PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
US Department of Justice Release of Files - 2 February 2026 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

As I know right hon. and hon. Members across the House will agree, Jeffrey Epstein was a despicable criminal who committed disgusting crimes and destroyed the lives of countless women and girls. What he did is unforgivable. His victims must be our first priority. As the Prime Minister has said, anybody with relevant information must come forward and co-operate with investigations, so that Jeffrey Epstein’s victims can get the justice that they have been denied for too long.

On Friday, the Department of Justice in the United States released around 3 million pages from the case files relating to Jeffrey Epstein. It is increasingly clear that his awful crimes involved many—often powerful—people, who facilitated them by actively participating in those crimes, by failing to hear the victims’ voices, by equating wealth with integrity, and by not using their privileged position to speak out, even against a friend. It is incumbent on those of us who hold ministerial office to behave in a way that builds trust in politics and upholds the standards that voters rightly expect from us.

Contained within the release by the US Department of Justice are documents that highlight the close nature of the relationship between Jeffrey Epstein and Peter Mandelson, including alleged financial transactions when Peter Mandelson was a Labour Member of Parliament and later a Minister. For the avoidance of doubt, this information was not known by the Government until the release of documents by the Department of Justice on Friday.

The nature of the documents has also raised serious concerns about Peter Mandelson’s behaviour while a Minister. Peter Mandelson must account for his actions and conduct. It is an understatement to say that his decision to continue a close relationship with a convicted paedophile, including discussing private Government business, falls far below the standards expected of any Minister. His behaviour was unequivocally wrong and an insult to the women and girls who suffered. No Government Minister of any political party should have behaved or ever should behave in this way.

The Prime Minister has today asked the Cabinet Secretary to review all available information regarding Peter Mandelson’s contact with Jeffrey Epstein during his period as a Government Minister, and to report back to him as a matter of urgency. As the House knows, Peter Mandelson is no longer a member of the Labour party, having resigned his membership last night, and the House may wish to know that disciplinary action by the Labour party was under way prior to his resignation.

The Prime Minister believes, as do the Government, that Peter Mandelson should not retain his membership of the House of Lords or use his title. As the House already knows, the Government do not have the power to remove peerages without legislation. However, the Prime Minister is calling on all political parties—including the Conservatives, as the largest party in the House of Lords—to work with the Government to modernise the disciplinary procedures to allow for the removal of peers who have brought the House of Lords into disrepute. The Government will today write to the appropriate authorities in the other place to start that process. It would be better to update those procedures so that they apply to all Members of the House of Lords, instead of having to introduce complex hybrid Bills for each individual peer who has brought the other place into disrepute.

I recognise the strength of feeling on all sides of the House, myself included, and the Government will of course keep Members up to date. I commend this statement to the House.

I call the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement.

The crimes of Jeffrey Epstein were truly terrible—paedophilia, sex trafficking, child prostitution. It was an awful abuse of power, and it is of course a great embarrassment to our country that its most senior ambassador should have been caught up with a man like him. In this latest set of releases from the US Department of Justice, it is clearer than ever that theirs was a relationship built not just on affection, but on the transfer of money from Epstein to Mandelson’s family and the transfer of information from Mandelson to Epstein. In some cases, this was apparently market-sensitive information that Mandelson received only by dint of being a member of the Labour Government.

So we of course welcome the belated announcement that there will be an investigation into Mandelson’s conduct while he was a Minister, but this should have happened long ago. I say that because we know that, in February last year, Gordon Brown, the former Prime Minister, wrote to the Cabinet Secretary explicitly asking for an investigation into the

“veracity of information contained in the Epstein papers about the sale of assets arising from the banking collapse and communications about them between Lord Mandelson and Mr Epstein.”

That investigation never happened.

In any case, I am afraid that the investigation announced today alone will not do. It is not enough to consider Mandelson’s historical conduct; there also needs to be an investigation into his behaviour while he was our ambassador in Washington. Given that he abused his previous position, it is entirely conceivable that he abused his most recent one. For example, I understand that on 27 February last year, Mandelson arranged for the Prime Minister to meet Palantir, a client of Mandelson’s company, Global Counsel. How many more such meetings were there, and what other information was shared? We all have a right to know.

Likewise, the Government cannot hide from their responsibility in having made Mandelson their ambassador in the first place. This was a political appointment, and it happened only because of political pressure. So one of two things must be true: either there was the most terrible failure of the vetting system, or the Government chose to brush that vetting information away. Both are very serious, but the Government must now be honest with us about which it was. It seems very unlikely that the Government’s vetting system broke down entirely. Indeed, on 10 September, the Prime Minister told the House that

“full due process was followed during this appointment”.—[Official Report, 10 September 2025; Vol. 772, c. 859.]

Can it really be the case that this “full due process” did not pick up the extent of the relationship?

