All eyes have been on Sir Keir Starmer since he sacked Former Foreign Office Chief Sir Olly Robbins last Thursday 16th May. 

This came after a Guardian investigation revealed that despite concerns being raised about Mandelson during his security vetting, the Foreign Office went ahead with his appointment. 

Having been announced as the UK’s ambassador to the US in December 2024, Peter Mandelson was formally appointed as US ambassador on 10th February 2025. However, he was sacked in September last year over his links to the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. 

Over the past week, the Prime Minister has been facing calls to resign over claims he misled MPs when he told them that “full due process” had been followed – a claim 10 Downing Street strongly denies. 

Monday: Starmer addresses MPs

In a statement to MPs on Monday afternoon, Starmer said he takes “responsibility” for appointing Peter Mandelson, and that he shouldn’t have taken that decision. 

Explaining the timeline of events, he said he became aware that the Foreign Office granted Mandelson Developed Vetting clearance against the recommendations of the UK’s Security Vetting (UKSV) agency “for the first time” on Tuesday 14th April. 

He said: “I should have had [this information] a long time ago.” 

Regarding why Mandelson was appointed before security vetting had been completed, he said: “For a direct ministerial appointment, it was usual for security vetting to happen after the appointment but before starting in post.” He has since changed this process. 

He also explained that while UKSV’s decision is binding for many government departments, for the foreign office, appointment decisions are ultimately at their own discretion. The Prime Minister has now suspended these powers. 

Continuing his statement, Starmer said it was “absolutely unforgivable” that Sir Olly had let the then-Foreign Secretary David Lammy sign a statement that developed vetting clearance had been granted. 

He said had he known about UKSV’s recommendations, he would not have appointed Peter Mandelson.

Sir Adrian Fulford has now been appointed to lead a review into security vetting. 

Closing his statement, the PM called these events “incredible” and “beggars belief” – statements greeted with laughter by the House. 

Leader of the opposition Kemi Badenoch claimed Sir Keir had breached the ministerial code in not revealing this information “at the earliest opportunity” – this would have been during last week’s Prime Minister’s Questions on Wednesday 15th April. 

Putting six questions to the PM, she asked whether he would stand by his previous assertion while in opposition that a prime minister should resign if they mislead the house. 

Meanwhile, leader of the opposition Sir Ed Davey accused the PM of blaming his officials, asking why he asked “so few questions personally about the vetting process himself”. 

Both he and Green Party Leader Zack Polanski called on Sir Keir to resign. 

Reform UK MP Lee Anderson alongside Your Party MP Zarah Sultana were both made to leave the House after accusing the PM of lying. 

Tuesday morning: Robbins’ response 

Speaking to Emily Thornberry’s Foreign Affairs Committee, Sir Olly said there was an “atmosphere of pressure” from No. 10 over Peter Mandelson’s vetting.

Thornberry opened the meeting by telling him to “feel freer to give fuller answers to us” than he had at his previous appearance before the Committee on 3rd November 2025. “You clearly told us the truth, but you only told us part of the truth,” she said. 

Robbins accused No.10 of taking “a generally dismissive attitude” to Mandelson’s vetting clearance in January last year, saying: “The focus was on getting Mandelson to Washington quickly.” 

He said that when he arrived in post on 20th January, “there was already a very, very strong expectation coming from number ten that he needed to be in post and in America as quickly as possible”. 

By this point, Peter Mandelson’s name had already been submitted to the King as a nomination and the PM had announced his appointment. He said that agrément (the formal process by which the host country accepts the appointment) had also been obtained.

“Throughout January honestly, my office, the foreign secretary’s office were under constant pressure. There was an atmosphere of constant chasing,” the former foreign office chief said, with very frequent phone calls asking, “has this been delivered yet?”. 

When questioned by Emily Thornberry over whether there was any evidence of this pressure, he said he was sure there were phone calls showing contact between his office and the No. 10’s private office, but that there were no emails. 

In response, Thornberry highlighted the need for records “to show the extent of pressure the foreign office was being put under by No.10.” 

When pressed on why he didn’t know more about the contents of the vetting decision, Sir Olly explained that while he was told it was a “borderline” case, he’s “never seen a UKSV document”. He also declined to confirm whether anything had been identified that wasn’t already in the public realm. 

He maintained that vetting was completed “to the normal high standard” and that “whilst there was an atmosphere of pressure, the department rigorously followed process […] despite some in government never believing it was a process we needed to follow”. 

In response to a question from Sir John Wittingdale MP, he also confirmed that “it would have damaged” relations with the US to pull Mandelson as ambassador at that stage. 

Alongside this, he revealed that in March 2025 he was asked to “potentially” find Lord Matthew Doyle, the PM’s director of communications, a position as an ambassador. 

Tuesday afternoon: MPs respond 

Downing Street denied Robbins’ claims of an “atmosphere of pressure” and “dismissive attitude” towards Mandelson’s vetting.

In an emergency debate called by the Conservatives on Tuesday afternoon, Kemi Badenoch said the Prime Minister “personally decided to appoint a serious, known national security risk” due to his known relationship with Epstein and links to Russia and China. 

Accusing the PM of using Sir Olly as a “human shield”, she said: “The idea that it is No. 10 who are the victims of others not following due process is quite frankly laughable.” 

She backed SNP MP Stephen Flynn’s call for a no confidence vote, adding: “This Prime Minister has put the country’s national security at risk. He must take responsibility, it is time for him to go.” 

The Lib Dems accused the PM of trying to “appease Trump” with Mandelson’s appointment, while Reform said he is trying to “dump the entire scandal on one official”. Meanwhile the Green Party said the PM showed “totally unacceptable” “wilful ignorance” over the appointment.  

In response, Darren Jones, Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, said: “The government has been and remains committed to keeping the House informed.”

Acknowledging that appointing Mandelson was the “wrong” decision, he added: “I’m here however to account for the government’s accountability on the process that followed.” 

Mr Jones also said that the government is working “at pace” to publish the remaining documents related to Mandelson’s appointment, as required by February’s humble address. 

