Could the Mandelson scandal bring down Keir Starmer?

This is a global player, a original podcast. Mr Speaker, he lied repeatedly to my team when asked about his relationship with Epstein before and during his tenure as ambassador. I regret appointing him. If I knew then what I know now, he would never have been anywhere near government. And that is why Mr Speaker, yesterday, the cabinet secretary with my support took the decision to refer material to the police. That's the Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, speaking at Prime Minister's questions, offering a mere culper over Peter Mandelson, saying that he regrets appointing him in the first place. That that should be a matter of regret is not surprising. But increasingly MPs, including MPs on his own side, are asking whether this is a fundamental question over his own political judgments. He was forced to admit today that he knew about the ongoing relationship between the Ambassadorial candidate and a known pedophile. If he knew, why did he appoint him? And if we know that now, could it signal the beginning of the end of Keir Starmer? Welcome to the news agents. The news agents. It's Emily. It's Lewis. And Prime Minister's questions and the debate which followed it over Peter Mandelson was dominated by, as we were saying, Keir Starmer's not quite apology but signal of regret and indeed a central question, one that was put by Kenny Badenock again and again. Essentially, what did the Prime Minister know about Peter Mandelson's relationship with Geoffrey Epstein? And when did he know it? This was a crucial exchange. But the Prime Minister cannot blame the process. He did know it was on Google. If the Conservative Research Department could find this information out, why couldn't number ten? On the 10th of September, when we knew this, I asked him at that dispatch box, he gave Mandelson his full confidence at that dispatch box, not once but twice. He only sacked him after pressure from us. I am asking the Prime Minister something very specific, not about the generalities of the full extent, can the Prime Minister tell us, did the official security vetting he received mention Mandelson's ongoing relationship with the pedophile Geoffrey Epstein? Prime Minister, yes it did. As a result, various questions were put to him. I intend to disclose to this House all of the national security, prejudiced to international relations on one side. I want to make sure this House sees the full documentation, so it will see for itself the extent to which time and time again, Mandelson completely misrepresented the extent of his relationship with Epstein and lied throughout the process, including in response to the due diligence. Look, I think we can all agree that no one knew where this was going in terms of the scale or breadth of his lies and his proximity to Epstein. But, Starmer has just admitted that he was aware of Mandelson's ongoing relationship with Epstein when he appointed him as ambassador to the US. And I think that takes us on to something much bigger, which is how complicit people in power were with Epstein's crimes. Mandelson didn't care that he was a convicted pedophile in 2008. He stayed in his flat in 2009 as business secretary. But I think it also applies now to Keir Starmer, the minimizing of that relationship and that friendship when he says Mandelson misrepresented that relationship. What does that mean? You knew he was good friends with a pedophile. You've talked in this mantra of let me start with the victims. That does not start with the victims. If you knew that the man you were about to appoint had got an ongoing relationship with a convicted pedophile, why wasn't that ringing alarm bells? And the only answer to that is because you weren't taking those crimes seriously enough. It was a bit of a pedophile or a bit of a friendship or something that happened in the past. None of those are good enough excuses now. And I think it does at this point land at his door to say why any of that was seen as okay this time last year. Yeah, I think that's the prime minister in fairness to him. And those around him could not have known of the extraordinary stream of consciousness, the chronicling of government secrets that were being passed to Jeffrey Epstein by Peter Mandelson. We only know that as we were saying yesterday on the show as a result of the DOJ inquiry, there is no record of it within the cabin office. I've no doubt that he's genuinely gobsmacked by that. They also probably could not have known. In fact, certainly couldn't have known just how lurid the relationship appears to have been between Epstein and Mandelson. Even today we're seeing more emails. Not going to go into it particularly, but the kind of nature and tenor of their discussion at one point. Mandelson asking Epstein, calling Epstein when he was released from prison, his liberation day, asking how he was going to celebrate, mention of strippers and all of this sort of thing. They couldn't have known that either. But Emily, you are right to say that what we already knew, because the Financial Times have reported it, and what Starma has just confirmed there is is that he was aware of the relationship and although he claims to have been misled about it, the fact that he was aware of it and appointed him anyway, basically, adverts to the truth, which is both Starma, McSweeney, but also everybody else basically thought that the relationship was known, but just shallow enough to be socially acceptable and to be politically acceptable. And