On 3 November, Olly Robbins, the then permanent secretary at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, told the Foreign Affairs Committee:

“Back before Lord Mandelson was announced as the appointee, there was a process...within the Cabinet Office to make sure that the Prime Minister was aware of Lord Mandelson and the issues around his appointment...we can confidently say that the relationship with Epstein was indeed surfaced”.

So the Government knew that Mandelson had a long-maintained and unhealthy relationship with Epstein, yet they continued with their appointment anyway.

The question is: who in No. 10 knew what and when? The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister has a duty to tell this House precisely what the Prime Minister knew when he made the appointment, and to disclose the documents that the Prime Minister saw. If the Prime Minister genuinely did not know, somebody must have done. Who was it? Was it his chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, who is reported to have personally pushed the appointment? Was it the now Deputy Prime Minister, who was then the Foreign Secretary and who would have been party to some of the information?

It is time for the Government to be open and clear with us all. Something went very badly wrong with this appointment. It has caused very great embarrassment to this country and it is time that someone took responsibility.

The person who has to take responsibility for their failings is Peter Mandelson. The shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster knows that the process for political appointments, whether to ambassadorships or otherwise, was one set up under the previous Conservative Government. It was a process that we inherited and have since updated. The Prime Minister has been very clear that the declarations of interest put forward by Peter Mandelson were not wholly truthful. When it became clear from the release of information that that had not been the case, the Prime Minister moved swiftly to remove Peter Mandelson as the ambassador to the United States.

On the first point that the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster made, in relation to an investigation requested by former Prime Minister Gordon Brown, I can confirm to the House that his statement was incorrect. The former Prime Minister did ask the Cabinet Secretary to investigate in order to look for any particular documents that related, as he said, to the sale of RBS assets to JP Morgan. That investigation was undertaken. The Cabinet Secretary did respond to the former Prime Minister to confirm that no documents in relation to those questions were held by the Government. Evidently, now that more documents have become available to the public and to the Government, further investigations are now taking place.

The files seem to show that Peter Mandelson was given £50,000 by a notorious paedophile and that a few years later he sent on market-sensitive information to Epstein, who worked for JP Morgan, about market bail-outs. He told him about the Prime Minister’s resignation, said that they should “mildly threaten” the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and then told him about matters of national security. Surely this is a matter not of whether Peter Mandelson should be in the House of Lords, but of whether the police should be involved.

My right hon. Friend is right that each individual issue is wholly unacceptable, and cumulatively they are also unacceptable. The undeclared exchange of funds and the passing on of Government information, let alone the fact that those exchanges were to a convicted paedophile, are wholly unconscionable. The House will know that if any of those activities were to take place today, Ministers would be swiftly relieved of their duties and could be, via the recall petitions available to the House, removed from their constituency, too. As to the matter of criminal investigations, of course that is a matter for the prosecution services and the police. As I have informed the House, the investigation by the Cabinet Secretary into the released documents, as requested by the Prime Minister, is currently under way.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister and the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster are right: we must start by remembering the many women and young girls who experienced unimaginable horrors at the hands of Epstein and his network.

We must also ask what it was that first attracted the politician Peter Mandelson to the billionaire financier Jeffrey Epstein, and why it was that that relationship continued after Epstein’s character was well known. At the very least, the forwarding of confidential Government correspondence to a wealthy and powerful individual was clearly well beneath the conduct expected of a Cabinet Minister and possibly a breach of the law. When that is combined with the reported financial flows, the evidence is damning. The use of public office for private gain is the very definition of corruption; regardless of the outcome of a Government investigation, millions of people up and down the country are more than capable of judging for themselves on the evidence in front of them.

Is it not time to end the Lord Mandelson charade once and for all by bringing legislation to the House to strip him of his peerage? And what about his membership of the Privy Council? The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister referenced declarations of interest, so will the Government work with the House authorities to republish Peter Mandelson’s entry on the Register of Members’ Financial Interests dating back to his time as a Cabinet Minister in a Labour Government?

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his post on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench. He is right that it is time for the procedures in Parliament to be updated. While this House has taken steps in recent years to do so, the other place has not; as I said in my statement, the Government are today making an offer to the other place—to the appropriate authorities in the House of Lords—to put forward proposals to do just that. If we need to make time available to do so, we will.

The key question here is: who advised the Prime Minister? I do not expect the Prime Minister to do due diligence on appointments of this kind himself, but those around him must have done so. It appears that questions that needed to be asked of Lord Mandelson were not asked, or, if they were asked, that the answers were not passed on. Will my right hon. Friend give us a guarantee that when this is investigated, those around the Prime Minister who would have advised him on this appointment will be investigated fully?

The process for political appointments has since been strengthened by this Government to include additional interviews and processes for declarations of interest. The key thing, though, is that when someone lies in their declaration of interest, there must be a consequence, and that consequence for Members of the other place needs to be removal from the House of Lords and loss of peerage; that can happen only if the other place brings forward proposals to update its own processes, and the Government stand ready to support it in doing so. I agree with my hon. Friend that there need to be robust, clear and transparent processes, that any conflicts of interest need to be surfaced and dealt with adequately, and that when people are found to have lied, there must be some consequence.