Wednesday: PMQs 

PMQs were, as expected, dominated by questions over Mandelson’s appointment. 

The PM confirmed that Matthew Doyle was considered for an ambassadorial appointment – as is a normal conversation when people leave a position, according to Starmer. But, he said, nothing came of this conversation – and Doyle himself had come out on Tuesday saying he hadn’t known of any such conversations before then. 

In her six questions to the PM, Kemi Badenoch pressed Sir Keir on whether he stands by his statement that “full due process” was followed in Mandelson’s appointment, referring to Robbins’ testimony of a dismissive approach from No.10. 

Reiterating her concerns about national security, she said there is “no way” she would have appointed someone with Mandelson’s reputation, asking the PM “what planet” he was on over claims that Mandelson was given access to classified briefings before being cleared.  

Badenoch also said Robbins’ dismissal was unfair – an opinion shared by the Green Party’s Ellie Chowns – and asked the PM to “take responsibility and go”. 

Starmer maintained that due process was followed, and that Sir Olly’s testimony that he hadn’t shared his decision with No. 10 “puts to bed all the allegations levelled at [him] by those opposite in relation to dishonesty”. 

He also reiterated that he was unaware of UKSV’s recommendations. Calling this a “very serious error in judgement,” he said: “Nothing is going to distract me from delivering for our country.” 

Thursday: Back to the select committee

Thursday morning saw Cat Little, Permanent Secretary of the Cabinet Office (the department’s most senior civil servant) giving evidence to Dame Emily Thornberry’s Select Committee. 

In her evidence, she echoed the PM in saying that “due process was followed.”

Referring to Sir Olly’s claims of pressure, she said that while putting together the documents to be published under the humble address: “I’ve not seen any documentation that would formally confirm that level of pressure”. 

In regards to the vetting summary, she told the committee she asked Sir Olly for a summary of UKSV’s recommendations, but “it was made clear to me that that information would not be forthcoming.” 

Requesting this information directly from security officials, she received it on 25th March but sought legal advice about handling sensitive documents before deciding to share them with the PM on 14th April. 

A lack of records has been a frequent issue throughout this saga, and it continued when Ms Little confirmed there was no formal record of the meeting in which Starmer decided to move forward with Mandelson’s appointment – even though “it is normal” to do so. 

Ms Little’s versions of events also seemed to suggest – in contrast to Sir Olly’s – that the Cabinet Office advised in favour of vetting Mandelson, not that this was unnecessary. 

Beyond the walls of the Select Committee, Thursday also saw an increase in murmurings about the Prime Minister’s future, with political reporters noting unrest among both Labour backbenchers and Cabinet ministers. 

What next?

Friday’s headlines were not dominated by the scandal – much to the PM’s relief. Rather, attention has turned to the failure of the Assisted Dying Bill in the House of Lords. 

However, the row is far from over. On Tuesday, we heard from Morgan McSweeney – the PM’s former Chief of Staff, who resigned over Mandelson’s appointment in February, taking “full responsibility”. 

He, alongside the Foreign Office’s Chief Property and Security Officer Ian Collard and former Foreign Office top civil servant Sir Philip Barton, have all been compelled to give evidence to the Select Committee. 

And of course the polls have opened this Thursday 7th May at 7am, which will likely put further pressure on the PM’s survival. 

Featured Image Credit: Prime Minister’s Office / Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office

The debacle of Mandelson’s appointment as foreign ambassador to the United States was birthed months ago when his explicit connections to infamous pedophile, Jeffrey Epstein, was unearthed, but has retained its eminence as a scandal that refuses to go away. Some of the comparatively minor scandals that have reared their ugly heads in recent decades were able to be patted away in timely Westminster fashion; when asked about why tax expenses have been used to purchase slotted spoons from Marks and Spencer, politicians are steadfast in reminding journalists that there are far greater matters of importance to attend to like the cost of living crisis or the war in Ukraine. This, however, simply refuses to do so.

This week, the country has learnt in a shocking revelation that his appointment was much less a blunder than a fundamental catastrophe – that he had failed his vetting process and yet catapulted into a seat at the table of British elitism regardless.

Sheepishly, the Prime Minister insists he had no knowledge that this had occurred; that this was a fact kept from him and accordingly sacked the senior Civil Servant, Sir Olly Robbins, who he holds most culpable as the progenitor of this grave scandal. Put simply, the British public have been handed excuse upon excuse ranging from: “we didn’t know” (but we did); “it was a mistake” (but an honest one); “the wrong conclusions were drawn” (in good faith). We are invited to believe, all at once, that nothing was known, that the wrong things were known, that the right things were misunderstood, and that—despite all this—the decision itself was entirely reasonable, however regrettable in hindsight.

However, do any of these excuses wash? Is there a single way in which the government can say, with a straight face, that allowing a close ally of a defamed international pedophile into classified British affairs is justified with procedural malfunction? The difficulty is not that excuses are made for Mandelson, but that they are so readily available – they belong to the political culture that produced him in the first place. 

The excuses, reasons and justifications – of which there are many – are all inherently plausible. Even despite just 16% of the UK population believing that Starmer was misled, it could very well be that he was. But it is not the same thing as an excuse. For what is striking is not the absence of explanation, but its abundance.

In this pantomime affair, the villain of an insidious and cynical Whitehall seems to be an ever present stage-set, doing both no harm at all but simultaneously the evil puppeteer of Starmer’s demise whilst he begs the public to witness it and believe him. Starmer casts himself the lead in a Shakespearean morality play, fuelled by righteous anger, touched by tragedy, let down by treachery and perennially surrounded by forces just coherent enough to be blamed, but never quite tangible enough to be seen.

What emerges, then, is an unsettling ritual that has long stood in the way of the public and elected office. It is the driver of poor electoral turnout, it’s the reason party membership is at an all time low. The perceived notion among many is that the public are mere mortals underneath a perceived distinctly unsympathetic, unrepresentative hierarchy who seem to be inexorably above the law whenever these scandals re-emerge in a cyclical fashion. The public are alienated not because they don’t understand politics, but rather that they understand it all too well. 

