Joshua Nevett
Political reporter

Image source, Getty Images

A call for an independent public inquiry into the links between prominent British figures and the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein has been backed by 21 Labour MPs.

The call has been made in an early day motion, tabled in Parliament, by the Labour MP Nadia Whittome.

Whittome said the Epstein files make it clear that the disgraced financier “kept a close relationship with a number of British public figures”.

“His victims, and the public more widely, need to know the truth about the extent to which these public figures and British institutions may have been complicit in his crimes,” Whittome said.

Early day motions (EDMs) are parliamentary tools used by MPs to call for a debate about a particular topic.

Most motions that are debated are tabled by the government, which controls the majority of the parliamentary timetable.

As there is no specific time allocated to EDMs, very few are debated and it's unlikely this one will be.

That said, EDMs do demonstrate the level of parliamentary support for a point of view.

This one has been supported by 35 MPs from six different parties, including 21 from the Labour backbenches.

Many of the Labour MPs who signed this motion are known critics of Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and have regularly spoken out against decisions made by his government.

Members of the public have been sharing their thoughts on Starmer's apology for believing Mandelson’s “lies” and appointing him as the UK's ambassador to the US.

• Speaking to BBC Radio 5Live, Isobel in Peacehaven says Starmer's apology “came across as very genuine" and "directed at the victims and survivors”
• However, Colin, from Bury St Edmunds, believes the apology was "a bit hollow" and the PM is "trying to save his job"
• Starmer is in a "very difficult position", says Jo in Coventry, who thinks the PM was naive to appoint Mandelson - but needed someone who could handle Trump's character
• Simon in Marlborough says"even when politicians are caught with their trousers down, I don’t think I’ve ever heard a politician stand up and say ‘I was wrong’"
• While Guy in Coventry believes that if Starmer takes responsibility, it will cost him his job. “I would be amazed if we are sat here in three months time and he’s still leader of the party,” he adds

Image source, PA

Keir Starmer has faced calls to resign by some members of his own party over the Mandelson saga. Here's how other parties have been reacting to his future as prime minister in recent days:

• Tory leader Kemi Badenoch has called on Labour MPs to "speak to [her] team", adding that she is "ready to talk seriously about a vote of no confidence" in the PM
• Lib Dem leader Ed Davey also wants a vote, saying the British people "can't afford for this Labour soap opera to drag on for months"
• Reform's Zia Yusuf says Starmer's "entire offering" to the British electorate was that he would "not be corrupt and sleazy", adding that the "buck" for Mandelson stops with the PM, and that he should resign
• Green Party leader Zack Polanski writes that Mandelson "rot" goes "to the heart of this Labour govt"

Image source, PA Media

We've been hearing from a range of voices overnight and this morning regarding Keir Starmer's historic appointment of Peter Mandelson as US ambassador.

Here's a recap if you're just joining us:

• The PM's apology to Epstein’s victims was “nowhere near enough” for Labour MP Brian Leishman, who says questions about Starmer’s future are developing “hour by hour”

• Starmer was “let down” by his advisers, according to Labour MP Simon Opher, who believes the PM's chief of staff Morgan McSweeney needs to go
• The gravity of the situation can't be understated, according to Starmer’s former comms director James Lyons, who says it's not yet clear which other public figures could be dragged into the scandal
• Meanwhile, Home Office minister Mike Tapp has praised the government for “owning” its mistakes, while Epstein survivor Marina Lacerda says Starmer's apology is “a huge step”

Harry Farley
Political correspondent

Speak to Labour MPs and there are a handful of names that are frequently mentioned as candidates to succeed Starmer.

Angela Rayner has a deep well of support and affection among Labour MPs. The former deputy prime minister's intervention in the Commons this week was influential in forcing the government to back down and hand oversight of which documents are published to a committee of MPs and peers, rather than government officials.

But she has still not resolved the tax issues that forced her to resign from government in September. So she is not ready to run to replace Starmer.

Another name many MPs would like to see take charge is Andy Burnham, the mayor of Manchester. But a Starmer-controlled Labour committee blocked him from standing in the upcoming by-election in Gorton and Denton, meaning he has no obvious route to becoming an MP anytime soon.