I call the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is right to say that the other place must modernise its disciplinary procedures, but that kicks the Mandelson can down the road. This is not the first time this modern-day Icarus has flown a little too close to the sun, usually over money; we all remember the Geoffrey Robinson mortgage loan, which of course occasioned an earlier resignation—

And the Hinduja passport.

And the Hinduja passport, yes. Where I disagree with the Minister is in conflating the updating of the disciplinary procedures of the other place and the bringing forward of legislation—which is allowed—to remove Mandelson’s peerage. I am absolutely certain that, were the Government to bring forward a Bill, which need not be complex and hybrid as he suggested, it could be rushed through this House in a day, such is the appetite to make the point.

For the sake of clarity, can I just make it clear that neither I nor the Government are here to defend Peter Mandelson? We are here to defend the integrity of this House and the other place and to ensure that where processes need updating, they are updated. On the question of legislation regarding individual Members of the other place, the fact—if I might say so—is that there is a queue. That is why the process needs to be updated to apply to all peers: to remove the need to bring forward individual legislation, whether for Peter Mandelson or Michelle Mone.

Like the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, I am a parent of young children, and I know that he will have found it very difficult to stomach some of the details that came out over the weekend. The conversation here has so far rightly been dominated by the actions of the men. I ask the Chief Secretary seriously what he is doing to ensure that the victims—mostly children—of sexual violence and sexual assault will be heard by those in power, including the Prime Minister.

I am sure that there is not one Member of this House who does not agree with my hon. Friend about the level of disgust we feel in seeing the disclosures from the Epstein files. The House knows that the Government are taking forward radical proposals for tackling violence against women and girls. In respect of Jeffrey Epstein, we are doing all that we can to ensure that people who have information make it available to investigators.

Does the Minister think that the deep involvement of Mandelson with Epstein shows that Epstein’s victims were not only women and girls but may have included young men?

It would not be appropriate for me to entertain that hypothetical question at the Dispatch Box. We obviously hope that that is not the case, but, as I say, I am not here to speak for Peter Mandelson.

This is a disaster, and against the backdrop of the incredible abuse of young women for such a long time, it fills the House will horror.

I must agree with the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare); this House would be minded to bring forward legislation and to do so quickly. It would appear that Gordon Brown was very concerned in September 2025 that there had been a disclosure of information by Mandelson to Epstein that may have been used for commercial gain. He turns out to have been right. How is it that such an error could occur within government and that the information was not known? Can the Minister assure the House that those matters will be given full attention in any inquiry and that, from this day on, there will be full engagement with the criminal authorities, because, as many Members have said already, the time has come for criminal prosecution?

My hon. Friend is right to raise those concerns. As I confirmed to the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the Cabinet Secretary did respond to Gordon Brown’s request to search for documents in the Government archive in relation to the sale of RBS assets to JP Morgan at the time. The review concluded that those documents did not exist in the Government archive. It is now evident from the release of documents by the US Department of Justice that the emails we have all seen account for what took place at the time. That is why the Cabinet Secretary is reviewing the archive again, not just in respect of that particular question but in the round during the time that Peter Mandelson was a Labour Minister. The Cabinet Secretary will report to the Prime Minister as soon as he has been able to do that.

With the cash for questions scandal or the recent sexual harassment cases in Westminster, the police were called by the Government, proactively. Why, in this case, are the Government conducting an inquiry without informing the Met police? If they are not conducting their own inquiry, will they get on with calling the police straightaway, because it is inevitably going to happen?

As I have said, the Cabinet Secretary is currently looking at the Government archives to see what documents are available and will advise the Prime Minister accordingly. If the Government can be of assistance to any investigations in due course, they of course will be.

There are many aspects of this that are hugely troubling, but I will focus on one: the passing on of highly sensitive information by a serving Cabinet Minister to third parties. Clearly, that could amount to misconduct in public office, and I hope that the police investigate it.

The papers reveal a very casual relationship with probity for Mandelson and his apparent willingness to share highly sensitive information with third parties. What concerns me in particular is that he has been in a very senior role in recent times. Could the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister confirm whether he or anyone else serving in government in a ministerial or advisory capacity has discussed since in recent times—in the course of this Government—information of a similar nature that could have been used to benefit third parties?

The information that became available over the preceding few days from the US Department of Justice is new information to the Government.

I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Lady, and the Government have called for anybody with information to do just that.

Many of my constituents, like all of us, will be horrified by the revelations regarding Peter Mandelson and the Epstein files, but they will also be shocked to know that the Government do not have the power to remove peerages. Does the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister agree that it is absolutely right to do whatever is necessary to modernise procedures to allow for the removal of peers and their peerages when they have bought the other place into disrepute?