it was until these documents revealed for everyone to see the true nature of it. But that explanation is obviously a pretty unsatisfactory one, and it's one that is basically, I think, fairly rocking a lot of Labour MPs right now. We could talk about the politics in a bit more detail, but the nature of that debate, which will have concluded by 7pm, so by the time some people are listening and watching this, is basically about Kemi-Badenock, the Conservatives, using what is called a humble address, basically as a parliamentary mechanism to compel the government to release certain documents. And they want the full panoply of information, the vetting process around Mendelssohn, even emails and texts between Mendelssohn and his special advisors, what the Prime Minister knew emails from Morgan McSweeney, all of this, they want it all in the public domain to check against what the Prime Minister has said publicly. The government have accepted that humble address, but with some important caveats, basically saying they want exemptions over what they're calling national security grounds or things that could cause diplomatic embarrassment to the UK. It is true to say that during that debate, even at the time of recording, we are hearing from senior Labour MPs, who are pretty dissatisfied with the idea of those exemptions, up to and including the former Deputy Prime Minister, Angela Rainer, who has said this. Given the public disgust and the sickening behaviour of Peter Mendelssohn and the importance of transparency, in 2022, I proposed a humble address seeking information about PPE, which the party opposite is listed, and my honourable friend, the Member for Hackney South mentioned just before, should we not have the ISC, not have the same role now, in keeping public confidence in the process? I pick up this point, Mr Speaker, because I know a number of hon. and right hon. Members have raised this. I think, in the first instance, let me say, that this process now is going to be conducted and led by the Cabinet Secretary, an impeachable interviewer. I mean, the hon. Gentleman showed to cover up the Cabinet Secretary. He really should consider that remarkable. But secondly, it will be conducted by Cabinet Office lawyers. Now, the House is asking, quite fairly, a broader question, as is my right hon. Friend, about scrutiny. There is a role as the Chair of the Public Account Committee, around House Select Committee, scrutinise this. There is existing powers for the ISC in terms of scrutinising this. I am hearing what the House is saying, and I will take that point away, I'll take one more intervention. There's a political and a policy point there. One is, just on a policy, the ISC is the Intelligence and Security Committee. It's a statutory body, set up by Parliament on the Defence and Security Act. They're basically a group of security cleared MPs and lords. And what lots of MPs are saying, including you heard there from Rainer Labour MPs, are saying that they should be what the ones, not the Cabinet Secretary, the top government civil servant, who decide which documents are put into the public domain, and which aren't. So that is something that is getting more and more interest from MPs from across the House. And of course, just on the raw politics of that, very notable that Angela Rainer should be the one who stands up. And that was, you know, expressing the discontent of a lot of MPs. I'm sure she feels it, but nonetheless it's an interesting political move, just considering how parlour's increasingly case now and now feels. Look, I can't remember any political issue, which seems to have pulled really the whole of Parliament together on the same side. And increasingly, you take Rainer, who wants full transparency, you take the SMP, somebody like Stephen Flynn, calling for a criminal investigation, you take Ed Davie, who wants to see, you know, the documents removed and is pointing at Keir Starman this. And obviously, Keny Baidnock, as the leader of the opposition, all those direct questions to Keir Starman about what he knew. I mean, the government is looking increasingly isolated, as you've said, even from their own party. And any vote, I think that the Conservatives had laid down, Keir's own party would have found difficult to vote against before he brought on this amendment. You know, he basically said, oh, we're going to amend this so that it allows Labour MPs to sort of vote in favour. What we're now hearing, this is from Greedo Forks website, is that Labour is rapidly considering changing the amendment text at the last minute in order to stave off a backbench rebellion. We are recording this at 20 past two. It is entirely possible that actually the government will cave, because there is no public appetite to support Peter Mandelson or his rights at this point, except from, I guess, you know, the small circle around Keir Starman, who feel that the Vultures are circling and this ends up right where he is. And he was asked about Morgan McSweeney, and just to fill in sort of that relationship a little bit more, McSweeney and Mandelson have been very, very close. And it is keenly felt that it was McSweeney's pressure on Keir Starman that delivered the ambassadorial role to Mandelson. Mandelson had done favors to McSweeney in the past, possibly in the form of getting rid of Sue Gray, when there was a sort of power struggle between McSweeney and Sue Gray. And so Keir Starman was asked directly today if he would still support, if he could still publicly support