Thus Harold Wilson’s famous quote that “The Labour Party is a moral crusade or it is nothing” feels utterly at odds with this shambolic affair that Starmer seems to be desperately trying to row back to shore. Evidently the Labour Party has long prided itself on seeking to marry moral purpose with political exercise. Mandelson belongs to the tradition that resolves this tension in a way that allows the latter to eclipse the former rather than reconciling the two. What is presented as pragmatism is, in reality, a set of assumptions about power so deeply embedded they no longer appear as choices at all. 

If we are to, with empathy, follow the government into the notion that the full facts of the matter were not readily apparent at the time, then the charge is one of startling incompetence. If, on the other hand, the facts were indeed available but disregarded, then the pressing issue of sheer misjudgement is ever more visceral. And if responsibility is to be displaced onto process, then we are left with the curious doctrine that leadership consists precisely in not leading. 

The words resolutely inscribed in many of Labour’s merchandise and campaign literature is: “country first, party second”. It is the lingo of pragmatism that the party has so fluently spoken and pushed the envelope of since July 2024; that the best decisions are those that deliver, however unappealing and controversial. If the public grit their teeth, surrender and brace for a small but consequently relieving period of strife, that eventually there will be a rainbow at the end of the storm.

Pragmatism, so to speak, is the politics that will eventually come good. The issue, however, is that what is often called pragmatism is simply ideology that has forgotten it is ideology. It’s no use my insistence that the problem was the “wet paint” sign not being more thoroughly brought to my attention as I get up from the bench with a paint-sodden back. True pragmatism, in the end, is only what survives explanation.

All of this matters. If a political culture that cannot distinguish between explanation and justification, it eventually ceases to treat responsibility as meaningful at all. If every failure can be reclassified as a procedural defect, then nothing is ever finally owned by anyone in particular. And if nothing is owned, then nothing is truly answerable. The result, then, is not a more sophisticated politics, but a hollowed-out one whereby power is easily exercised without remainder and then retrospectively dissolved into an array of conveniently placed excuses to be wheeled out and reached for when necessary.

For this reason solely, the routine manufacture of excuses ought not to be treated as harmless spin or even familiar political theatre. Instead, it is an endemic blemish within the British high office which corrodes the most basic linchpin principles that we herald as what makes this country so unique – the unspoken bond that binds us all and prevents us from being subjugated by tyranny, a robust and proud history of checks and balances on power from Magna Carta to the Miners Strike – the idea that decisions can be held to account in any meaningful sense at all.

A democracy in which every mistake is immediately absorbed into a narrative of bureaucratic mishap and misunderstanding is one in which responsibility is permanently deferred. And what is deferred indefinitely, in the end, is the very essence of political judgment entirely.

Each account seems to point elsewhere: to a failure of communication, to a gap in procedure, to a misunderstanding at the relevant stage. Yet the effect is always the same. Responsibility is continually pushed one step back, until it becomes difficult to say where, if anywhere, it properly resides. What begins as explanation ends as evasion simply by accumulation. Quite simply, excuses are thin – especially that of the self-pitying, manufactured kind. It cannot continue. 

Mandelson is not the difficulty. Rather, he is merely the occasion for it. What matters is a twofold matter of both disgraced leaders of international pedophile cabals having close access to British national security affairs but also the ease with which politics learns to talk its way out of these humiliating debacles alls whilst the British public’s intelligence is insulted for the world to see. There is evidently no shortage of reasons being offered. There is, however, no excuse. 

Featured Image credits:  “Prime Minister Keir Starmer hosts a business roundtable” by Number 10, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

At a roundtable with leading firms including Snapchat, Meta, YouTube and TikTok on Monday 9 March, Technology Secretary Liz Kendall MP warned companies that failing to act decisively could result in further intervention from government.

The meeting comes amid growing concern about misogyny, harassment and image-based abuse on digital platforms, and follows a series of legislative and regulatory measures introduced in recent months.

Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, Liz Kendall said:

“Every woman and girl deserves to be safe online and we will stop at nothing to ensure the digital world is working for them, not against them.

“This Government has taken tough action to tackle intimate image abuse, deepfakes and the online harms women and girls face every day.

Now, tech companies must go above and beyond to use the tools readily available to them to make their platforms safer. If they don’t, these companies are not innocent bystanders – they are enabling abuse to thrive.

That is why we are asking Ofcom to report swiftly on how companies are complying, because better safety and better accountability go hand in hand.”

New legal powers targeting online abuse and deepfakes

The warning follows a series of recent government interventions aimed at addressing online violence against women and girls.

Over the past six months, ministers have taken steps to strengthen protections under the Online Safety Act, making intimate image abuse, cyberflashing and choking priority offences. These offences are now treated with the same seriousness as child abuse or terrorism in terms of platform responsibilities.

Earlier this year, the Prime Minister publicly criticised the AI platform Grok after illegal sexualised images of women and girls circulated on the site. Within days, the Government fast-tracked legislation to ban the creation of non-consensual intimate deepfakes.

Further legal requirements now mean technology companies must remove intimate images shared without consent within 48 hours of being flagged, shifting responsibility from victims to platforms.

Meanwhile, an amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill has created a new criminal offence targeting so-called “nudification apps” – AI tools that generate synthetic sexualised images of women and girls.

Ofcom expected to name platforms failing to act

Three months ago, Ofcom published guidance outlining measures companies can take to reduce online abuse, including:

• Prompts encouraging users to reconsider harmful posts
• Limits on coordinated pile-ons
• Stronger default privacy settings
• Hash-matching technology to detect and block intimate images

The regulator is now expected to report on which platforms are failing to comply with these measures.

The Government has urged Ofcom to publish its findings as soon as possible, enabling users to make informed decisions about which platforms are prioritising safety.

Women shaping the future of technology

Alongside regulatory action, the Government is also seeking to increase women’s involvement in shaping emerging technologies.

Later this week, Liz Kendall will convene the Women in Tech Taskforce, which aims to address bias in technology design and ensure women are involved in the development of future digital platforms.

