Now clear PM knew about Mandelson-Epstein relationship - and concerns were raisedpublished at 16:57 GMT

16:57 GMT

Nick Eardley
Political correspondent

Take a step back.

The big question is about the prime minister's judgement; should he have appointed Peter Mandelson as US ambassador given what was known about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein?

We know more about that relationship now as a result of the emails published in the United States.

But the vetting report published today by the UK government spells out that the prime minister was told the relationship continued after Epstein's initial conviction.

It says: "After Epstein was first convicted of procuring an underage girl in 2008, their relationship continued across 2009-2011."

The prime minister will have had this warning when he chose to proceed.

The report concludes there was a "general reputational risk" over the Epstein relationship.

It also highlights other risks, including Mandelson's political past. Lord Mandelson has repeatedly let it be known that he believes he has not acted criminally, did not act for personal gain and is cooperating with the police.

We also now know that Jonathan Powell - who served as Tony Blair's chief of staff in Downing Street - thought the appointment process had been "weirdly rushed". He is said to have raised concerns with Morgan McSweeney, who was then Starmer's chief of staff - but was apparently told these has been addressed.

The government has not published the document which shows follow up questions being asked of Mandelson, at the request of the Metropolitan Police. This may shed more light on what Mandelson did and didn't reveal when probed by Number 10.

The BBC understands that Lord Mandelson's view is he answered questions about his relationship with Epstein in the vetting process accurately.

But it is clear from today's documents that concerns were raised - and the prime minister was told about the relationship continuing after Epstein's conviction.

The documents contain an email exchange after Mandelson's settlement was finalised, dated 4 February 2026.

In the email, Downing Street advisers discuss a statement they prepared to be released to the media regarding the settlement.

In one email from No 10 staffer Ailsa Terry, she writes they will use the statement that day and agrees that they should let Mandelson know.

"It would also be great to know that there has been a welfare check and to do one each day if that’s OK for a while," she adds.

Image source, .

In an email Peter Mandelson sent to Foreign Office HR after he was sacked, he expressed concern that he receive "maximum dignity and minimum media intrusion" upon leaving the US and returning to the UK.

"I remain a crown/civil servant and expect to be treated as such," he says in the email, dated 17 September 2025.

"How is the FCDO [the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office] assisting in this?"

Chris Mason
Political editor

The Conservatives have criticised the government for paying a £75,000 severance payout to Lord Mandelson, something the chief secretary to the prime minister said they did as the quickest way to remove him as a member of the civil service and avoid an expensive employment tribunal.

In the Commons Darren Jones also said Mandelson initially requested "not just two or even three times, but more than six times the final amount”, and the documents suggest that Mandelson requested a severance payment of £547,201.

I understand Peter Mandelson takes issue with the claim he requested or demanded more than half a million pounds in severance pay and was quick to agree the sum he was eventually paid by the Foreign Office.

I’m told he claims he made it very clear he had no intention of taking his case to an employment tribunal – and that had any issues about him lying been raised he wouldn’t have been entitled to any payout.

Mandelson remains of the view that he did not lie to the prime minister, does not recall being asked questions about Epstein face to face during vetting interviews and answered written questions about his contact with the sex offender after his conviction truthfully and fully.

His account of this and that of Keir Starmer are at odds, but today’s deluge of documents does not verify either claim.

Mandelson has long argued that he accepted Epstein and his lawyer’s version of events, and only discovered the actual truth after his death in 2019.

Today's documents do not contain evidence that Mandelson liedpublished at 16:14 GMT

16:14 GMT

Jack Fenwick
Political correspondent

Image source, Reuters

This release of documents will not end the debate about whether Mandelson “lied” during the vetting process, as the prime minister has repeatedly claimed.

Sir Keir Starmer said earlier this year that Mandelson “portrayed Epstein as someone he barely knew” and that he sacked him as ambassador in 2025 when new information revealed the extent of the pair’s relationship.

He also told MPs on 4 February that Mandelson “lied repeatedly to my team when asked about his relationship with Epstein, before and during his tenure as ambassador” and would never have appointed him if he “knew then what I know now”.

Today’s release of documents does not include evidence that Mandelson lied – though it’s important to remember that some documents cannot currently be released because of the ongoing police investigation into Mandelson.

The BBC understands that Mandelson's view is he answered questions about his relationship with Epstein in the vetting process accurately.

These documents show Starmer was warned about the “general reputational risk” posed by Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein – and his political opponents have already used that to question the prime minister’s judgement.

The documents also show that two senior people in government – the national security adviser Jonathan Powell and the senior foreign office civil servant Philip Barton - also had questions about Mandelson’s appointment.

Powell is said to have believed the process to appoint him was “weirdly rushed”.

What’s not known is whether those concerns ever reached the prime minister directly, though the documents do say that Powell raised it with Starmer’s then-chief of staff Morgan McSweeney.

