Peter Mandelson fury grows as talks begin over new regulation to kick him out of Lords
Health minister Karin Smyth confirmed that cross-party talks have opened over new legislation that would see Peter Mandelson kicked out of the House of Lords amid growing anger
Peter Mandelson has responded to a newly-released photo released by the US Department of Justice(Image: DoJ)
Peter Mandelson has claimed he does not recall why he was pictured in his underpants talking to a woman in Jeffrey Epstein’s flat.
The peer sparked anger after claiming he had “a lot of bad luck” and defiantly ruled out hiding from public life. The Government has opened cross-party talks on new legislation to kick him out of the House of Lords, a minister confirmed.
In an interview published overnight Mandelson defiantly said he would not shy away from public life. He told The Times: “I’ve had a lot of bad luck, no doubt some of it of my own making.” He continued: “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.”
READ MORE: Peter Mandelson ‘misconduct’ reports reviewed by police amid Epstein files furyREAD MORE: ‘Lord Mandelson’s underpants photo was last straw but his story is far from finished’
During the interview – conducted on January 25, before more allegations about his conduct came to light – he claimed being sacked as ambassador the US was “like being killed without actually dying”. A tranche of emails and photos also included a picture of Mandelson in his underpants talking to a woman.
He told The Times he had “no idea what I am doing in this photograph or who the woman was. It looks as though she came in and showed me something on an iPad”.
Health minister Karin Smyth said Labour has reached out to other parties to draw up water-tight laws to remove peers who disgrace Parliament. It comes as Labour grandee Baroness Harriet Harman warned Mandelson’s actions were a stain on British politics as she called for him to be removed.
Asked if he grasped the seriousness of his predicament, Ms Smyth said: “I think by the sound of that interview, that would suggest not.” The Government faces calls to push through legislation to kick Mandelson and other disgraced peers out – but has said doing so is complex as it requires primary legislation which would have to be passed in the Lords.
Police are reviewing reports of misconduct in a public office after Peter Mandelson was accused of leaking sensitive information to billionaire paedophile Jeffrey Epstein. The country’s top civil servant has also been tasked with carrying out a review after documents apparently showed Lord Mandelson passing information to Epstein while the peer was a cabinet minister in Gordon Brown ’s government.
Documents released by the US Department of Justice indicate Epstein was sent details of internal discussions from the heart of the UK government after the global financial crisis. Mandelson, the then-business secretary, appeared to tell Epstein he would lobby ministers over a tax on bankers’ bonuses in 2009, and to confirm an imminent bailout package for the euro the day before it was announced in 2010.
Bank statements from 2003 and 2004 appeared to show he received payments totalling 75,000 US dollars from the financier, and Epstein is also said to have paid for an osteopathy course for Mandelson’s husband. Quizzed on Sky News about what Keir Starmer was doing to remove him, Ms Smyth said: “We’re all learning the rules. Peter Mandelson is not the first Lord to have been in disrepute.
“But this issue is about bringing forward new legislation. We don’t have a majority in the House of Lords, so that has to be done in cooperation with all parties. That’s why we’ve asked for all parties to come together to look at look at this, and make sure that any legislation comes forward is fit for purpose.
“And it’s not just about one individual, it is a wider issue. So we have set that process in train.” She said other parties were approached on Monday to look at ways of drawing up legislation.
Baroness Harman told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “What’s so terrible about what Peter Mandelson has done is that it’s played into the sense that people have that politicians are all the same, we’re all in it for ourselves, we’re all in it for money.
“That is not the case, but what Peter Mandelson has done is cast a stain over, not just this Government, but over politics as a whole. I’m sure the Government are in absolutely no doubt about the seriousness of it, and will be taking action and Peter Mandelson will be held accountable.”
She continued: “I was of the view that Peter Mandelson was untrustworthy from the 1990s, but he was appointed by Tony Blair, he was appointed by Gordon Brown, and appointed again by Sir Keir Starmer.
“But even I, who had a view that he was untrustworthy, I could never have believed that, Gordon Brown having appointed him to the cabinet, that he would sit in that cabinet and leak information whilst the government was struggling to protect the country from the global financial crisis. Even I have been shocked at the degree of his wrongdoing.”
She went on to say she believes Labour’s manifesto pledge to remove disgraced members from the House of Lords will be “got on with”, adding: “In the meantime, I think the Prime Minister could be advising the King to stop him from being a privy councillor.
“And I also think that, he’s on leave of absence, at the moment, from the House of Lords, having stepped out of the House of Lords to be our ambassador, and I think it would be good for the Lords to pass a motion to say that he’s not to reapply to come back in.”
In a statement on Monday evening , the Metropolitan Police Commander Ella Marriott said: “We are aware of the further release of millions of court documents in relation to Jeffrey Epstein by the United States Department of Justice. Following this release and subsequent media reporting, the Met has received a number of reports relating to alleged misconduct in a public office. The reports will all be reviewed to determine if they meet the criminal threshold for investigation.”
A Government spokesperson said: “It is rightly for the police to determine whether to investigate and the government stands ready to provide whatever support and assistance the police need.”