The Government has also launched a public consultation on children’s digital wellbeing, inviting parents, guardians and young people to share views on how to strengthen protections across social media, gaming platforms and AI chatbots. The consultation will inform further policy decisions later this year.

Industry leaders call for cultural change in technology companies

Industry leaders say stronger regulation must be accompanied by deeper cultural change within technology companies.

Zahra Shah, Chair of the UKAI Women in AI Working Group, said:

“The Secretary is right to set this challenge. The moment for voluntary measures has passed. If we are serious about safety, it must be woven into the fabric of technology from the outset – not added as an afterthought when harm has already been done.

“Through UKAI’s work in Parliament and with industry leaders, the collective view is clear: regulation alone is not enough. We need a cultural shift inside these companies, where protecting women and girls becomes a measure of success, not a compliance burden.

“Britain has a choice: we can lead the world in responsible AI, or we can import the mistakes of the past. UKAI will work with government and industry to ensure we lead.”

As the regulatory landscape evolves, pressure is mounting on technology companies to demonstrate that safeguarding users – particularly women and girls – is embedded at the core of how digital platforms are designed and governed.

In the same period, over 15,200 illegal migrants were removed by force, a 45 per cent increase from what the Conservative government achieved in the 19 months prior. As well as this, in line with increased powers granted to law enforcement in the Border Security, Asylum, and Immigration Act 2025, deportations of foreign national offenders, including murderers and rapists, have increased by 32 per cent, with over 8,700 deported since Starmer’s government came into power.

Despite these record-breaking figures, Mahmood has committed to further removals and deportations in order to restore law and order to Britain’s borders, stating that the government “must go further to remove those that have no right to be in this country.” Mahmood further vowed to “do whatever it takes to restore order and control.” As a result of this, the government will issue further visa sanctions if countries deemed to be safe refuse to take back illegal migrants or foreign nationals.

Further, new legislation is due to be introduced this year to prevent illegal migrants from using Article 8 of the ECHR to prevent their removal, creating a “one stop shop” to replace the broken appeals system, so that once an illegal migrant loses a single appeal, they will be forced to leave the country.

In response to these proposals, the Minister of State for Prisons, Probation and Reducing Reoffending, James Timpson, stated that the Government is “serious about fixing the broken prison system”, committing to “stopping foreign criminals from clogging up our jails.” As well as this, Timpson stated that removals of foreign offenders from British prisons are “up more than forty per cent”, and that the new legislation would only increase the speed of intervention.

The Sentencing Act will amend the law so that foreign nationals no longer need spend a minimum portion of their sentence in British prisons, instead allowing for immediate deportation. This will also apply to those already in custody once it is in force.

The Home Office has stated the purpose of these changes are to remove incentives for migrants to come to the UK illegally, in order to secure Britain’s borders. Prior to new legislation, illegal migrants and foreign criminals have utilised Article 8 of the ECHR, which preserves the “right to respect for his private and family life” to prevent removal, a practice which the Government is keen to end.

In regards to appeals, the Government has pledged that a single route of appeal will be introduced, whilst cases deemed to have very little chance of success will be fast-tracked to expedite the removal process. If the appeal is lost, the individual will be expected to immediately leave the country, and if they do not, they shall be forcibly removed.

In order to improve value for the taxpayer, asylum costs will be scaled back, beginning this week, as migrants living in hotels shall be banned from using expensive taxis for medical appointments. Already over £74 million has been recouped from wasteful hotel contracts, as just under 200 migrant hotels remain open, whereas under the Conservative Party, 400 hotels running at the cost of £9 million a day were in use.

In addition, the Government has committed to housing people in more basic accommodation such as military sites, instead of hotels, to further deter migrants from illegally coming to Britain. It is hoped that reforming the system will disrupt organised immigration crime, prevent human trafficking gangs, and tackle illegal working.

The Home Office has reported that 2025 was the highest year on record for illegal working enforcement activity, after 9,000 arrests and 12,800 raids were carried out across the UK, which is a 60 per cent and 58 per cent rise respectively from 2024. This week, new measures took force to criminalise online posts advertising small boat crossing services and ban foreign sex offenders from refugee protections on account of their crimes, to protect British citizens. Legislation brought into force this week shall now enable enforcement to tackle criminal gangs selling fake immigration documents or help crossing the channel, through the classification of these actions as criminal offences.

Over the last 19 months, the Government have utilised the Borders Security, Immigration and Asylum Act to cut the number of people waiting on initial decisions for asylum claims by 39 per cent, to enable border security to be tightened and taxes to be allocated to improving the lives of taxpayers, rather than funding expensive migrants hotels. However, enforced removals have significantly increased as compared to voluntary removals, the former up 45 per cent as compared to 27 per cent, indicating that the Government still have a long way to go with implementing genuine reform.

Featured Image: James Whatling/Parsons Media for the Home Office

Beginning in September 2025, the US House Oversight Committee, as part of their initial release of files regarding the Epstein cover-up, released a letter from Mandelson to Epstein, in which he referred to Epstein as his “best pal”. As well as this, an email was released, revealing Mandelson’s support after Epstein was convicted in 2008 for soliciting a minor. After these were released, Mandelson resigned as British Ambassador.

The latest tranche of Epstein files published in the United States reiterates that Peter Mandelson knew Epstein, and it has set out, in documentary form, what the relationship involved, and what information Epstein received from him, who was a senior minister during the Gordon Brown years. In addition, the files released by the US Department of Justice last week include emails which highlight the closeness of the relationship, and which suggest Mandelson shared government documents with Epstein, as well as revealing payments from Epstein to Mandelson and his partner.

Further, in 2009, Mandelson sent Epstein a government memo concerning potential UK asset sales and changes to taxation policy, and in 2010, he gave Epstein advance notice of a European Union bailout package worth approximately €500 billion during the Eurozone debt crisis. In effect, the documents are being interpreted as showing market-sensitive government information being passed to a man who, by that stage, was a convicted sex offender.

To begin, Mandelson should never have given out state secrets to someone with clear self-interest within the matters, for it breaches not only ministerial responsibility, but also loyalty to the state. As an MP, Mandelson effectively betrayed those who voted for him for financial gain, and managed to escape any consequences for it at the time.