My hon. Friend is exactly right, and that is why the Government have written to the appropriate authorities in the other place today to request that that work is now started.

I do not understand why the Minister, whom I respect greatly, is standing there and speaking as though the Government did not know about the relationship and connection between Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein prior to appointing him as the ambassador to the United States. I cannot understand why the Minister is not standing at the Dispatch Box saying that this House will sit until whatever hour required to pass legislation to strip Peter Mandelson of his peerage. I cannot understand why the Minister is acting like the Labour party has been proactive on this, when it has known for months about Peter Mandelson’s revelations and yet has allowed him to maintain a party membership throughout that time. I cannot understand why half an hour ago the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom did not just apologise for his decision making and lack of judgment and say that Peter Mandelson should be subject to a criminal investigation.

Neither the Labour party nor the Government, or indeed this House or the right hon. Member, knew about the information that was made available by the US Department of Justice only a matter of days ago. As soon as that information became available, the Government have acted accordingly. In respect of the previous decision of the Prime Minister to sack Peter Mandelson as the ambassador to the United States, the Prime Minister was very clear with this House and, indeed, the public that he did so quickly, as soon as the extent and depth of the relationship became clear from the disclosure that took place. The Prime Minister relied on the information provided by Peter Mandelson at the time of his appointment. As soon as that information changed, the Prime Minister acted quickly and removed him from office.

The public are asking how on earth Peter Mandelson ever got to be appointed ambassador to the United States, given what was known. One would presume he passed some sort of security check or vetting. As well as an inquiry into Peter Mandelson’s appointment, can the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister reassure the House and the public on behalf of the Prime Minister that everyone in No. 10 who advocated for, or had influence in, securing Peter Mandelson’s appointment, in spite of what was known about his relationship with Epstein, had security clearance, which is a key protection to guard against improper influence and exposure for our country?

All due process was followed. As the Prime Minister made clear, it was clear that additional measures for political appointments needed to be put into place, which have now been put into place. I remind my hon. Friend and the House that the information that became available, both at the time the Prime Minister sacked the former ambassador to the United States and in the last few days, only became available to the Prime Minister and the Government at the same time as everybody else.

Can the Minister not see that it is in the Labour party’s interest, as much as it is in the national interest, that this issue of stripping Mandelson of his peerage should be resolved as soon as possible and that wider legislation is brought in subsequently? The Minister may be a little young to remember when the late John Prescott compared Mandelson to a scorpion in a jam jar that he was holding, but can he explain to the House the fatal fascination of Labour leader after Labour leader appointing this man to post after post, given his chequered record of corruption and multiple resignations?

I say to the right hon. Gentleman and the House that, whether it is Peter Mandelson, Michelle Mone or other peers who have brought the other place into disrepute, there needs to be a process for removing peerages. The Government are making it very clear today that this should be conducted on a cross-party basis to ensure the integrity of the other place and our democracy in the future, as it relates to all peers. I encourage Members across this House, and in the other place, to make sure those proposals are brought forward swiftly.

Mandelson’s behaviour fell well below the expected standard for a long time, but he was disgracefully allowed to resign very quietly, even though he was sacked as ambassador to the US last year—more action should have been taken last year. I ask the Chief Secretary to do everything he can to expedite legislation to remove all the privileges from this awful man as soon as possible.

The Government stand ready to work with the appropriate authorities in the House of Lords to update its procedures, and as I informed this House, we have written to them today to start that process. We hope to move as quickly as possible.

I want to focus on the victims—the children and young girls who were trafficked. Will the Government confirm that any UK-linked offences will be fully investigated, that all evidence will be acted upon, and that anyone implicated, whatever their status, will be pursued with the full force of the law to ensure that victims and survivors receive the justice and support they deserve?

The hon. Lady is right that the victims of Jeffrey Epstein need to be at the centre of all our attention. The Government will, of course, co-operate with any investigations that take place. As we have said repeatedly, anybody with any information should make themselves available to investigators, whether here or overseas.

I thank the Chief Secretary for his statement. Gloucester residents will rightly be angry and incredibly disgusted by the revelations in the papers released by the American Government over the weekend. It is in the interests of the whole House that we get this place in order so that those who commit heinous acts, who align themselves with people like Jeffrey Epstein, are no longer in this place, and so the public can have trust that we are acting in their best interests.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he and the Government will act at pace to ensure that that man is removed from the House of Lords? Will he update the House on the steps the Government have taken to improve the direct appointments process since Peter Mandelson was removed as ambassador?

I share my hon. Friend’s disgust at what has taken place. As I have said, the House of Lords must update its procedures to ensure that there are consequences for the behaviour of Members who bring their House into disrepute. The House of Commons has been able to do that in recent years, and there is no reason why the other place should not. The Government stand ready to support the House of Lords in whichever way is necessary to make sure that is put into effect.