McSweeney. And he said he still has my support, he's a central part of the team. Let's not forget that when he said that about Mandelson last September, Mandelson was gone the next day. So it is entirely possible still that McSweeney will go. But I think, you know, again, I'm very low to sort of reduce it to the minutiae of sort of cabinet roles or advisory roles or spans, because what is really at the heart of this is just how likely people were able to accept crimes of Epstein and proximity of Epstein to Peter Mandelson and go, oh, I'm sure it's fine now. It was never fine. Well, I agree, except that's to say that I don't know. I mean, it just increasingly feels to me like this has a potential never mind about spads or cabinet ministers. I think, you know, Starman could really in real trouble here. It's quite interesting that Santa Rogers, very well connected journalist within the Labour Party, picking up some of the sort of things that I've been texting a few Labour MPs about. She's saying lots of PLP, the parliamentary Labour Party say they're fuming. One Labour MP reports Chris Pincher vibes. People, listeners, viewers will remember Chris Pincher, the Conservative MP who essentially sexually assaulted the Pincher by name. The Pincher by name indeed and Boris Johnson. Basically, yes, it came out Boris Johnson. He'd always called him Pincher by name and everyone was like, well, if you knew that, did you knew that he was handsy and abusive? I think it was to young men in that case. And still appointed him to the role of Deputy Chief Whip. I think, you know, is a case in point that people take it on board, laugh about it and still appoint them. And that spiraled very quickly out of control for Boris Johnson. He'd already obviously been much weakened by the partygate scandal. But nonetheless, it was that in the end that actually did it for him where the Conservative MP said they'd had enough. Just on that point, do you remember what happened? Because Boris Johnson, at that point, had been at the COP in Glasgow and he came back to a dinner that had been organised and it was all about saving Boris. It was about Pincher. How can we save Pincher from getting the sack? There was actually a cultured dinner of people around Boris who were trying to work out how to save Chris Pincher from losing his job. It feels very similar, which is these men do not realise the scale of the crimes they're talking about until it hits them in the face and they have to look at their own positions. And I think the way that there are potentially very uneasy parallels for number 10 is that, as I say, that situation spiraled out of control very quickly. It came atop of existing profound frustrations from Conservative MPs. At that time, sound familiar. You've already got, it's not as if Keir Starmer has got a lot of credit in the bank with the parliamentary Labour Party right now. So I think that the way that Starmer responds now, exactly what the nature of those documents are, what they reveal and whether or not they precisely tell you with what the Prime Minister has said, I think he's now completely crucial. And I certainly don't think that it is an overestimation to say that in particular Morgan McSweeney's role will come under very sharp focus and that he could be on borrow time. And that is significant because at that point then, if McSweeney were to go, there is no one left. And I think that this is now becoming quite quickly or it has the potential to become, let's step back a second, it has the potential, I think, to become a very significant political crisis for Keir Starmer. Not least because, let us not forget, this is a government which has, as part of it, one of its five missions, its strategy to halve violence against women and girls. This is a government that has rightly put that strategy in the spotlight and it sits so uncomfortably, as you say Emily, with what we're seeing and the justifications that he's having to put forward. Yeah, I mean, I think we will see a certain amount of speed on this one. I think that the government will be very keen to get some of those documents out in the next 24 hours, maybe even today, to show that they are on the side of transparency. But I mean, Keir is now sort of caught in a problem partially, I think, of his own making clearly, which is that he can argue that to reveal all these documents would be a breach of national security. I think genuinely we can see that not every single missive that goes between, you know, the foreign office and Trump or the ambassadorial office and Trump or between Starm and Trump can be revealed without us kind of being taken into a whole world of stuff that could be deeply embarrassing and maybe even, you know, deleterious to future relations, I don't know. But I think the appetite is such now that people will not be satisfied if they don't get to the bottom of that relationship between McSweeney, Mandelson and Starmer. That is the sort of triumvirate, isn't it? You want to see the emails exchanged between the three of them that allowed this appointment to happen. And when Keir Starmer says, well, it was misrepresented and he lied. I mean, either the whole vetting procedure is just not fit for purpose and it doesn't work. Or else, even before the vetting system, as to be fair, and Kenny Baidnock said, you could check this on Google, why didn't it strike you then as a bad idea, a risk that simply was not worth taking. I mean, look, there's two categories of problem, right? Is it, look, one way or the other, this