During PMQs, this interpretation was echoed by Conservative Leader Kemi Badenoch, who has used this situation to attack Starmer’s current administration. During recent Commons debates on the DofJ releases, it was stated that the files appear to show Mandelson received £50,000 from Epstein, and that several years later Epstein was provided with advance knowledge of bailout plans, internal resignations, and pressure on the Chancellor.

Alongside the alleged disclosures, the financial dimension has become central to the scandal, for the files record payments connected to Epstein and Mandelson’s partner during his time in office, although he has set stated that he does not recall receiving such payments. The issue, however, is not only the question of legality, but the fact that the financial relationship is now part of the public record, and is being treated as political material regardless of whether criminal wrongdoing is established.

As well as this, the files have also revived scrutiny of his continued association with Epstein after his conviction, and whether this relationship was fully disclosed prior to Mandelson’s appointment as British Ambassador to the United States. It is now accepted that his ties to Epstein were known at the time of his appointment, and that assurances were given regarding the nature and extent of that relationship, assurances which have since been withdrawn.

What has transformed the affair from scandal to crisis is that it has now entered the criminal process. The Metropolitan Police are assessing material relating to Mandelson’s conduct while in office, including the alleged sharing of confidential government information. While no charges have been brought, the existence of an active police investigation has intensified pressure on the government and limited its ability to contain the fallout.

Altogether, the Epstein files indicate three central things. First, that Mandelson maintained contact with Epstein long after his conviction. Second, that Epstein recorded financial payments connected to Mandelson and his partner. Third, that Epstein appears to have received sensitive government information during 2009 and 2010, including material relating to UK assets, taxation, and European bailout plans. It is this cumulative picture, rather than any single document, that has pushed the scandal beyond questions of judgement and into a crisis of governance. Whether Keir Starmer can come back from this will be seen over the coming weeks.

Featured Image: Financial Times

Paul Davies MP

Member of Parliament for Colne Valley

More than half of people in UK prisons cannot read beyond primary-school level. Writing exclusively for Chamber UK, Paul Davies says that until we treat literacy as central to sentencing reform, rehabilitation will keep failing, communities will keep paying, and a rare chance for real change will slip through our fingers.

In the midst of debates on sentencing reform, one issue remains dangerously overlooked: literacy in our prisons. The Sentencing Bill currently before Parliament offers a chance to rethink rehabilitation, but unless literacy is placed at the heart of these reforms, we risk missing a transformative opportunity.

Today, more than 57 per cent of adults in UK prisons read below the level of an average 11-year-old. This isn’t just a statistic, it’s a crisis. It means thousands of people behind bars struggle to read a letter from their child, understand the terms of their release or fill out a job application. Without literacy, rehabilitation is not just difficult, it’s nearly impossible.

Literacy is more than a skill. It’s a foundation for dignity, independence, and change. If we are serious about reducing reoffending – which costs the UK an estimated £18 billion annually – we must invest in education behind bars. Prisoners who engage in education are up to one-third less likely to reoffend. That’s not simply good policy, it’s common sense.

Why the Sentencing Bill Must Go Further

The Sentencing Bill introduces flexible probation requirements and allows for early termination of community orders when rehabilitation goals are met. These are welcome steps. But we must go further.

First, literacy must be embedded into every sentence plan. Probation officers should assess reading levels and set clear, achievable goals. These goals should be tied to rehabilitation milestones and early release, creating a tangible incentive for progress.

Second, we must properly fund prison education. Some institutions face cuts of up to 60 per cent in their education provision. That’s not just short-sighted, it’s self-defeating. If we want fewer people to return to prison, we must invest in the tools that help them stay out.

Third, learning must be accessible and inclusive. Many prisoners have had negative experiences with traditional education. We need creative approaches – digital platforms, peer mentoring, and informal learning environments like workshops and libraries. In places such as HMP Humber, volunteer-led reading groups and peer mentoring schemes are already helping people rediscover learning and self-worth. Education should meet people where they are.

Finally, we must celebrate success. When someone learns to read for the first time or earns a qualification, it’s a milestone worth recognising. These achievements should be rewarded and used as evidence of rehabilitation.

Literacy as a Public Safety Strategy

I believe the Sentencing Bill begins to address these issues. But we must ensure that literacy is not an afterthought – it must be a cornerstone – because nearly everyone in prison will be released one day. The question is: what kind of person do we want walking out those gates?

By prioritising literacy in our prisons, we’re not just investing in individuals, we’re investing in safer communities. When people leave prison with the ability to read, write and communicate effectively, they are far more likely to find stable employment, engage positively with others and contribute to society. This reduces the risk of reoffending and breaks cycles of crime that harm families and neighbourhoods.

Here in Colne Valley, and across West Yorkshire, employers are crying out for skilled, reliable workers. If we can equip people in custody with the literacy and confidence they need to take those roles, we not only change their lives but also strengthen our regional economy. Literacy is not a luxury, it’s a public safety strategy. And if we get it right, everyone benefits.

Dr Zoe Seager

Chief Client Officer

Partner content: This article was sponsored by Thalamos, a member of Curia’s Health, Care, and Life Sciences Research Group. As the Mental Health Bill receives Royal Assent this week, Chief Client Officer at Thalamos, Dr Zoe Seager calls for action to implement change.

The UK’s mental health system is approaching a moment of reckoning.

As the Mental Health Bill moves towards Royal Assent, the promise of a more humane, person-centred approach to crisis care feels closer than ever. Yet those working across health, social care, policing, and local government know that legislation alone cannot deliver meaningful change.

Over the past year, Thalamos has spoken with hundreds of professionals involved in mental health crisis response. Their insights reveal a system full of good intent but trapped by its own complexity – stretched, fragmented, and reliant on human resilience to make up for structural flaws.

If the Mental Health Bill is to mark genuine reform rather than another missed opportunity, three realities must be confronted: the challenges undermining safety, the gaps between policy and practice, and the connected future professionals are calling for.