Image source, PA

Shabana Mahmood, the home secretary, commands respect from a segment of Labour MPs. But it's not clear she yet has enough support in the party (80 backers is the minimum needed) to stand.

And finally there is Wes Streeting, the health secretary. He has long harboured ambitions, barely disguised, to be prime minister.

But he was also close to Lord Mandelson. And a number of MPs have mentioned they now fear embarrassing messages between the pair could be revealed as part of huge tranche of documents the government will release in the months ahead.

Significant moments coming up which could be very dangerous for the PMpublished at 11:00 GMT

11:00 GMT

Nick Eardley
Political correspondent

You’ve probably heard the word febrile used to describe the situation at Westminster this week. It was - and perhaps still is. But when MPs go home for the weekend, the briefing often calms down for a few days.

However, the prime minister knows he can’t breathe a sigh of relief just yet.

MPs will be speaking to constituents in the next few days to judge the anger over the Mandelson situation. If they get an earful of the doorsteps, they could return even more angry.

There are some significant moments coming up soon, which could be very dangerous for the prime minister.

Documents

There’s the publication of documents relating to Mandelson. What will they show? Will MPs be convinced the prime minister was lied to when he appointed Mandelson? Could there be more embarrassing revelations?

There’s also the Gorton and Denton by-election at the end of the month. If, as some Labour folk fear, they lose badly - will MPs decide they need to act on their leader?

Elections

Similarly, there are a raft of elections at the start of May. Labour look likely to lose Wales. They could face very difficult results in Scotland and the English local elections too. That has long been seen as a moment where the prime minister will be extremely vulnerable.

Two caveats

Firstly, there isn’t an obvious successor. There are names - Wes Streeting, Angela Rayner, maybe a caretaker of some sort. But many of them have their own baggage (Streeting was close to Mandelson, Rayner’s tax row).

Secondly - MPs don’t know exactly how they would force a change of leader. Some are nervous about the idea of a prolonged leadership campaign in an uncertain world. Others fear they might not get the leader they want - and things could get worse.

But there is no doubt Labour MPs are angry. There have been questions about Keir Starmer’s leadership for some time - the events of the past week have given them more of a sense of immediacy.

After Keir Starmer apologised to the victims of Jeffrey Epstein for believing Mandelson's "lies" and appointing him as the UK's ambassador to the US - one survivor gave her reaction.

Speaking last night, Marina Lacerda told BBC's Newsnight: "I have to commend him for going on national television and admitting he was wrong and apologising to us.

"I think that's a huge step, right.

"You have also people here in America that have not even tried to apologise to us. So I have to commend him for that."

Chris Mason
Political editor

As first reported by the Financial Times, the chief executive of a firm co-founded with Lord Mandelson has announced his resignation this morning.

Benjamin Wegg-Prosser set up Global Counsel with Lord Mandelson after Labour lost the 2010 general election.

Wegg-Prosser told his staff in the last hour he would be leaving the business in the coming weeks.

He concluded his long standing association with Lord Mandelson - and references to them both in the Epstein files released in the last week - was doing the business harm and so he should go.

He insists he has not done anything wrong. His profile page on the company’s website has already been taken down.

Image source, Getty Images

The prime minister's chief of staff Morgan McSweeney is facing calls to resign by some Labour MPs over the Peter Mandelson saga.

It's widely thought McSweeney lobbied for Mandelson to become US ambassador, but Starmer said he has full confidence in his close aide.

McSweeney, who was born in County Cork but moved to London as a teenager, joined the Labour Party in a junior role under Tony Blair and later worked for housing secretary Steve Reed.

Quiet, unassuming, even shy, particularly in public, he went on to mastermind Labour's landslide 2024 general election victory.

He then became Starmer's chief of staff after the dramatic resignation of Sue Gray.

As chief of staff, he has one of the most powerful roles in government which includes advising the prime minister on government policy, party politics and communication strategies.

• You can read more about his career here

Peter Mandelson was sacked from his US ambassador role last September, following the emergence of new emails revealing supportive messages he sent to Jeffrey Epstein after he pleaded guilty to sex offences.