poses fundamental questions about Starmer's judgment, right? Let's assume for a second there's nothing in these documents, which is politically explosive or-- That is new, even. Which is new, even, right? I mean, one way or another, best-case scenario for Starmer, is he gets through this, more credit has been expended with his MPs who cannot believe that they're having to defend of all people Peter Mandelson and his relationship with of all people, a pedophile, Jeffrey Epstein, and the Prime Minister's judgment in appointing him in the first place, right? Best-case scenario he gets in with more political capital, expended and even more fundamental questions about his judgment, right? Worst-case scenario, or just next to it, is that either there is something in these documents which shows that there were really serious questions posed by some part of the British security state saying an advice to the Prime Minister, this is a bad idea, whatever it happens to be, or, and/or, there are communications between Mandelson and Morgan McSweeney and/or the Prime Minister, or someone else around the Prime Minister, which is referencing Epstein in some way making light of any of this stuff, not taking it as seriously as it might be taken? And I think that is clearly why, you know, as part of this humble address, there is a reason that Camille Baidnog has specified that she wants to see the emails and text exchanges between the Prime Minister's chief of staff and Mandelson, because I suppose you could say, look, if Mandelson is this industry, with Epstein, is he similarly industry with other close confidants and so on? So I think the potential there and the potential for something that would show the government in a very poor light is potentially quite high in terms of probability. And if that's the case, I think this has the potential to be politically highly flammable for the Prime Minister and a real systemic risk to his government, actually. You mentioned some of the emails that have sort of come to light, and obviously we're still talking about a tranche of three million in these files and so this is taking a bit of time to get sort of dig down. But one, which I think our listeners will be really interested in, which gives you an insight into the relationship between Mandelson and Epstein. And oddly, it's not necessarily the relationship that you thought. It is Epstein berating Mandelson for asking too much. He says, "I'm glad you enjoyed Harvard. However, I must tell you, after years of being by your side, supporting your boyfriend when he needed it, unwavering in my guidance, they're emotionally rejected," what does that mean? "I'm disappointed in what appears to be a one-way street. Jeffrey, can I have? Jeffrey, can you give? Jeffrey, can you organise? Can you call? Can you arrange? You have yet to offer real assistance, sign of gratitude or appreciation. Sorry. It's really interesting." Who would have thought it would be Epstein getting pissed off with you? Epstein is saying that, yes, saying that he feels used by Mandelson. And obviously, there was so much on picking that and a deeper question about what was that relationship between the two men. But I do think this is an interesting response from Mandelson because he says, "I have said and written how much I appreciate your support. It's hard to give to you because you already have so much." In other words, I don't know what to give. But when you didn't have during your trials and tribulations, I was always there with advice and moral support and I never turned away. And I do think that speaks to the imprisonment and the conviction of Epstein that instead of Mandelson saying, "Oh my God, that's a disgusting crime." You know, child sex is a disgusting crime. He thought, "I can show my loyalty by standing by your side." And I do think that takes us into the heart of this kind of, you know, frankly, the bromance where the women are just collateral and they're just literal victims, and the people that are sort of showing how much they care are the men to each other. In a moment, we'll be talking to a senior criminal judge about the state of our legal system right now, about the changes that he believes have to be made to save it, and about what it means to break the official secret sect. [Music] Breaking news, in-depth analysis and trusted voices all in one place. From award-winning journalists asking the questions that shape your world. Prime Minister, you talked about doing patriotic things, welcoming the leader of the opposition, leader of the Conservative Party, Kaby Bates, and on back to the studio. A leader of the Liberal Democrats, Sir Ed Davy. The news that matters from the UK and around the world, and why it matters to you. Free Global Player App, or the LBC App. LBC, leading Britain's conversation. [Music] The news agents. Well, we're going to talk to Sir Brian Levison now. He's the Chair of the Independent Review of the Criminal Courts. And perhaps some of our older listeners will remember the Levison Inquiry. The Levison Inquiry took us into press practices. Nearly 15 years ago. 2011 to 2012. Right, so a long time ago. But you've stepped back into what feels like a very public arena now. A very potentially controversial arena. Why? I practiced as a barrister in the criminal law. I was a judge doing a lot of crime. I became the Chair of the Sentencing Council, and then the President of the Queen's Spanish Division, responsible for crime, and ultimately head of criminal justice. The way in which criminal justice