Appointing Peter Mandelson to our premier ambassadorship was always a grotesque error of judgment by the Prime Minister, given everything we knew about this man. Now we are told that this man leaked confidential information to a convicted sex offender when he was a Cabinet Minister and took tens of thousands of pounds in secret backhanders. It is a total disgrace.

Has the Minister really come to the House to say that he does not intend to bring forward primary legislation to deal with this now but will write to the House of Lords to seek support for modernising its procedures in a few months’ time, and that he will not go proactively to the police to demand an investigation when Peter Mandelson has clearly broken the law and now stands accused of serious misconduct in public office and should be tried for his offences?

As I have said repeatedly, the Government will, of course, co-operate with any investigation and encourage everybody to do so. We stand ready to introduce legislation at pace, if required, and to work with the House of Lords to update its procedures. We agree that that needs to happen, and that it needs to happen quickly.

I gently say that when the right hon. Member was a member of the Conservative party at the point Peter Mandelson was first appointed to the ambassadorship to the United States, the official Opposition did not object in any way.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes were utterly abhorrent, and our thoughts should always be with the women and girls whose lives were destroyed by him and his network. The revelations over the weekend were utterly disgusting. Does the Chief Secretary agree that the Cabinet Secretary should undertake an immediate review of Peter Mandelson’s actions when he was a Government Minister, particularly in relation to the issue raised by the previous Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, of the potential and unacceptable disclosure of Government papers and information when this country was battling a global financial crisis?

I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. The Cabinet Secretary is today reviewing the Government archives to see what information is available for that time, not just in relation to the sale of RBS assets to JP Morgan, as requested by the former Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, but, more broadly, during the time that Peter Mandelson was a Labour Minister in the then Government.

Do the Government believe that Lord Mandelson should be stripped of his peerage, yes or no? If they do believe that, they should bring forward primary legislation to do just that. I am afraid the Minister’s excuse of a queue does not wash. Will they bring forward legislation for the disgraced Lord Mandelson, their friend? If they do not, and he keeps his title despite Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor being stripped of his, what rank hypocrisy that would be. How much further can this Government stain their tarnished reputation?

As I have repeatedly said, neither the Labour party nor this Government seek to defend Peter Mandelson, as the right hon. Lady implies. The Leader of the Opposition has herself called for Michelle Mone’s peerage to be removed. The point I make is that that cannot happen either, because the processes are not up to date in the House of Lords. It would be better to bring forward changes to ensure that the rules can be applied to all Members of the House of Lords in these circumstances, whether Peter Mandelson or Michelle Mone, and we stand ready to do so.

I thank the Chief Secretary for coming to Parliament at the first opportunity to address this issue. Epstein’s crimes were vile, and I cannot begin to imagine how these latest revelations must have compounded the pain for all the women and girls who were victims. Many in this House have already spoken powerfully about our collective alarm at the revelations in the last few days of Government information being passed to Epstein in 2009. I fully support the decision to have an investigation, but, for public trust, will the Chief Secretary reassure me that the Cabinet Secretary will be given everything he needs so that his investigation may move at pace?

I agree with my hon. Friend and again reiterate that if any Minister were found to be forwarding Government information in that way, they would be quickly removed from post under the rules that we have today and could be made subject to a recall petition in their constituencies by the House authorities. In respect of the Cabinet Secretary’s work, officials from the propriety and ethics team and elsewhere in the Cabinet Office are of course supporting his investigations in reviewing what documents are available in the archive, because the Prime Minister has made it very clear that he wishes the Cabinet Secretary to report back to him as a matter of urgency.

The files released on Friday are an horrific record of the relationships among the rich and the powerful, including Elon Musk and Donald Trump, and we have seen mention of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, and of course Peter Mandelson. It is horrific and, as other Members have mentioned, we must keep the victims at the forefront of our minds. We have heard the discussion of the email that Peter Mandelson sent to Epstein about business issues, and there was a second one in 2010 in which he gave a preview of the €500 billion bail-out that was imminent. In the light of that, will the Government be proactive in encouraging a police investigation? Are they in discussions with the US Department of Justice about unredacted emails and, potentially, documents that have been withheld and not yet released, which detail the offending further? Will they also republish Peter Mandelson’s entries in the register of interests from his election in 1992 through to 2010?

I think the Register of Members’ Financial Interests is a matter for the House, not the Government, but I am sure that the House authorities will have heard the hon. Gentleman’s question. He asked a question about an investigation, and the answer is yes. Everybody—whether it is the Government, individuals involved or those with any knowledge—should co-operate with any investigation. As he said at the start of his question, if the victims of Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes are at the heart of all our thinking, the answer has to be justice.

The latest information appears to show that Peter Mandelson, when he was a Minister, worked alongside one of the world’s most notorious paedophiles and conspired against the interests of the British people in pursuit of money, power and influence. That strengthens the case for a Hillsborough law to hold those in power properly to account. Under that law, Ministers who used their office to gain a benefit—financial, reputational or otherwise—or who caused detriment to others while knowing that their conduct was improper, would face up to 10 years’ imprisonment. It cannot come quickly enough.