In recent days, more documents released by the US Department of Justice have laid bare the extent of their relationship.

Here's a timeline of their contact over the past couple of decades.

Brian Wheeler
Political reporter

Image source, PA Media

Keir Starmer says Peter Mandelson lied to him about the extent of his friendship with convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein.

Back in September, the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg revealed that Mandelson had been asked by the prime minister about why he had continued his friendship with Epstein after his conviction for soliciting sex with a minor.

As part of the vetting process for Mandelson’s appointment, Starmer asked Mandelson to address three specific questions, which were sent to him via email by the PM’s chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney.

The three questions were:

1. Why has he continued contact with Epstein after he was convicted?
2. Why was he reported to have stayed in one of Epstein's homes while the financier was in prison?
3. And was he associated with a charity founded by Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell that the financier had backed?

The answers Mandelson gave to these questions are now likely to be published by the government, and ministers believe they will show that Mandelson lied.

The BBC understands Mandelson’s view is that he answered questions about his relationship with Epstein in the vetting process accurately. You can read more about the process here.

Home Office minister Mike Tapp is asked on BBC Breakfast where he stands in terms of support for Starmer as prime minister and leader of the Labour Party.

Tapp says: "This is obviously really difficult and what I am very pleased to see is that the prime minster has clearly apologised to the victims and apologised for appointing Mandelson and believing his clear lies.

"I am here on behalf of the government today and I want to extend that apology too."

Tapp is pressed again whether Starmer should be prime minister in light of what has happened. "I do, absolutely," replies Tapp.

He says that the PM has apologised for believing Peter Mandelson’s lies, adding that "transparency is very important and that’s what we are seeing from this government, that’s owning the mistakes".

Harry Farley
Political correspondent

Image source, PA Media

There is real frustration among people I speak to in government that the Metropolitan Police is asking them not to release the documents around Peter Mandelson's appointment as US ambassador.

The argument we're hearing from the prime minister and other ministers is that Mandelson lied during that process about the extent of his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. And they insist these documents will prove that is right.

But Scotland Yard has asked that some documents are not released. Detectives worry they might prejudice their criminal investigation into whether Mandelson committed misconduct in public office by leaking sensitive information to Epstein.

But the so-called Mandelson files that the government must release go much wider than just that around his appointment. They include all "electronic communications" (so WhatsApp messages, emails etc.) between Mandelson and government ministers, officials and special advisers during his time as ambassador.

That is a huge amount of information. It has the potential to be embarrassing for people in government previously close to Mandelson, including the health secretary and possible successor to Starmer, Wes Streeting. All of that information is likely to take several months to discover, and eventually publish.

Here's the headlines making Friday's front pages which are dominated by the political pressure facing Sir Keir Starmer.

The Daily Mail's front page saysformer deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner has told friends she is "ready to go" on a leadership campaign.

However the Daily Telegraph reports that an unresolved HMRC investigation into Rayner's failure to pay a £40,000 stamp duty bill on a flat could hinder any potential bid for the party's leadership.

Elsewhere, the Daily Mirror says there is a "Keir and present danger" to the prime minister's tenure because of Mandelson's relationship with Epstein.

Meanwhile the Times says the release of documents relating to Mandelson's appointment as US ambassador has the potential to be "politically explosive".

• You can read a full and detailed review here of Friday's newspapers

Jack Fenwick
Political correspondent

Image source, House of Commons

The underlying anger among Labour MPs towards Sir Keir Starmer is still palpable.

While the handful of backbenchers who have spoken out publicly are frequent critics of the PM, many more have raised concerns privately.

"He's toast," one Labour MP told the BBC. "It's got an inevitability but not an immediacy about it," another said.

"He's like a wounded wildebeest: fatally wounded but determined to show how strong he is knowing full well the end is nigh," said a third.

Others are more supportive, one writing: "I still think most Labour MP anger is directed at Mandelson himself rather than at Keir."

Jonathan Hinder, the MP for Pendle and Clitheroe, said the PM's decision to appoint Lord Mandelson as US ambassador was a "catastrophic error of political and moral judgement".

