Do not hold back any Mandelson documents, Tories tell Starmer as they issue contempt warning

Sir Keir Starmer has been warned that the government should not withhold any information regarding the appointment of Peter Mandelson as US ambassador; otherwise Peter Mandelson could face a contempt motion.

Concerns have been raised over whether ministers will comply with a vote to release all documents relating to the appointment after the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC), which oversees the release of the documents, warned that the government had redacted more information than initially agreed.

A new tranche of documents is expected to be released following a meeting next week of the ISC, which has decided to tell the government it must state where it redacted material without the committee’s permission.

The Conservatives have confirmed they will table a motion accusing ministers of contempt of parliament if the government does not comply with its modest talk of publishing all material relating to the appointment, which is likely to target responsible ministers, including the prime minister.

Some Labor MPs have already confirmed they will support the motion, which will then trigger an investigation by the House of Commons Privileges Committee.

Shadow foreign secretary Priti Patel said Independent: “Labour ministers are up to their necks in this scandalous cover-up of the Mandelson-Epstein files.

“The Conservatives have pressed parliament for full transparency, supporting the ISC to have the final say on how this information is published. “Instead we have Labor ministers going through the full legal process and ignoring unanimous decisions taken by parliament.

“Workers are lying to the country. If they defy the will of parliament by refusing to release important files – which is a clear example of contempt – we will use every available tool to force them to be honest with their MPs and the public.”

Kim Johnson, one of the Labor MPs willing to support the contempt motion, said: Independent: “I think my colleagues will tend to support this, they will want to get away from corruption and filth.”

Another Labor MP said: “Starmer… he has no authority and everything he is doing now is undermining us.” [Labour] Moreover, tolerance will be limited.”

But the MP noted: “It would be better if it came from the Liberal Democrats as it would be harder for Labor MPs to associate themselves with Tory votes.”

The Conservatives’ modest proposal would allow only the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) to decide whether information should be redacted on national security grounds.

A source told Independent: “The humble speech is very specific, it only gives the committee the power to make corrections, not the government. So if the government goes ahead and corrects things, it will not have complied with the humble speech and that will open a whole can of worms.”

The Conservatives have already noted that a precedent was set during Brexit negotiations when another low-key speech forced the government to reveal documents linked to EU talks.

A Downing Street source at the time said: “The government turned a blind eye when faced with the threat of a contempt vote.”

It is understood the issue was raised informally with the speaker, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, about what might happen if the will of the Commons is ignored.

The Commons press office said Sir Lindsay would not comment on any debates or conjectures, but senior Labor figures could find themselves at loggerheads with the government on the issue.

Ministers relented and agreed to speak modestly only after former deputy prime minister Angela Rayner intervened in the debate to force the government to back down on attempts to limit broadcasting.

Independent MP Karl Turner, who was suspended from the Labor Party after criticizing the judicial changes, has revealed that he discussed the possibility of contempt of a parliamentary vote with former Tory MP Sir David Davis.

He said: “There are only 35 to 45 Labor supporters who would have the bottle to support a contempt motion. The government’s biggest concern is abstention. Too many are just finding excuses not to be there for important votes.”

He continued: “The Prime Minister has no authority left. Last motion” [for a privileges committee inquiry] Of course we were defeated, but the MPs were furious that we had to go there.

“Too many people abstained. And those who had not made it clear that they would not allow a target to be put on their back to save Starmer, even though we knew Starmer was dead.”

A Downing Street spokesman said: “As we have said repeatedly, we are committed to fully complying with this modest address.”