Can I ask the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister a simple question? Will the Government commit to an immediate investigation into who knew what about Peter Mandelson, before and during his disastrous appointment as ambassador to the United States?

I congratulate my hon. Friend on all his tireless campaigning on the Hillsborough law, and I reaffirm the Government’s commitment to bringing that legislation back to the House as soon as possible. In respect of Peter Mandelson’s appointment as ambassador to the United States, and the Prime Minister’s decision to sack him when more information became available, the Prime Minister has spoken at length on that, both at the Dispatch Box and elsewhere in public.

Labour appointee Lord Mandelson has been a pivotal figure in the Prime Minister’s leadership project, and this is now a damage limitation exercise for the Government. There is deep irony in the fact that a Government can appoint people to the House of Lords, but cannot clear up their own mess. Why have the Government not referred this to the police? Does the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister admit that this is doing grave harm to the public’s confidence in the accountability of our democratic institutions?

The Cabinet Secretary, as we speak, is reviewing the Government archives to see what documents we have available on the time when Peter Mandelson served as a Labour Minister. As I have informed the House, the documents released by the US Department of Justice in the preceding few days contained information new to the Government, and we will do all we can to both highlight the information we have and co-operate with any investigation that takes place.

I thank the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister for his statement. Does he agree that unless this legislation that we are talking about is brought through swiftly, we run the risk of diminishing any confidence that victims of serious sexual abuse and violence have in Ministers and people who make decisions and laws?

My hon. Friend is right that the public expect that if we break the law or the rules, there should be consequences. In this House, that is the case, but in the House of Lords, it is not. That is why the Government are encouraging the appropriate authorities in the House of Lords to come forward with proposals to change that. If the Government are required to assist in any way, including by making time available in this House, we will.

There are two issues here, one of which is the connection of a Member of the House of Lords to a convicted paedophile, but let us not forget that he is not the only recent Labour appointee who has been connected to a convicted paedophile; Lord Matthew Doyle, who was appointed only recently, has also maintained a persistent connection with a convicted paedophile.

Does the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister agree that it is not enough to refer the matter to the Cabinet Secretary, and that the police should be called immediately? We are seeing misconduct in public office, and this goes all the way to the Prime Minister’s chief of staff. The possibility of the destruction of evidence and the obscuring of a future prosecution is now increasing, and that is being masked by the Government.

I have to refute in the strongest possible terms any accusation that the Government would seek to interfere in, or block, any investigation in relation to Jeffrey Epstein. It is absolutely wrong to suggest that documents would be made unavailable or deleted. The Cabinet Secretary is today reviewing the Government archives from the time in question, and as I have said, he will comply with any investigation that takes place. The right hon. Gentleman must know that accusing me or other parts of Government of misdemeanour in such a way is wholly unsatisfactory and—might I say—out of character.

I can recall the description of the scorpion in the jam jar. Mandelson surely has some sort of self-destruct chip inside his head. It was reported in The Times this afternoon that Mr Butler, the Downing Street adviser to Gordon Brown, said that the memo containing highly sensitive market information allegedly leaked by Mandelson presented an unimaginable breach of trust. Does the Minister agree that this looks like political insider trading on a grand scale, and would he support not only an independent inquiry, but a criminal investigation?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that releasing Government information in and of itself, let alone for personal or commercial gain, is wrong and a breach of rules that we all must comply with. If that is what happened, there should be appropriate investigations and consequences for that behaviour.

I am afraid that it is untenable to suggest that what was already known of Mandelson’s simpering after the conviction of Epstein was not enough to make it inappropriate for him to be ambassador, and I did object to that from day one, on that exact basis, as Hansard shows. I am afraid that a number of questions to the Cabinet Secretary—to whom I wrote on 5 December, alongside my hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies)—still have not been answered, so I would be grateful for the answers today. Did Mandelson receive a taxpayer-funded severance payment after stepping down as ambassador? If so, how much was it? Will details of his contract be published, in the name of transparency? Was any non-disclosure agreement signed, and when did Lord Mandelson’s salary formally cease? These are not unreasonable questions, but almost two months on, I have had no response from the Cabinet Secretary. That gives me enormous concern.

On the first part of the hon. Lady’s question, as the Prime Minister made very clear, when the extent and depth of the relationship between Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein post his conviction became clear, the Prime Minister moved very quickly indeed to sack Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United States. The Prime Minister was not aware of that at the point of Peter Mandelson’s appointment, and Peter Mandelson made certain commitments to the Prime Minister that obviously turned out to be untrue. On the hon. Lady’s letter to the Cabinet Secretary, I will feed what she has said back to the Cabinet Secretary and ensure that she gets appropriate answers to her questions.