The Challenges: Complexity Without Co-ordination

Crisis care is the ultimate test of public service co-ordination. In any given incident, acute care, mental health services, local authorities, police, and ambulance teams must all act quickly, lawfully, and compassionately. Yet accountability remains diffuse.

“We need one version of the truth. Everyone has their own spreadsheet, their own times, their own story.”

Police describe arriving at emergency departments to hand over patients detained under Section 136 of the Mental Health Act, only to wait for hours. Clinicians cite confusion over when the detention ‘clock’ starts and who is responsible for recording it. Administrators struggle to reconcile handwritten notes, emails, and phone calls into coherent records after the fact.

This is not about effort, it is about design. Crisis care depends on goodwill rather than structure, with success varying by local relationships rather than shared systems.

“The forms are less of a problem than the gaps between them.”

A workforce already at its limits compounds the risk. Section 12 approved doctors and approved mental health professionals who can carry out certain legal duties related to the assessment and detention of people with mental disorders in England and Wales are in short supply, especially overnight. This is creating a fragile safety net where lawful and timely assessments depend on who happens to be available.

After-hours gaps make this worse. As one professional put it, “After nine o’clock at night, the system shrinks.” Crisis teams stand down, transport options disappear, and people in acute distress wait in police cars or hospital corridors until morning – each delay eroding trust and increasing risk.

The Gaps: Ambition Running Ahead of Infrastructure

The Bill aims to modernise care and strengthen patient rights through measures like Advance Choice Documents and ending the detention of people with learning disabilities and autism, under Section 3. Yet many warn that reform without readiness could worsen existing pressures.

A central problem is data. Agencies hold fragments of information about the same event, but these fragments rarely connect. Health systems, police, and local authorities each tell a partial story – leaving no single version of the truth to show where delays or failures occur.

Funding is similarly fragmented. Budgets are split across health, policing, and social care, each facing annual uncertainty. Short-term grants and pilot projects abound, but sustainable joint commissioning is rare. Professionals often spend as much time navigating funding rules as improving services.

An ethical gap also persists between principle and practice. All involved value the least restrictive option, yet when community alternatives are unavailable, detention becomes the only path left. As one practitioner admitted, “Sometimes you know it’s not the right call, but it’s the only call left.”

Without addressing these structural weaknesses, even the most progressive legislation risks collapsing into compliance rather than compassion.

The Future: Connection as a Condition for Change

Despite the strain, there is quiet optimism. Many described how relatively small changes – better communication, shared visibility, consistent recording – can transform outcomes. When partners see the same information at the same time, disputes reduce, co-ordination improves, and focus returns to patient care.

Some regions are already moving in this direction. In London, mental health professionals now complete and share statutory forms digitally through eMHA by Thalamos, creating an auditable record of every detention, assessment, and discharge. In Dorset, live data helps leaders pinpoint where delays occur and why. Police forces, including the British Transport Police, are using MHForms by Thalamos to log Section 136 handovers into the care of health professionals for assessment and support in real time – turning anecdotal evidence into actionable insight.

“After nine at night, there’s no crisis team. We do what we can, but people end up waiting in the wrong place for too long.”

These examples are not about using technology for its own sake. They show what happens when information flows match the speed and sensitivity of crisis response, and how data itself can become a form of care – ensuring decisions are lawful, efficient, and humane.

Readiness for Reform

The Mental Health Bill offers both opportunity and a deadline. It cannot solve workforce shortages or rewrite funding models, but it demands stronger rights, greater transparency, and genuine accountability.

To meet those expectations, the infrastructure beneath must be fit for purpose. Professionals are not asking for new mandates, but for clarity, interoperability, and long-term investment in tools that make collaboration possible.

Regional partnerships are beginning to align police and NHS data to improve oversight of crisis pathways. In some areas, this intelligence is already shaping staffing at places of safety, reducing diversions to emergency departments, and saving money for integrated care boards.

This hints at a future where success is measured not by detentions completed, but by crises avoided – where accountability feels collective, not confrontational.

A System Ready to Act

Across every conversation, one message is clear: the system knows what must change. Professionals are not waiting for permission – they need structure and support to act. The cost of inaction is measured not only in budgets and bed days, but in trust between agencies, staff, patients, and communities.

The coming year will determine whether the Mental Health Bill delivers real reform or another layer of bureaucracy. Its success will depend on whether system leaders choose to invest in the connective tissue that holds crisis care together: shared information, shared accountability, and shared purpose.

The will exists – what is missing is alignment. With reform imminent, the window for action is closing fast.

Because in mental health crisis care, connection is not a luxury – it is the difference between a system that reacts, and one that heals.

About Thalamos

Thalamos partners with NHS mental health trusts, independent providers, local authorities, and police forces to digitise and streamline Mental Health Act processes. Its technology supports professionals to deliver swifter, simpler, and safer care during mental health crises.

Find out more: discover how Thalamos’ digital tools have driven operational and strategic benefits for mental health trusts, independent providers, and police forces.

www.thalamos.co.uk/impact

At the Old Bailey, Justice Cheema-Grubb decreed that Gill had abused his position and eroded “public confidence in democracy.” Cheema-Grubb also noted that Gill had attempted to involve other MEPs in his activities.

Gill’s Russian links

Texts obtained by police revealed detailed coordination between Gill and Voloshyn, including instructions, scripts, and monetary promises to ensure compliance. As well as this, police recovered cash from Gill’s home and found evidence that he could have received up to £40,000 in total.

The investigation began after intelligence from multiple sources, including the FBI, flagged suspicious activity. In 2021, Gill was stopped at Manchester Airport while attempting to travel to Russia, and his phone was seized, containing messages showing ongoing collaboration with Voloshyn. The court heard that Gill continued taking bribes after leaving UKIP and joining the Brexit Party, eventually leading Reform UK in the 2021 Senedd election.

Reform UK have also condemned Gill’s actions as “reprehensible, treasonous and unforgivable.”

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has accused Gill of undermining the country’s interests and called on Nigel Farage to investigate whether others in the party had links to Russia. Law enforcement officials have confirmed that investigations into whether any other individuals were involved are ongoing.