operates in this country has always been an interest of mine, and I've been involved in criminal justice management since 2001. Therefore, what has happened to criminal justice in the recent past has upset me enormously. And given that I did a review on efficiency in the criminal courts in 2015, I felt it necessary to come back when I was asked and do the thing again. In other words, to think again about how our justice system works in England and Wales. You have brought out an 800-page list of failures in the justice system today, saying that the system stands on the brink of collapse. That's not just you being upset, that sounds pretty existential. I think you're absolutely right. So this review is the second part of a two-stage process. I was appointed in December 2024, and in July 2025, I issued the first part of the review on effectively policy, which has caused a lot of controversy. And this part, part two, deals with efficiency. And why is it existential? Well, in 2019, the outstanding cases in our criminal courts, if you like the waiting list, stood at around 40,000. It is rather less, actually, 36,000. It is now about 80,000. In that period of time, it has doubled. And what does that mean? Like, what does it mean for victims of crime, essentially? It means an enormous amount. What it means is that in some courts in London, they are fixing trials for 2029, and indeed in at least 30 cases for 2030. That is a denial of justice for victims, for witnesses, and indeed for some defendants who are anxious to determine how their lives are going to be led. Yeah, there will be innocent people, presumably in those processes who can't get on with anything until they've had a trial. Correct, correct. So there are some measures that you are recommending. Fewer cases that involve juries, for example, plans to introduce legal advice of people detained at police stations by video link. And I guess we are already seeing a certain amount of rebellion from within the Labour Party, the governing party ranks. The question I guess, Sabrina, is, are we at a point where we are making efficiencies at the cost of rights? I don't think the premise is right. I have tried to ensure that our approach to criminal justice is proportionate, is fair, and has regard to the rights of everybody. I am not for a moment denying a single person of a fair trial. But if you get a fractious Labour Party who says we just don't like the direction, this is going in, what happens? We'll have to decide what to do, but I ought to just address your question about juries head on. I am not blaming juries for the state of the criminal justice system. Juries do what juries are there to do. They take longer to do it because they are utterly unversed in the law. Everything has to be explained carefully, properly. And evidence will always be deployed by the parties to the case at the speed of the slowest juror, which they assess looking at the jury and seeing how they're taking in what's going on. What I am saying is that we need to re-engage on the time that is taken in our crown courts. We need Crown Court trials, indictable only trials, that's murder, rape, robbery, drug serious drug offenses, drug importations. All these things will always remain with a jury. But if we are to try to reduce the time taken in a Crown Court, we've got to decide how we're going to do it. It's trying to get the balance right to ensure that everybody can be tried within a reasonable time. The fact is that 60% of people who come to the Crown Court ultimately plead guilty. Ten years ago, they would have pleaded guilty on the first or second occasion that they appeared in court. Now it's the fifth or sixth occasion. And each time they appear, it takes more time. If they're told, well, there's a judge alone ready to try this case or a judge and magistrate ready to try this case. And we'll do it in 10 days' time. Actually, they've then got to make a decision. When I was a young barrister, in November, you'd advise a client, well, I've seen this evidence. It's very strong to me and I don't think your explanation will convince the jury. And if you did it, not if you didn't do it, if you did it, you're much better admitting it now. You can mitigate it by explaining. You can express remorse, apologise, and you get a pragmatic deduction for having saved the state, the cost of the trial, the discount for pleading guilty. And more than once, a defendant said to me, Mr. Levis, I am guilty. But I want to spend Christmas with my kids. I'll plead guilty in January. Now they can say, actually, I want to spend Christmas 2028 with my kids. In other words, I put it off for such a long time that the victim might withdraw, the witnesses might go away, the case may just get lost. And what's not to like? I would just make it easier for criminals. After a debate 10 days ago on this subject, a criminal defence lawyer came up to me and said, "I am having that conversation every day of the week." Now, of course, there are some defendants anxious to know what the score is anyway. Who will want their trials heard? And we'll do nothing to stand in the way of getting it heard. But to say that there won't be a cultural change if some of the less serious offences are taken away from a jury, I think is simply a failure to appreciate what happens in criminal trials. I don't agree with the objections. I think they are, to some extent, traditional. I understand that. I've talked to jurors for 50 years, but it's changed many times. But please don't go back to 1215, which some people have. Until 1898, defendants couldn't even give evidence in their own defence. They simply couldn't give evidence at all. There are three components to the reason for the position we're in. The first is funding. And the Ministry of Justice was never a protected department. And funding for the Ministry of Justice has effectively gone down. Funding for the court service is now still less than it was in 2011. So we've under-invested for 15 years, essentially? Correct. Secondly, complexity. Actually, it has its good bits. We've introduced sensible protective measures for defendants. