Peter Mandelson arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office

Lord Peter Mandelson has been arrested after the former Labour minister was accused of leaking Downing Street emails to paedeophile financier Jeffrey Epstein while he was business secretary.

The peer was arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office, said the Metropolitan Police, after officers attended his home in London on Monday afternoon. The 72-year-old was taken toa London police station for questioning, the force added.

The former US ambassador is alleged to have passed on market-sensitive information to Epstein when he was business secretary.

As part of the so-called Epstein files published by the United States Department of Justice, emails from 2009 appear to show Lord Mandelson sent on an assessment by Gordon Brown’s adviser of potential policy measures including an “asset sales plan”.

He also appeared to discuss a tax on bankers’ bonuses and confirm an imminent bailout package for the euro the day before it was announced in 2010.

The arrest comes after police searched two of Lord Mandelson’s properties in connection with the allegations.

In a statement confirming the arrest, the Met said: “Officers have arrested a 72-year-old man on suspicion of misconduct in public office.

“He was arrested at an address in Camden on Monday, 23 February and has been taken to a London police station for interview.

“This follows search warrants at two addresses in the Wiltshire and Camden areas.”

Just minutes before confirmation of Lord Mandelson’s arrest, MPs were told the first tranche of documents related to Lord Peter Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador is expected to be released “very shortly in early March”.

However, the publication of some correspondence between Downing Street and the peer will be delayed “because of the Metropolitan Police interest”, Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister Darren Jones said.

Sir Keir Starmer has faced considerable criticism over his decision to appoint Lord Mandelson to the position despite his links to paedophile Jeffrey Epstein.

In a statement to the Commons on Monday, Mr Jones said: “The Government intends to publish documents in tranches instead of one publication at the end of the process, given that we are unable to confirm how long that process will take.

“On that basis, the Government expects to be able to publish the first tranche of documents very shortly in early March.

“I should, however, inform the House that it remains the case that a subset of this first tranche of documents is currently subject to the ongoing Metropolitan Police investigation.

“This includes correspondence between number 10 and Lord Peter Mandelson, in which a number of follow up questions were asked.

“Because of the Metropolitan Police interest in this document, we are unable to publish it in early March in the first tranche, but will release it as soon as we are able to do so in consultation with the Metropolitan Police.

“There is also a small portion of that material which engages matters of national security or international relations, and thus the role this House has envisaged for the Intelligence and Security Committee, we are working with the committee to establish processes for making this material available to them, and we’re very grateful to the committee in advance of their important contribution to reviewing these documents.”

The Conservatives accused the Government of acting “with the urgency of a tired sloth on a bank holiday Monday” in releasing documents related to Lord Mandelson’s appointment as the US ambassador.

Addressing the Commons on Monday, Mike Wood said: “Careful work must not become a euphemism for managed delay.

“It is time the Government stopped treating Parliament like an inconvenient interruption to their schedule, stopped giving every impression that they have priorities working out who’s back to cover, and started providing some actual answers so that we can start to get to the bottom of this murky matter.”

Mr Jones responded that the Government was trying to manage a criminal investigation, and “I’m sure the House would not want us to inadvertently interfere with that process”.