He said that McSweeney “responded that the issues had been addressed”.

Quite how and why they were addressed is another unknown.

Today's documents are just the first set to be published and the government has said there's more to come.

And within the files that have been shared, there are some redactions, for which the government's set out its approach:

• Material that could harm national security or international relations was referred to the cross-party Intelligence and Security Committee. The committee then considered requests for redaction, made by the government
• Junior officials' names and individuals' email addresses and phone numbers have also been redacted
• A "small amount" of Mandelson's personal data has been redacted
• "Legal professional privilege," which could include correspondence with lawyers or legal advice, is also withheld

An email sent on behalf of Peter Mandelson to a US staff distribution list is dated 11 September 2025, following his sacking as ambassador.

In it, Mandelson writes: "The circumstances surrounding the announcement today are ones which I deeply regret.

"I continue to feel utterly awful about my association with Epstein twenty years ago and the plight of his victims. I have no alternative to accepting the Prime Minister’s decision and will leave a position in which I have been so incredibly honoured to serve."

Mandelson has repeatedly let it be known that he believes he has not acted criminally, did not act for personal gain and is cooperating with the police.

Image source, .

Image source, Reuters

An email from the permanent under-secretary, Oliver Robbins - sent on 27 January 2025 - appears to show US President Donald Trump's administration had no issues with Mandelson's selection.

Robbins writes that following a call with Trump's then-national security adviser, Mike Waltz, there was "no suggestion that Peter’s nomination was an issue in the Trump p/c".

Before we press on with getting through the documents released by the government, here's a brief digest of its accompanying Commons statement and MPs' questions, which all wrapped up a short while ago.

What we heard from Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister Darren Jones:

• He said there were specific documents the government would like to make public, but it could do so yet because due to the Metropolitan Police's ongoing criminal investigation into Mandelson
• Jones also voiced the government's "disgust and horror" at the nature and extent of Mandelson's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein after the financier was convicted in 2008 for soliciting prostitution from a minor
• He also confirmed that Mandelson had requested a severance payment more than six times larger than the final settlement amount
• He conceded that the due diligence process in appointing Mandelson "fell short"

Reaction from the Commons:

• Pressed by the Tories' Alex Burghart on why the government agreed to pay Mandelson a settlement fee, Jones said the government wouldn't have wanted to pay Mandelson £1
• Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davey said today was the first day of "Britain's own Epstein files"
• Criticism came from all sides. The SNP's Stephen Flynn accused the prime minister of not making the victims his first priority when appointing Mandelson

And back again to the documents released by the government on Mandelson's appointment as UK ambassador to the US.

A letter - dated 14 May 2002 - sent to then-PM Tony Blair from his private secretary at the time, Matthew Rycroft.

"Jeffrey Epstein is seeing you at 5pm today," it reads, describing the financier as "very rich" and a "friend of Bill Clinton and Peter Mandelson".

It adds: "Close to the Duke of York."

"Peter says that Epstein now travels with Clinton and Clinton wants you to meet him. He thinks you would find worthwhile a conversation with him about a) science and b) international economic and monetary trends," the letter states.

Image source, UK government

Brian Wheeler
Political reporter

We're moving away from the files quickly as we've just had a response to the release from Ed Davey, the Liberal Democrat leader.

"It’s astonishing Mandelson received a payout even after his longstanding connections to Epstein were discovered," he says.

"These files show beyond doubt the prime minister was made well aware of the risks of his apppointment. What an insult to the women and girls who suffered at Epstein’s hands.

"The disgraced ambassador must donate any severance payment he received in full to charity.

"These are the first documents in Britain’s Epstein files. The government must now release all documents relating to Andrew’s appointment as trade envoy, secured by the Liberal Democrats, by the end of March.”

A letter in the files outlines a meeting on 11 September 2025, chaired by Keir Starmer, during which the decision was made to fire Mandelson.

The letter says Starmer referenced his concern "that the answers Mandelson provided to FCDO PUS Olly Robbins regarding the emails did not give him confidence that there were not further revelations to come".

The letter says Starmer was referring to emails from Mandelson to Epstein - shared by news outlet Bloomberg - sent after Epstein had pleaded guilty to soliciting prostitution from a minor in June 2008.

"The emails revealed a depth and extent of a relationship with Epstein which he [Starmer] had not been aware of previously when he made the decision to appoint Mandelson," the letter reads.

"On this basis, he proposed to ask Mandelson to resign". The PM agreed to withdraw Mandelson from the role.

"The prime minister was clear about his strong concern for Epstein's victims," the letter says.

Image source, .

Jennifer McKiernan
Political reporter

Jonathan Powell, Keir Starmer's national security adviser, said he found Mandelson's appointment "weirdly rushed", the files also show.