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act, disclosure of unused material, protections for victims, admissibility of evidence, hearsay and bad character, intermediaries, for defendants, interpreters, for those who English is not their first language. All these protective measures have cost time, quite a part from money. The third element of that complexity is our evidence is very different. Mobile phones 20 years ago were a novel invention. Now everybody has a smart phone. And that makes life harder, you're saying? Oh, much, much more complex. I have listened to a police officer say that police investigations start and may not go further without CD communications data. That's the metadata of your calls, who called what when and where, through which cell site? That identifies where people have moved from. I'm not talking about content at all. I'm talking about the second explanation. Correct. Data has exploded, so researching your mobile phone would produce paper that stacked up to the top of Mount Mont Blanc. Except it doesn't need to be paper that stacks up now. I mean, the responses can be digital as well. Of course, which requires a digital investigation, which itself is complex. Other evidence has also been much more complex to obtain. DNA has changed the landscape, but isn't available for other than the most serious cases. So all these have added to the complexity of trial so that the average trial now takes twice as long as it did in 2011. And then finally, efficiency. We are much less efficient. We're sitting fewer hours, not because the judge is idle, but for all sorts of complex reasons, including the prison escorts contract service, not necessarily failing to do their job. But because the prisons are running so hot, remained prisoners are not in custodial establishments close to court. Therefore, to get them to court takes that much longer. So all these things have caused complexity and time waste. So that's led to the backlog. Finally, I ought to mention COVID added to the backlog dramatically. That's slowed every day. Okay, so let me ask you whether a pricey that you won't like, but I'm going to put it to you anyway, are we in a place that is desperate times calls for desperate measures? That we would be taking steps now that we wouldn't have preferred to do. So I'm perfectly happy with the question that we are in desperate times, but I have been very careful to be focused on what is proportionate and fair. I've not allowed money to be the drive. I've not sought to save money by this review. I've sought to try to rebalance how we approach criminal justice, and we've done it many times in the future. When it was first introduced, somebody before drink driving was able to elect trial by jury. What's the point? That stopped. So now it's summary only. Equally taking a vehicle without consent, summary only. Now, in relation to, for example, to drunk driving, that might lead to a driver losing his livelihood. Because he's been convicted, but he's not entitled to a jury trial. So all these decisions about where to balance, what should be a jury trial, what need not be a jury trial? Is a question of threshold. What I have sought to do is to move the threshold without removing inalienable rights and ensuring that fairness remains absolutely key. But it has to be proportionate, and one also has to have regard to the legitimate interests of victims and society, because at the moment, some victims, particularly of rape and other serious sexual offenses, are simply withdrawing from the process. They need to be able to move on with their lives, and they're not prepared to wait three years for a trial to take place. That's what I've tried to do. You have been victim-focused in a lot of the work that you're doing, and I want to explore with you the scandal that we're right in the middle of at the moment. You are one of the most senior criminal judges, and we are looking now at the scale of the Peter Mandelson scandal. Has that surprised you? Forgive me if I'm not commenting on his case, not least because I understand there's a police investigation. I've not seen the emails, so I'll retreat into saying I'm not going to comment on Peter Mandelson. What I will comment upon is that it's not just victims. Everybody and society as a whole is dramatically affected adversely by a failure properly to deal with criminal justice. We rely on criminal justice to ensure that our society is safe and is protected, so we need the police to investigate whether it's a burglary or a mugging or a shop theft. We need the police to be there and we need the to be a reaction, because if there isn't, then crime will explode. As indeed in relation to the shop theft, it has. It feels like we've spent quite a long time waiting for police investigations on this. I mean, I'm looking at the Prince Andrew case where the police in the last 24 hours have been sort of asked to investigate. I mean, a