview.

I’m not entirely sure what day that interview took place, but each hour is bringing really shocking and quite astonishing levels of email correspondence that is shocking absolutely everybody.

The realisation has to dawn on him about what that means.

I will quote more from the Mandelson interview shortly.

Here is the agenda for the day.

Morning: Keir Starmer chairs cabinet.

11.30am: David Lammy, the justice secretary and deputy PM, takes justice questions in the Commons.

Noon: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.

After 12.30pm: MPs debate the universal credit (removal of two-child limit) bill.

2pm: Nigel Farage, the Reform UK leader, and Lee Anderson, the Reform MP, hold a press conference. They are announcing a plan to save pubs.

Late afternoon: Peers debate the children’s wellbeing and schools bill, and are due to vote on an amendment to ban mobile phones from schools.

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.

Key events

Harriet Harman says Lords should pass motion saying Mandelson not welcome back, and he should be kicked off privy council

Harriet Harman, who was deputy Labour leader when Gordon Brown was prime minister, told the Today programme this morning that she always had her doubts about Peter Mandelson. “I was of the view that Peter Mandelson was untrustworthy from the 1990s,” she said.

As for what should happen now, Harman backed what No 10 was proposing yesterday, trying to ensure that Mandelson is permanently removed from the House of Lords.

But she also said that Starmer should be “advising the king to stop him from being a privy counsellor”.

She said that she would like to see the Lords pass a motion saying that Mandelson, who is currently on leave of absence from the house (which means he has temporarily suspended his membership, and cannot participate in its proceedings), would not be welcome if he applies to come back.

And, asked if she backed legislation to strip Mandelson of his peerage, Harman said this could be done alongside the wider reforms to Lords disciplinary process that Starmer wants to see. She said:

I don’t think it matters that a number of things are being done concurrently.

There is the police investigation, there’s the issue of his privy counsellorship, there’s the question of his readmission after temporary absence from the House of Lords, there’s the question of primary legislation to strip him of his title, but there’s also the question of changing the rules to make the House of Lords processes modern and much less cumbersome.

Alice Lilley from the Institute for Government thinktank has a good explainer here that sets out what needs to happen for someone to be removed from the House of Lords, and for them to lose their peerage.

Ed Davey calls for public inquiry into Mandelson

This is what Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, told the Today programme this morning about why he wants a public inquiry into Peter Mandelson, and particularly the claims that he leaked government documents to Jeffrey Epstein.

I certainly support a police investigation. It looks like crime has been committed, misconduct in public office, which is very serious, it impacts everyone’s lives if someone at the very top of government is betraying our country …

But I think we need to think even more deeply about this. I think the case for a public inquiry into national security, and indeed the British victims of Jeffrey Epstein, has now become a requirement.

This is so serious in the impact it has on how we govern ourselves, as well as, of course, the victims, that I think the case for a public inquiry is now overwhelming.

Davey also said he did not accept that it would be too difficult or time-consuming to pass legislation to strip Mandelson of his peerage. “We should strip Lord Mandelson of his peerage, and we can do that today. It’s a very short bill just to focus on Lord Mandelson,” he said.

In a news release, Davey offered more details about why he thinks a public inquiry is needed. He said:

Epstein was leaked highly market-sensitive information by a minister acting as a mole in Whitehall, leaving our institutions dangerously exposed and posing a grave threat to national security.

A full public inquiry with powers to compel witnesses and access messages and emails is essential. Only complete transparency can restore public trust, deliver justice for victims and prevent this level of corruption from ever happening again.

Davey may be overstating his case. Although there is evidence that Mandelson leaked confidential government information to Epstein relating to economic policy, there is no evidence (yet?) of him doing anything that directly threatened national security.

Mandelson denies being drawn to people like Epstein just because they are rich

Here are some more extracts from Katy Balls’ interview with Peter Mandelson in the Times (mostly conducted early last week, before the latest Jeffrey Epstein revelations). (See 9.13am.)

I don’t know what [Epstein’s] motives were – probably mixed – but he provided guidance to help me navigate out of the world of politics and into the world of commerce and finance.

Perhaps he wanted to be a mentor and I was naive in regarding him as a good-faith actor. There was no reason to shun his advice, but I was too trusting. He was always very free and forthright with his views and always presented them as in my best interests.

That is a bit of an occupational hazard for a leading politician or a European commissioner, as I was. I don’t think I am drawn towards rich people so much as rich people have big personalities, a lot of knowledge and a lot of experience to share. I hoover that up, but not because they’re wealthy. It’s because of what they do and what they’ve learnt and the responsibilities they’ve exercised, not the size of their bank accounts.

Asked what did draw him to Epstein, he replies:

He was a classic sociopath. Outwardly, completely charming and engaging. He was very clever.

He also says Epstein gave good dinner parties.

I remember one of the two dinner parties of his I went to. I sat next to someone in charge of brain research at Harvard. I was sitting opposite the founders of Google. At the other end of the table was Bill Gates. I think I also brushed past Noam Chomsky on a later date, but he wasn’t having much to do with me given that he was a Marxist philosopher and I was a Blairite.

(Epstein, of course, is better known for the other kinds of parties he used to host, but there is nothing in the interview about those.)

Downing Street did not know what I had long since forgotten. It was a distant chapter from which I have very little recall and have no access at all to records or a diary,” he says. “I understand being surprised by what they learnt, but quite honestly I too am amazed by some of the conversations I had and areas of my life where I was seeking advice from Epstein.

Mandelson says he accepts that it was a mistake for his husband, Reinaldo, to accept £10,000 from Epstein to do an osteopathy course. “In retrospect, it was clearly a lapse in our collective judgment for Reinaldo to accept this offer. At the time it was not a consequential decision,” he says.

There is nothing I can tell Congress about Epstein they don’t already know. I had no exposure to the criminal aspects of his life. For so many years the voices of his victims were not heard and now Congress has rightly opened everything up.