The implications for Reform UK

In light of this case, there are now serious ramifications for Reform UK and British politics alike, for Gill not only was an elected representative of the people in the European Parliament, but a figure of authority within one of the fastest growing political parties in the UK. Currently Reform UK does not have significant support within Wales, with much of the party’s rhetoric centered around English nationalism, while Wales has its own hugely popular nationalist party Plaid Cymru. It was just last month that Plaid Cymru triumphed in the Caerphilly by-election, in what was widely expected to be a Reform UK win.

Although Reform UK have condemned Gill’s corrupt relationship with Russia, the question still remains as to how far Russia have been able to manipulate party policy within the Welsh division of Reform, potentially devastating party trust in Wales. If Reform wants to win the next general election with a considerable majority, Reform must now attempt to restore trust with Welsh voters. Gill was hardly a powerful political figure, but from this case doubts will undeniably now remain around Russian influence in British politics. If Reform UK is supposed to be a party for Britain, then the fact that a previous leader of a subsection of it is betraying British interests in favour of Russian ones is deeply worrying for the future state of politics in the UK.

Then again, Labour’s damnation of Reform for this is somewhat hypocritical, considering that ex-shadow minister and Labour MP Barry Gardiner was reportedly one of the recipients of £500,000 across six years from Christine Lee, a suspected Chinese spy connected to the Chinese Communist Party. Many would argue that Chinese influence within British politics is much more dangerous as well, as China are actively a threat to British security, whereas Russia is a nation that can be dealt with through the channels of NATO and negotiation, whereas China is a darkly malicious state that negotiation is less possible.

In relation to the impact of the scandal on Nigel Farage, it’s important to consider that these offences took place when Farage was not leader of Reform UK, or the Brexit party, and so, although Farage should certainly address these issues and investigate further into the activity of high ranking members, to arraign complete blame on the current Reform UK leader is not completely fair. On the other hand, Starmer was leader of the Labour party when the revelations about Barry Gardiner emerged, and so Starmer’s critique of Farage can be seen as fairly duplicitous.

Earlier yesterday [23rd November], Zia Yusuf broke the silence on Gill’s comments, referring to them as “treasonous, horrific, awful”, attempting to distance Reform UK from Gill. Previously, the party has been accused of taking a softer stance on Russia in regards to Ukraine, believing that Britain should focus on their own defense strategy, instead of continuing to fund Ukrainian armies against Russia.

Final thoughts

It is clear however that hostile nations will continue to attempt to infiltrate our political system through bribery and acts of fiscal corruption, a trend that must be stopped. Until our government wants to face reality, free democracy will continue to be at stake. If politicians cannot be trusted to put Britain first, then policies must be introduced to further prevent bribery, for current counter-terroism legislation and strategies are failing on both sides of the party divide. As a nation, we can only hope that malicious political manipulation from China and Russia will be prevented in the future before it has the chance to take root, for catching bribery retrospectively is ludicrously meaningless.

Featured image via National Assembly for Wales / Wikimedia Commons.

Speaking to The Guardian, Courts minister Sarah Sackman said the new legislation would stop criminals from “gaming the system” by opting for jury trials which can take years to reach the trial stage. 

Why the court changes now?

Nearly 80,000 cases are currently awaiting trial, with the new proposals including the creation of a judge-only division in the crown court. Sackman is set to announce that a large number of cases will be heard by judges and magistrates instead of juries. 

Such cases include complex fraud and petty theft. Sackman said: “For me, the priority is swift justice, fair justice, over prioritising a defendant’s right to choose where that trial is heard.”

Under current law, defendants charged with either-way offences can choose to either be tried by a jury in the crown court, or to keep their case in the magistrates court. 

This comprises 40 per cent of cases, with the percentage of defendants choosing jury trials more than doubling between 2014 and 2022.

It can take years for jury trials to get through the courts, meaning cases can collapse in this time. 

Sackman told The Guardian that defendants electing a jury trial: “Are coming into court and laughing in the face of the justices, knowing they can go back out on the streets and commit further offences”.

Public backlash

Her plans for overhauling the system have proved controversial among legal professionals, with 90 per cent of the Criminal Bar Association opposing the changes. They warn that removing trial by jury would undermine a core principle of the British justice system, and could potentially lead to a loss in public trust. 

Criminal justice charities and racial equality groups have also suggested that reducing the number of jury trials could lead to more miscarriages of justice, expressing concerns that the judiciary is unrepresentative of the public, unlike juries. Currently, ethnic minorities comprise just 12 per cent of judges in England and Wales. 

In response to these concerns, Sackman emphasised the current Deputy Prime Minister and Justice Secretary David Lammy’s commitment to tackling racial disparities in the court system. She cited his chairing of the 2017 Lammy Review, which examined the treatment of, and outcomes for, Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic individuals in the Criminal Justice System.

The Leveson Report

The proposed changes have come after senior judge Sir Brian Leveson published part one of his Independent Review of the Criminal Courts this summer. He urged extreme action to reduce the court backlog, which is currently set to reach 100,000 by 2028 if no changes are made. 

Other recommendations from the report, which the government is expected to legislate on in the new year, include giving crown court defendants the right to choose to be tried by a judge alone, and reclassifying some either-way offences so they can only be tried in a magistrates court.

Leveson appeared before the government’s Justice Committee on Tuesday 11th November to give oral evidence on the report. 

The Committee have since posed further questions to Leveson in a letter sent by the Committee’s chair, MP Andy Slaughter, on Thursday 20th November.

Among these are queries about the basis for some of the report’s claims, such as its assertion that removing juries would provide a 20 per cent time saving in hearings.

The Committee are also seeking further clarification about whether juries are unable to understand serious fraud cases, and concerns about juryless trials exacerbating racial bias due to disparities in sentencing outcomes from judges, particularly for Black defendants. 

Part two of the report, which has been delayed from its initial publication date of this autumn, will focus on the efficiency of the criminal justice system. 

Featured image via Mike Peel / Wikimedia Commons.

The plans will allow judges to curtail various freedoms when sentencing offenders to “make streets safer” for the general public.