lot of these cases, we don't see the police come along more quickly. One of the problems the police have is that they have their own financial problems and their own priorities, and they've got to decide how best to use their resources to protect the public. So I'm not going to be critical of the police preferring one set of charges or investigations to another. They've got to make difficult choices, but that's wrapped up in a whole series of other issues which we may come onto. Let me give you one example. The police spend a great deal of time dealing with the mentally unwell and the commissioner has recently said in the last few months or a year or so that actually unless there's a risk to life, it's not appropriate for police officers to be called out. There ought to be mental health services available, but that's what they've been doing. And one of the issues that I've addressed in this part is to try to engage the Secretary of State for Health in the National Criminal Justice Board so that health is seen as a distinct and separate problem. Half the people in prison have diagnosable mental health illnesses. It's just an example. You said you haven't seen the Mandelson emails. None of us have seen the documents, but the Prime Minister at this lunchtime said he'd betrayed the country. There are open questions now about the official Secrets Act being broken. But I'm just trying to ask is one of the most senior criminal judges and we have no charges here, of course, but does it sound to you like the official Secrets Act could have been broken if highly confidential government information was being passed to convicted PFR? I'm not at all surprised that substantial police investigations have been opened. One of the offenses talked about is misconduct in public office and that's what we'll have to take its place. I mean, misconduct sounds very subtle when we're actually talking about. There's nothing subtle about this offense. I promise you, it is a common law offense which could actually result in a term of imprisonment up to life imprisonment. There is nothing trivial about misconduct in public office. Do you think there should be a public inquiry? I mean, you're a man who has chaired a public inquiry. Does this feel grave enough or big enough to you? We've got too many public inquiries. We're spending far too much time money and resource on public inquiries. That's my view on the basis that they go on for a very, very long time. They're very expensive. They're very time consuming for everybody concerned. Are you saying that, Sabrina, somebody who's been at the centre of one, authored one and found it wanting? It didn't resolve anything. I mean, yours was about the relationship of the press, the behaviour of the press. Do you think nothing's changed? Do you think it didn't take us anywhere? Not enough has changed. My view. I was very disappointed that the government of the day rejected within an hour of my publishing the report, one of the central Theses suggesting that I'd crossed a Rubicon which I simply reject. I simply do not accept that as a proposition. Sorry, remind us what this was David Cameron. And what did he reject? He was suggesting that I was encouraging state regulation of the press and I never was. I was encouraging self-regulation, but I wanted the regulator themselves to comply with minimum criteria standards to be judged by an entirely independent body. And they set up the press recognition council which is independent set up by royal charter and it's not run by the state at all. It's run independently and I encourage the press to join up with benefits but also with the stick that they have to provide appropriate remedies and arbitration mechanisms for those whose privacy had been wrongly intruded. But you feel that not enough has changed and when the Labour government came to power and they'd promised levyson 2 which would look at the relationship between the press and police contacts particularly, they just cancelled levyson 2. That's true. And what have we missed? Do I believe that the second part of the inquiry should have been undertaken? Yes, I do. Do I still believe the second part of the inquiry should have been undertaken? Yes, I do. Not least because I was much criticised for not dealing with social media in part 1, much criticised. Actually, if you read the terms of reference, part 1 only concerned the press. It didn't concern social media. Part 2 could have concerned social media and that's what I said to the Secretary of State for Culture Media and Sports at the time Matt Hancock and I said this needs to be done because although this may not have been a problem in the period I was looking at up to 2010 by 2017 when I was discussing this with him, it really was a problem and it continues to be a problem. That's why I believe the second part of the inquiry should have been undertaken. So what did we lose? What did we miss by not getting to the end of that? We missed an analysis of what could be done to deal with the challenges of social media and I think we're still not addressing that. I was just remembering that we heard from James Murdoch at the time he used this phrase over and over again, I do not recall, I do not recall, I cannot recall, I do not recall. We're now hearing it from Peter Mandelson who says it's, I don't recall, it just explained to our listeners if you will. Why you would have these presumably super smart, politically minded, powerful men saying I do not recall. What does that do in legal terms that presumably