The Prime Minister has reportedly rejected calls to make public every document connected to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor's appointment as a government trade representative two decades ago.
According to reports, Downing Street justified keeping certain records classified by claiming their disclosure could undermine detectives pursuing criminal charges against the former prince.
The Express understands Labour intends to publish significant tranches of material, but will suppress sensitive files officials say might jeopardise future court cases.
MPs expect delivery next week of the first batch of paperwork related to both Lord Mandelson's selection for the Washington embassy post and his subsequent performance as Britain's chief US diplomat.
Ministers promised the intelligence and security committee (ISC) — Parliament's spy agency watchdog — would exercise independent judgment over which sections need blacking out prior to publication.
However, if the ISC and Cabinet Office clash over what to hide, government ministers hold the trump card in deciding what the public gets to read.
A former senior civil servant who worked closely with the committee dismissed the process as a sham, telling reporters it cannot be considered "in any meaningful sense, an independent process."
Labour's political opponents will cite the disclosure as proof the Government is managing fallout by controlling access to tens of thousands of internal Whitehall documents spanning a quarter-century.
Last week saw Thames Valley detectives take the ex-Duke into custody on public office misconduct allegations before freeing him post-interview.
The force confirmed Tuesday it had finished examining Royal Lodge, the Berkshire property he previously occupied. Investigators had already completed their Wood Farm sweep — his present Norfolk address — hours after taking him into custody.
Assistant Chief Constable Oliver Wright stated: "Officers have now left the location we have been searching in Berkshire. This concludes the search activity that commenced following our arrest of a man in his sixties from Norfolk on Thursday."
Monday brought Lord Mandelson's detention over matching charges, with his release occurring before dawn Tuesday.
Liberal Democrats spearheaded a "humble address" parliamentary mechanism that same day calling for unrestricted access to every file documenting Mr Mountbatten-Windsor's trade envoy tenure.
Both Tory and Reform UK parliamentarians supported the initiative, which Labour declined to oppose.
Sir Chris Bryant, the trade minister, signalled nonetheless that whilst substantial records would become publicly accessible, selected material requires continued secrecy to safeguard investigative "integrity."
Investigators are scrutinising claims emerging from the Epstein document cache that Mr Mountbatten-Windsor transmitted sensitive governmental correspondence to the sex offender across his ten-year trade envoy stint beginning in 2001.
Bryant told MPs: "Now these proceedings are under way, it would be wrong of me to say anything that might prejudice them. Nor will the Government be able to put into the public domain anything that is required by the police for them to conduct their enquiries unless and until the police are satisfied."
The minister conceded gathering every relevant document would prove time-intensive considering the position's 25-year vintage, with many records likely existing solely in hard-copy format.
Sir Chris Bryant unleashed a devastating verbal assault on the former royal, accusing him of operating "a constant self-aggrandising, self-enriching hustle" and describing him as "a rude, arrogant and entitled man who could not distinguish between the public interest, which he said he served, and his own private interest."
The Liberal Democrat leadership pledged to oppose attempts to suppress critical documentation, with Sir Ed Davey vowing to resist any "needless delay" in making records publicly accessible.
Sir Ed opened parliamentary proceedings by noting the "appalling crimes of Jeffrey Epstein and his associates have rightly stunned the whole world", insisting lawmakers demand "transparency, truth and accountability" for those who suffered abuse.
He applauded the Speaker's decision allowing parliamentarians to openly criticise the ex-prince — breaking with constitutional conventions that traditionally shield Royal Family members from Commons attacks. Sir Ed maintained these protections had stifled legitimate examination of Mr Mountbatten-Windsor's government work.
Sir Ed explained: "For too long, Members of Parliament were barred from even raising criticisms of him, let alone properly scrutinising his role as trade envoy, because of the outdated tradition that any mentions of any member of the Royal family, in this House must, in the words of the previous speaker, be 'very rare, very sparing and very respectful'."
Officials acknowledged Tuesday that selected Mandelson appointment records might not surface publicly until long after the current Prime Minister exits power, reports The Telegraph.
As per the report, Downing Street indicated March would see partial document releases — carefully scheduled to follow Thursday's pivotal Gorton and Denton by-election — though certain electronic communications could remain locked away for the duration of any police inquiry or criminal prosecution, potentially keeping them hidden through 2029 and beyond.
The ISC's Lord Beamish had publicly committed to ensuring "maximum transparency" whilst overseeing Mandelson file disclosures.
According to the report, when the oversight committee and Whitehall administrators reach an impasse over what information to redact, the ISC possesses only one avenue for action: passing the controversy to a separate parliamentary committee in hopes of forcing the Government's hand.
The parliamentary committee tasked with monitoring Britain's spy agencies has mounted sustained protests over its forced dependency on Government for legal advice and secretarial resources, arguing this compromises its independence according to the report.
Committee members formally objected via ministerial correspondence in 2025, where the report highlights: "the control exerted over the committee's staff and resourcing by the Cabinet Office" whilst insisting such arrangements "self-evidently, should not be the case".
The complaint emphasised: "An oversight body should not sit within, and be beholden to, an organisation which it oversees."
That retired senior civil servant who dismissed the redaction arrangements as a facade told The Telegraph: "The Government will decide what is redacted and the ISC, which has complained for years about the interference of the Cabinet Office in its work, will be in practice reliant on seconded civil servants who ultimately answer to the Cabinet Secretary.
"If large sections are redacted or tightly controlled, critics will argue that the system has protected itself. Without visible transparency, this risks being seen as a highly managed exercise in institutional and political self preservation."