Could the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister explain what steps this Government have taken to make sure that the voices of the victims and survivors of sexual abuse and violence are heard by those in power?

My hon. Friend knows that the Government have committed to reducing violence against women and girls, and have recently brought forward a strategy, setting out how we will work across Government to do just that in the years ahead. Specifically on the victims of Jeffrey Epstein, we will continue to do all we can to support any investigations in order to ensure justice for those victims, and we encourage everybody with any information to do the same.

I asked the Prime Minister in this Chamber, on behalf of my constituents who were asking the same thing, why Peter Mandelson had been appointed our most senior ambassador at all, given the knowledge of his links with Epstein. By September, it was clear just how close that relationship had been, yet the PM did not immediately sack him, and there still was not a full investigation of Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein. Why is that investigation happening only now? The Prime Minister has stated his commitment to restoring trust in public life; how does the Minister square that promise to uphold standards with the delay in investigating this relationship?

I am not sure that I agree with the hon. Lady that there has been any undue delay in investigation. At the time of his appointment, Peter Mandelson gave the Prime Minister a commitment about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, but it became evident when documents were released that the reality was different. Within a matter of days of the extent and depth of the relationship becoming clear, the Prime Minister sacked Peter Mandelson from his post as ambassador to the United States. Now that even more information has become available, the Cabinet Secretary is reviewing what documents are available in the Government archive, and will of course comply with any investigation that may take place.

I thank the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister for his statement. His focus on the victims of these terrible crimes is absolutely right. The majority of us in this House, whatever colour rosette we wear, come here to represent our constituency, and I hope I show that I represent my constituency as well as I can, every single day. When we hear of an MP, or in this case a Government Minister, representing the interests of outside bodies—in this case, a vile paedophile —it is absolutely disgraceful, and very upsetting to those of us who come here for the right reasons. What will the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister do, working with the PM, to ensure that we have a strengthened ministerial code, so that this can never happen again?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Government, and specifically the Prime Minister, have already strengthened the ministerial code that we are all subject to in this House, and have made the ethics adviser independent. That gives the ethics adviser the authority to investigate Ministers freely, without requiring permission from the Prime Minister, in contrast to what happened under the previous Administration. That has already been shown to be effective; Ministers have had to stand down as a consequence of breaches of the ministerial code. It is right and proper that we have robust rules in this House for Ministers and Members, and it is about time that we had similar processes in the House of Lords.

Try as he might, the Prime Minister cannot escape his responsibility in this latest scandal to engulf Peter Mandelson. Ordering a very limited investigation into Peter Mandelson’s activities is pretty meaningless. We need an investigation that is fully independent of Government and the Labour party, with the scope to investigate not just Mandelson, but those who put him in the House of Lords, those who promoted him to UK ambassador to the United States, and those who have done everything possible to protect him over several decades, despite his scandal-ridden career. Does the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister agree?

The Prime Minister has acted at every stage with integrity. It is Peter Mandelson who has to be accountable for the actions of Peter Mandelson. To suggest that the Prime Minister should be responsible for the actions of Peter Mandelson is obviously wrong-headed. As I said in my statement, Peter Mandelson, who is no longer a member of the Labour party, should be accountable for his actions, and should account for them.

It is disgraceful that the Government are choosing not to bring forward legislation to remove Peter Mandelson from the House of Lords; it is entirely within their gift to do so. The public know that, and will be not only alarmed by the fact that the Government are not doing that, but questioning the motive for their delay. On what date exactly did Peter Mandelson cease to be paid by the Government?

As the hon. Lady knows from the discussion in the House today, it is not that we do not wish to take action in respect of Peter Mandelson; it is that we expect action to be taken that affects all Members of the House of Lords, including other peers who need to be removed from the Lords as a consequence of their behaviour. We stand ready to act swiftly on that, and have asked the House of Lords to bring forward proposals for doing just that.

The revelations in the press that Peter Mandelson was, while Business Secretary, leaking confidential Government secrets to paedophile Jeffrey Epstein should be more than enough evidence to warrant his expulsion from the House of Lords, yet we hear that this will not happen through legislation. Sadly, this is yet another scandal in the House of Lords. While Labour has promised major Lords reform for over 100 years, time and again it has kicked the can down the road. Does the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister agree with many in this House that rather than our desperately trying to reform an embarrassingly broken system, it is time for the House of Lords finally to be abolished?

The hon. Member knows that the Government have stated and believe that Peter Mandelson should not be a Member of the House of Lords and should not use his title, but he is right that the rules need to be updated to allow that action to be taken by the House of Lords. We have written to the House of Lords authorities today to say that this work must begin, and the Government stand ready to support them on that.

To be fair to Peter Mandelson, I think the crustacean in John Prescott’s jam jar was a crab, not a scorpion.

In our system, it is very unusual to appoint ambassadors and high commissioners from outside the ranks of the civil service, and for pretty good reason. When they are appointed from outside the civil service, and particularly when the appointee is a politician with baggage, as here, the appointer has to own it, because he made that decision—in this case, against advice. What does the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister think this fiasco says about the judgment of our Prime Minister?