saves their skin? It doesn't necessarily save their skin at all. I do not recall, means I am not able to contribute to your decision making on this topic. So I do not recall, leaves the evidence as it stood before the witness said anything. In other words, they're not agreeing, that's true, they're not refuting either. The fact finder, whether it be a jury or the chair of an inquiry, will make their own mind up as to the memorability. So that which they don't recall. What I'm really trying to say is, for Peter Mandelson in this case, is that a get out of jail free card, I mean maybe literally, if he can't recall stuff. If the paper evidence is there, and I don't know, and I'm not making any judgment at all, but if email traffic is available, the fact that he does not now recall it will not necessarily protect him in a criminal investigation. Indeed, if he says he doesn't recall, he can't explain. He's simply the evidence lies where it is, and the fact finder will have to make their mind up about what impact it has on whatever allegation is being made. So before we go, we talked on the show yesterday about Trump's unusual position in the Epstein story, and why he perhaps wasn't getting more attention. Obviously he's in the Epstein files a lot, as we said, although there isn't for all the reasons we were discussing yesterday, there's no evidence within it necessarily that he has done it, of course, anything wrong, but nonetheless he is in it a lot. I think it is telling, if you want to look at the different standards in American and UK public life right now, to compare and contrast. The questions that Keir Starmer was put under and put to in the House of Commons today, and how he responded to it, to a question from CNN's Caitlin Collins that she puts to Donald Trump in the Oval Office yesterday about what he might have to say if anything to Jeffrey Epstein's victims, listen to this. What would you say to the survivors? You are the worst reporter. CNN has no ratings because of people like you. You know she's a young woman. I don't think I've ever seen you smile. I've known you for 10 years. I don't think I've ever seen a smile in your face. You know why you're not smiling? Because you know you're not telling the truth. And you're a very dishonest organisation and they should be ashamed of you. Well, that does seem like a calm, rational response to CNN's Caitlin Collins who was asking what he would say to the survivors of Epstein's victims now the files have been released. For anyone wondering if Trump was thin-skinned about this question if he was slightly prickly or touchy about being asked about Epstein. I mean, fascinating that he wasn't even being asked the direct question that any of the UK media would ask, which is, have you seen your own name in the Epstein files and what do you make of the allegations that you are seeing there? He wasn't even being asked something direct as that. He was being asked about the victims. Any politician would welcome that chance to praise the victims, to focus on the victims, to, you know, as I said earlier to use the mantra of putting the victims first, he doesn't. He's so thin-skinned, he can't even bring himself to do anything other than insult a female journalist again. Although he's undoubtedly thin-skinned, I think it's more than that as well, which is, I think it just also shows the extent to which standards in American public life and particularly with regards to Trump are so utterly lost. I mean, it is absolutely true. We've basically been talking about the hypocrisy in British politics this morning, and that is obviously profound. But at least it is true that when these facts become indisputable and become impossible to deny, it is the case that the Prime Minister, who made the decision around Mandelston, is being put under that intense scrutiny, and, you know, just imagine for a moment, if Kirstaama responded in that way, if an MP had got up and asked him what he had to say to Jeffrey Epstein's victims, and Kirstaama had then launched into a personal terrain against that MP, or a journalist started talking about their ratings. How dare you! How embarrassed your normalisation must be of you. And then making personal comments about them as a woman or whatever it happens to me, he'd be gone. I mean, he would be finished. It would be great to be alive in Britain actually. Well, I mean, don't be wrong. It's a low bar. It's a low bar. It's not something we should be celebrating. I'm not, you know, giving ourselves a pat on the back here. I'm just saying that it just shows how just, frankly, morally disgusting Trump has become, and also, in terms of the standards, as I say, in American public life, how low they have sunk. Because, let's be honest, he'll do that, and there will be no political ramification for whatsoever. I mean, that's the interesting thing. Look, we have focused in this episode on how precarious Kirstaama's position might be. Not because he personally has done anything wrong in any way connected to Epstein or the files. Trump has been friends with Epstein. He is in those files. He is mentioned many, many times. This does not indicate, as we always say, wrongdoing or criminality. But how ironic, you know, how ironic if Britain ends up losing uprisks and a peer of the realm and a Prime Minister and America doesn't even touch those powerful men that surrounded Epstein for decades of his life. We'll be back tomorrow. We'll see you then. Bye-bye. Bye for now. This has been a global player, original production.