A rare Commons vote could force disclosure of secret files on Mandelson’s US ambassador vetting
A deepening political storm over Peter Mandelson’s links to Jeffrey Epstein has pushed Westminster towards a rare and explosive parliamentary confrontation, with the Conservatives moving to force the release of confidential vetting documents tied to his appointment as the UK’s ambassador to the United States.
Kemi Badenoch is preparing to trigger an arcane Commons mechanism, known as a humble address, in a bid to compel the government to publish files detailing how Mandelson was vetted and what senior figures knew about his past associations with the disgraced financier. The move could place Prime Minister Keir Starmer under intense pressure, particularly as Labour MPs have signalled they are unwilling to oppose the motion.
Embed from Getty Images
The procedure, seldom used but historically powerful, would oblige the government to disclose a wide range of internal communications. These could include emails, text messages and WhatsApp exchanges connected to Mandelson’s appointment, alongside due diligence reports and conflict-of-interest paperwork submitted to Whitehall departments.
Badenoch has framed the issue as a stark test of accountability. She is expected to argue that the public deserves to know why Mandelson was appointed to one of Britain’s most sensitive diplomatic posts despite what she describes as known links to Epstein. She has also suggested that the process failed to meet basic standards of scrutiny, raising questions about whether proper checks were ever carried out.
The controversy intensified after the Metropolitan Police confirmed it had launched a criminal investigation into allegations that Mandelson leaked Downing Street emails and market-sensitive information to Epstein. That development has transformed what was already a political embarrassment into a fast-moving crisis, prompting renewed demands for transparency.
If passed, the humble address would require the release of communications involving Starmer, his chief of staff Morgan McSweeney and senior officials, potentially exposing the extent to which risks were identified or dismissed during the appointment process. Conservatives are expected to argue that McSweeney played a significant role in pushing Mandelson’s appointment and should therefore face scrutiny over what he knew at the time.
Pressure has also mounted on other senior figures. Badenoch has called on the cabinet secretary, Chris Wormald, to question the justice secretary, David Lammy, and the work and pensions secretary, Pat McFadden, about any knowledge they may have had of Mandelson’s conduct when they worked under him as junior ministers.
Inside Labour, unease has been growing. MPs have privately acknowledged that opposing a motion demanding disclosure would be politically untenable. Several have said it would be impossible to justify voting against transparency given the seriousness of the allegations and the scale of the fallout.
Some Labour figures believe the government showed a troubling lack of curiosity about Mandelson’s past. They point to correspondence released earlier that appeared to give him the opportunity to explain himself, without a thorough effort to uncover the full extent of his relationship with Epstein. Others have described the handling of the issue as clumsy and incomplete, arguing that Parliament has not yet been told the full story.
The former business secretary has already resigned from the House of Lords, but that has done little to calm the situation. Ministers have confirmed that a dossier on Mandelson has been handed to the police, while Starmer has told cabinet colleagues he was appalled by the alleged leaks.
Beyond the immediate political drama, MPs have also raised concerns about Mandelson’s contacts during his time as ambassador, including interactions with major technology firms holding government contracts. For critics, these questions underscore why the vetting process now demands full public examination.
As the Commons prepares for the vote, the episode threatens to become a defining moment for Starmer’s leadership. A forced release of documents could reveal uncomfortable truths about decision-making at the highest levels of government, while refusal or delay risks accusations of a cover-up. Either way, the Mandelson affair shows no sign of fading, and the coming days may expose how much was known, and by whom, when one of Britain’s most powerful political figures was handed a critical diplomatic role.