Starmer's former political director Luke Sullivan said he thought the PM was "fighting for his premiership".

He told the BBC's Newscast: "I don't think you can understate how serious the situation and the peril is that the prime minister finds himself in."

Former deputy Labour leader Baroness Harriet Harman said the PM's defence that Mandelson lied to him makes him look "weak and naive and gullible".

"I don't think it's inevitable that it will bring him down, but it will bring him down unless he takes the action that it's really necessary for him to take," she told Sky News' Electoral Dysfunction podcast.

Simon Opher, Labour MP for Stroud, believes Starmer was "really let down" by his advisers over the Mandelson scandal.

"There is a lot of anger amongst Labour MPs, because yesterday I wanted to be talking about the cancer care plan not about Peter Mandelson," he tells BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

"Keir Starmer needs to change his advisers in No 10. I think he has been badly advised and he has been really let down, particularly on this decision. I think we need a bit of a clear out of No 10."

Opher was pressed on whether, in his view, this would mean the prime minister's chief of staff Morgan McSweeney being relieved of his duties.

"I think so," Opher said. "I think if my chief of staff had done this, I think he would be looking for another job."

Nick Eardley
Political correspondent

Parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) has set out its understanding on how documents relating to Lord Mandelson will be published.

The committee says the government should decide which documents are made public – and which are not.

They say this will be done by the cabinet secretary, with an expectation the documents are laid before Parliament "very shortly".

The "limited number" of documents which are not made public will then be sent to the committee.

The committee says those documents should be unredacted. It also says the government must make clear which parts of the document are considered prejudicial for national security or international relations.

The ISC will then make its own judgement on whether exemptions should apply. It adds it reserves the right to decide how to deal with that material.

The prime minister's former communications director, James Lyons, tells BBC Newsnight that the Mandelson revelations are "at least the biggest scandal since the expenses scandal" in 2009.

Lyons worked in No 10 from 2024-25, but says he was not consulted on the decision to appoint Mandelson as US ambassador.

"I don't think anyone can understate the gravity of the situation," he says. "I think we could just be in the foothills here."

He adds that it is not yet clear which other public figures could be dragged into the scandal. For context, senior figures in the government are now preparing to hand over tranches of their private messages with Mandelson.

Despite this, Lyons doesn't necessarily think this is the end for Starmer. "Can the prime minister survive? Yes of course he can," he says.

Brian Leishman, Labour MP for Alloa and Grangemouth, says Keir Starmer's apology to Epstein's victims yesterday was "nowhere near enough".

He says the PM has shown "incredible misjudgement" in appointing Mandelson. "It goes beyond saying sorry," he tells BBC Breakfast.

Asked about Starmer's future, Leishman says the situation is developing "hour by hour, day by day". He adds that "people who surround" the PM also need to be looked at, including his chief of staff Morgan McSweeney.

Pushed again on Starmer's future, Leishman says the PM should live by his own words and "put country before party".

Asked how many colleagues share this sentiment, Leishman says he won't speak for others, but adds that their position was clear in the House of Commons on Wednesday, when they called for "transparency, openness and honesty".

Leishman says it is "absolutely, categorically" a good procedure for ministers to hand over private communications with Mandelson.

Jack Fenwick
Political correspondent

No 10 will be relieved that only a handful of backbenchers have publicly questioned the prime minister's position.

But the underlying anger among Labour MPs - towards Sir Keir Starmer - is still palpable.

He's promised to release files related to Lord Mandelson's appointment as the UK's ambassador to the US in December 2024.

Any documents the government deems potentially unfit for the public eye will go to parliament's intelligence and security committee for further scrutiny.

That committee has said it expects the government to provide all documents within scope of that process – which would include personal exchanges between government figures and Peter Mandelson - stretching back to Labour's election victory.

Starmer insists the files will prove that Lord Mandelson lied as part of the process.

But if the documents published cause any further embarrassment for the government - over what was known about Lord Mandelson and Epstein's relationship - it would likely lead to yet another difficult moment in which Labour MPs consider publicly voicing their anger.