The Prime Minister’s judgment was made clear when, as soon as information that he had been misled by Peter Mandelson became available, he sacked him.

The actions of Peter Mandelson are a disgrace, and I support the proposals to remove him without delay, but he is not the only British person implicated in the appalling Epstein files. What are the Government doing to ensure that all those linked to Mandelson, Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and any political, public or civic figure are fully investigated here? We should not just co-operate with US authorities but take action on all the crimes committed on our soil.

The hon. Lady knows that it is not the Government who instigate criminal investigations. It is for the Crown Prosecution Service and the police to take those decisions independently of Ministers. Whether in respect of UK investigations or investigations in the United States, the Government have made it very clear that all individuals should comply with those investigations and make any information available, to ensure that the victims of Jeffrey Epstein’s acts can see justice.

When the Prime Minister sacked Lord Mandelson as the American ambassador, Ministers came to the Dispatch Box and I pointed out to them that for the whole time he was our ambassador he had been subject to politically fatal kompromat, which left him open to leverage—as it finally played out. I said that if we had found out he was spying for Russia or China, we would be turning every single aspect of his time in office inside out, to find out the truth, and the Government said, “Well, he’s been sacked.” Does the Minister regret the fact that, following Mandelson’s sacking, the Government did not do the sort of due diligence and inquiries that might have unearthed the documents from the Department of Justice?

To be clear, the documents produced by the United States Department of Justice were not available to the Government until they were released a number of days ago. As soon as they have become available, we have instigated processes in our own authorities to make sure that we have a clear view of what information was available to the Government at the time and to comply with any investigations that may take place.

As so many of my colleagues have rightly said, our thoughts today should be first and foremost with the victims. I hope that no political party in this Chamber would use this as an excuse to cover the backs of some of the less fragrant Members of the House of Lords. The fact that Lord Mandelson was, as ever, interested only in the ruthless pursuit of financial gain will come as a surprise to no one. No. 10 is now saying that Mandelson should lose his peerage, and I wholeheartedly concur. However, is it not staggering that Members of this House seemed more aware of Mr Mandelson’s skeletons in the wardrobe than the Prime Minister who appointed him?

As far as I am aware, no Member of this House had access to the information recently published by the United States Department for Justice, or to the documents that were released at the time the Prime Minister sacked the ambassador to the United States. The Prime Minister has previously been very clear to the House that had he had access to that information, he would not have appointed him in the first place.

The Minister indicated that Mandelson assured the Prime Minister that his relationship with Epstein was of a different nature. Can he explain what sort of relationship with a convicted paedophile would be acceptable in that role? Will the Prime Minister come back to the House to make a specific statement on the advice he received regarding Mandelson’s conduct?

The information that became available in September that led to the sacking of Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United States made it clear for the first time, to all of us and to the Prime Minister, that Peter Mandelson not only remained a friend of Jeffrey Epstein following his conviction but had actively mentored and encouraged him on how to challenge that conviction and push back against it. That was one example —there is now a list of examples—of how the depth and extent of the relationship between Jeffrey Epstein and Peter Mandelson, following Jeffrey Epstein’s conviction, was unacceptable. If the Prime Minister had known that at the time Peter Mandelson was being considered to be ambassador to the United States, he would not have appointed him, and as soon as the Prime Minister became aware of that information, he sacked him.

The Epstein files suggest that Lord Mandelson was prepared to lobby in the United States in 2009 for a policy position in contradiction to that of Her Majesty’s Government, in which he was then serving as Business Secretary. Will this revelation encourage the Government to find out whether Lord Mandelson lobbied against his Government while serving last year as British ambassador to the United States? Can the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister find out whether this lobbying against British Government policy is revealed in US policy towards the UK?

As I have informed the House today, the Cabinet Secretary is reviewing all documentation relating to Peter Mandelson’s time as a Minister in the last Labour Government to see what information is available today, and we will comply with any investigations that take place as a consequence. The hon. Member is right that any Minister acting against the collective decisions of Cabinet and against the Government is in breach of the rules. It is unacceptable behaviour, and if any Minister were to do that today, they would be quickly dismissed.

It is disturbing to read of Peter Mandelson’s role when holding high office in government. I just remind the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister that Mr Mandelson was also the EU trade commissioner for five years. I believe that needs investigating, too, because how far does this go? It is my understanding that the latest releases may have made public the names of victims that had not previously been released. Can the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister please assure the House that any British victims who have been made public will have support and help to make their way through what could be a retraumatising experience, with press invasion and interference?

I was not aware of that issue, so I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing it to my attention. If there are any British victims affected by the crimes of Jeffrey Epstein, whether in relation to the latest publication of documents or otherwise, Government services stand ready to be of support to those victims and to ensure that they can seek justice.