The PM's lawyer, Mike Ostheimer, writes following a call with Powell that the adviser raised concerns "about the individual and reputation" to chief of staff Morgan McSweeney.

The adviser also believes Starmer may have had a couple of political conversations around this but Powell was not party to them, according to Ostheimer's records.

Powell had "a vague feeling there was some incoming communication from Lord Mandelson to someone but has low confidence in that or what it was".

Jack Fenwick
Political correspondent

If you're just joining us, the government has published an initial tranche of files relating to the appointment of Peter Mandelson as UK ambassador to the US.

We're trawling through the 147-page dossier now. Here's a bit more on what we've found.

The documents show that during a fact-finding conversation with the prime minister’s lawyer, Matthew Doyle said he recalled a “back and forth” with Morgan McSweeney - Starmer's former chief of staff.

It yielded “three specific questions” that No 10 wanted Mandelson to answer about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.

BBC News understands these questions related to:

• His continued contact with Epstein, after Epstein's conviction in 2008 for soliciting prostitution with a minor
• Reports that he had stayed at Epstein's home while the financier was in prison
• His association with a charity founded by Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell

The police asked Downing Street not to include those questions and the responses to them in this first tranche of documents, because of their ongoing investigation of Mandelson.

In the Commons, Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister Darren Jones has just finished his address, and Alex Burghart has responded for the Conservatives.

MPs in the chamber will now take turns to pose their own questions.

We'll continue to monitor what they say and will bring you any more key lines - but our focus now is on digging through the documents themselves.

Before we turn away, though, here's a quick rundown of an exchange we heard between Jones and a Labour MP.

Labour's Justin Madders says that he "really struggles" to understand why a penny was paid to Mandelson when he was sacked as ambassador.

He asks Jones if he will press Mandelson to give money to the victims of abuse.

Jones replies that the government acted on the basis of legal advice during the settlement.

He repeats that the honourable thing to do would be for Mandelson to donate the money to an appropriate charity.

Image source, House of Commons

Burghart now says it's the PM's judgement that is the problem.

"The prime minister knew all he needed to know. It was on him. It's on him now. He let his party down, he let his country down. And I very much doubt that either will trust again," Burghart says.

Jones responds. He explains that Mandelson was employed as a civil servant, not a minister, and could therefore make a severance claim.

"The government wouldn't have wanted to pay £1 to Peter Mandelson," Jones says, but the award of £75,000 was less than the cost of employment tribunal fees, which led the government to "reluctantly agree".

He says the payment was approved "in line with Treasury business rules, albeit reluctantly".

Image source, House of Commons

Alex Burghart, the shadow secretary for Northern Ireland, begins his response for the Conservatives.

It's "very convenient" the files were published after PMQs at midday today, he notes.

He also says many constituents "will be disgusted" that Mandelson received a £75,000 settlement after he was sacked.

"It is very clear that these victims were not in the prime minister's mind when he appointed Peter Mandelson," he adds.

He questions how people are meant to believe that the prime minister, who was once the director of public prosecutions, could not see through "this nonsense".

Image source, House of Commons

Staying with the action in the Commons, Jones now points to the sum of money requested by Peter Mandelson once he was sacked as the UK's ambassador to the US.

As we reported earlier, one document shows Mandelson began negotiations by requesting £547,201.

His "unacceptable" severance payment request was "substantially larger" than the final payment, Jones says. Another email in the files shows the Treasury agreed to a £75,000 settlement.

He also says the documents reveal that the due diligence process used in the appointment of Mandelson "fell short" and that steps have been taken to address weaknesses in the system.

We're returning once again to the Commons, where the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister is delivering a statement to MPs on the release of the files relating to Peter Mandelson.

Jones says that the prime minister has acknowledged the mistake of making Mandelson the ambassador to the US and has apologised.

He says that there are specific documents the government wants to disclose but the Met Police has asked them not to to do so yet in order to avoid prejudicing its ongoing criminal investigation into Mandelson.

He adds that the committee has agreed to a limited redaction requested by the government in relation to one document released today.

The documents specifically relate to the decision to appoint Mandelson as ambassador, he adds.

Mandelson has repeatedly let it be known that he believes he has not acted criminally, did not act for personal gain and is cooperating with the police.

Let's peel away from the Commons very briefly to delve back into the documents published regarding Mandelson's appointment as British ambassador to the US.

Included is an email sent by Peter Mandelson on 7 May 2002 to Jonathan Powell, who was the chief of staff to Tony Blair during his tenure as PM.

In the email, Mandelson writes that "when Clinton saw TB he said he wanted to introduce his travelling friend, Jeffrey Epstein".

Mandelson adds: "I mentioned to TB that Jeffrey is in London next week and he said he would like to meet him" and asks Powell to let Mandelson know if Tony Blair will be available to meet.

The BBC confirmed in 2025 that the meeting did take place, read more here.

Image source, .