Restrictions will include bans from attending football matches, driving limitations, and confinement to specific, local areas.

There will also be bans from pubs, clubs, and other public or community areas.

Judges are currently able to issue similar community and freedom based bans if they relate to the crime committed, such as imposing a football match ban if the criminal offended at a game.

However, the new change will allow criminals to be sentenced with a ban that may not relate to the criminal charge.

Offenders with a history of drug misuse will also face similar restrictions, alongside an expanded compulsory drug testing programme whilst on probation.

Criminals with no known history of drug abuse will also be included in the upscaled drug testing regime in the future, the Government says.

Shabana Mahmood, Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary, hopes this will deter offenders and reoffenders from committing crimes and help ensure prisons can prioritise places for more serious offenders.

She said: “When criminals break society’s rules, they must be punished. Those serving their sentences in the community must have their freedom restricted there too.

“These new punishments should remind all offenders that, under this Government, crime does not pay.

“Rightly, the public expect the government to do everything in its power to keep Britain safe, and that’s what we’re doing.”

The Government says artificial intelligence will also be introduced to help probation staff dedicate additional time to more serious offenders.

Additionally, the Probation Service is set to receive a £700 million investment increase by 2028/29 to further support improvements.

The sector currently has an annual budget of £1.6 billion.

Employment in the Probation Service is also rising, in line with the Government’s commitment to recruit 1,300 probation officers in 2025.

Last year, the service successfully recruited 1,000 new probation officers.

The Government hopes that by boosting support within the sector and introducing social restrictions to limit criminals’ freedom, the rate of reoffending will begin to decrease.

In a report published last month, the rate of reoffending criminals in England and Wales reached 28 per cent.

Pulled from July to September 2023, the figure is a 1.5 per cent increase from the same window in the previous year.

As well as aiming to prevent reoffending, the Government has also introduced 2,400 prison places since July 2024.

Alongside this is a £7 billion investment to fund 14,000 more prison spots as the criminal population increases.

This is part of the 10-year Prison Capacity Strategy, which includes building four new prisons and remodelling existing facilities.

Featured image via Amie Johnson on Unsplash

A primary motivator for the move to expand free school meals is to improve attainment and attendance in the classroom. Phillipson claims that increasing the amount of children eligible for free school meals will support half a million children, lifting 100,000 out of poverty thanks to estimated annual savings of £500 per child each year.

The Education Secretary also outlined that a range of measures are being undertaken to reduce child poverty, such as capping the cost of school uniforms, introducing breakfast clubs, and increasing minimum wage all part of a range of social security and education reform.

She said that “nothing is off the table” in terms of reforms, indicating that scrapping the two-child benefit cap remains a possibility, saying that the upcoming Child Poverty Taskforce report, co-chaired by Bridget Phillipson and Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall, will review all options available to the government to reduce child poverty and increase the life chances of children across the country.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) reported that the expansion of free school meals will actually be less cost effective in terms of lifting children out of poverty than scrapping the two-child benefit cap would be.

When questioned on if the decision to expand free school meals was made instead of because it was an easier political decision, rather than the correct one, she said argued that this was not this case, instead saying: “We know we can lift children out of poverty” through meal provisions and support, which is why its been “so well received by campaigners, by charities and by parents,” continuing to insist that further reforms to the social security system are under review through the taskforce, but that nothing is off the table and no single reform can be a “silver bullet”, the entire system requires adjustments and overhauls.

Featured image via Fred Duval / Shutterstock.

Under the migrant deal, which was first announced last month, migrants ineligible for asylum will be returned to France and an equal number of migrants will be brought to the UK.

Prime Minister Kier Starmer said: “This government has been fixing the foundations of the broken asylum system we inherited and today we send a clear message – if you come here illegally on a small boat you will face being sent back to France.

“This is the product of months of grown-up diplomacy delivering real results for British people as we broker deals no government has been able to achieve and strike at the heart of these vile gangs’ business model.

“The days of gimmicks and broken promises are over – we will restore order to our borders with the seriousness and competence the British people deserve.”

The aim of the migrant deal is to reduce overall crossing numbers by disincentivising would-be Channel crossers from making attempts.

However, reports suggest that as few as 50 people each week may be removed from Britain under the scheme – leading the Conservatives to label the policy a “gimmick”. This morning, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper has refused to offer a figure for how many migrants will be returned, claiming that disclosing that information would aid people smugglers.

Those brought to the UK under the new migrant deal will have to make applications whilst in France and will be subject to security and documentation checks. In an interview with Politics UK, Yvette Cooper explained that information collected on migrants who fail security checks will be retained so such individuals can be identified, should they subsequently make a successful crossing.

The Home Secretary told Politics UK: “The whole point of having this one for one agreement with France that’s never been in place before means that we can return people who arrive illegally in the UK to France.

“And also then on this one-for-one transfer if people have been through legal applications, been through security checks, can come to the UK on a one-for-one basis.

“And of course, we will keep all of the evidence about any criminality, any abuse, and any breaches of security checks to make sure that that can be enforced.”

More than 25,000 people have crossed the Channel in small boats in the first half of 2025 – making this year the worst since crossings began. In a statement today, shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp blamed the removal of the Conservatives’ plan to remove migrants to Rwanda was to blame for the surge in arrivals: “The Rwanda removals deterrent, under which 100 per cent of illegal arrivals would be removed, was ready to go last summer but Labour cancelled it just days before it was due to start with no proper replacement plan. As a result, this year so far has been the worst ever for illegal immigrants crossing the channel.”

He continued: “Only removing all illegal immigrants upon arrival will provide the necessary deterrent to stop the crossings. This is the Conservative plan, but Labour is too weak to implement it and as a result they have lost control of our borders.”

The agreement comes into force today amidst a series of protest throughout Britain at hotels where Channel migrants are being housed.

Protests have grown around hotels in Epping, Newcastle and London in recent weeks, as well as several other locations.

Concerns have been expressed by some that these protests may escalate into violence or vandalism as happened last summer following the murder of three girls in Southport by Alex Rudakubana.