Original subtitles

Prince Andrew suggested to Newsnight that a photo of him and Virgina

Giuffre was faked. Tonight a bombshell Epstein via e-mail appears

to confirm the photo is real. Virginia's family give their

reaction exclusively to this programme. And Keir Starmer as back

down over how the Peter Mandelson to are released. He also admitted

appointing him US Ambassador knowing he had continued his relationship

with Epstein Post conviction. As the PM trapped in the shadow of the

Prince of darkness?

Good evening.

It's Newsnight for the top takes and guests on late night TV.

Live from Broadcasting House, seen at home and around the world.

Hello.

On an eventful day in British politics and for survivors

of abuse.

On our panel are Zack Polanksi, Green leader,

Arlene Foster, former First Minister of Northern Ireland, now

a non-affiliated peer, and Labour MP Barry Gardiner.

Newsnight Nick is standing by, too.

The family of the accuser of the former Prince Andrew say

she's been vindicated by the release of a new email from

the Epstein files.

Seemingly from Ghislaine Maxwell, it appears to confirm as genuine

that infamous photo of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor

with his arm around Virginia Giuffre with Maxwell smiling on.

The former prince, who has always denied any wrongdoing,

has previously questioned whether the picture had been

doctored and claimed he had never met Giuffre.

Here he is speaking to Newsnight in 2019...

Never happened.

She provided a photo of the two of you together.

Yes.

Your arms around her waist.

Yes.

You've seen the photo?

I've seen the photograph.

How do you explain that?

I can't.

Because I don't...

Again, I have absolutely no memory of that photograph ever being taken.

Do you recognise yourself in the photo?

Oh, yes, it's pretty difficult not to recognise yourself.

Your friend suggested that the photo is a fake.

I think coming from the investigations that we've done,

you can't prove whether or not that photograph is faked or not

because it is a photograph of a photograph of a photograph.

So, it's very difficult to be able to prove it.

But I don't remember that photograph being taken.

However in a message, released as part of the latest

batch of the Epstein files, headed "draft statement"

sent by a "G Maxwell" to Jeffrey Epstein in 2015,

she wrote:

"In 2001 I was in London when I met a number

"of friends of mine, including Prince Andrew.

"A photograph was taken as I imagine she wanted to show it to friends

"and family."

I spoke to Virginia Giuffre's brother Sky

and sister-in-law Amanda about the developments on

that photo.

The e-mail itself is incredibly important.

I think it's also important to note that it truly does vindicate

Virginia.

It shows that not only was she not lying this entire time, even

though, you know, many people across multiple

countries indicated that

she was.

It does vindicate her, she was telling the truth.

Not only did Ghislaine mention that the photo

was real, she also mentioned that it was in the same

house that Virginia had mentioned.

So, it's a moment where we are really proud of our sister.

I think it is a vindicating moment, but we also want to use this as a

moment to remind people to believe the survivors.

This is a really strong moment for us to take a look

in the mirror and ask ourselves, what have we missed this entire

time?

Why didn't we believe this truth teller?

Amanda, how does it contrast with the account given by

Andrew, the former Prince, to this programme, when he said he was sure

he wouldn't have gone upstairs in Ghislaine Maxwell's house, when it

was him, but it might not have been his hand, and that he had no

recollection of meeting a woman who looked

like Virginia Giuffre or who

was Virginia Giuffre?

You know, every time I'm confronted with what

Andrew says, I'm always reminded of this quote that Virginia says.

"He knows what happened, I know what happened,

and I know that only one of us is telling the truth here, and

I know that's me."

It just further solidifies that she was so solid in

her conviction in the truth that, you know, it just rings in my ear,

every time I hear his account, every time he speaks it is discredited.

His story seems to fluctuate every time he tries to explain what

happened or what didn't happen.

And we're seeing right now in the files

further incriminating photos and documents,

you know, against Andrew.

So it furthers that moment of like we dropped

the ball and we should be

reopening the investigation against Andrew.

I wonder, can you comment from your side, as the family,

on the pace of events?

Because hers was a very lonely voice for a very

long time and now, to be honest with you,

our heads are spinning at the

pace of revelations coming from the Epstein papers.

What is it like to be you, receiving this pace of

information?

You know...

It's a whirlwind.

I think this moment I felt a moment of such overwhelming

emotion because I wish that she was here to see this.

She fought so hard and so long, against all odds, and

she still was just so...

She was so strong, for everyone.

Not just for her but for her survivor sisters

and every single survivor who has been discounted.

And so this moment, it is a bittersweet moment because we

are proud of her and her accomplishments and I think the

world is beginning to see the truth.

So, we are proud of her but we miss her greatly in this moment because

she should be revelling, you know, in this moment.

Thank you for gathering your thoughts for this interview.

And I know we've spoken before.

It's important to keep going, but it is also possible to stop.

If you give me the signal, we'll do that.

I think we're OK.

Yeah, I think we're OK.

I think if Virginia could

go through all that she went through,

I think we can do this.

We can do this for her.

And it's owed for her and every single survivor.

Yes.

And the permission to continue is coming from you.

So, let me ask you some more questions.

There is a second woman has come forward.

Her lawyers claim she was trafficked in her 20s for sex with Andrew.

And what kind of impact is that

having, to know that another police force is looking

into those allegations, Sky?

Well, I think it's very important to start with

the fact that this has already been something

that was brought up before.

So we can't...

We can't let her starting point be where Virginia's starting point was.

We have to allow her the space to come forward,

just like so many other survivors out there can come forward.

And so, how brave of her to come forward.

How brave of her to speak out, if she has the ability to do so.

And of course, you know, you have the basis of, you're not

guilty until proven otherwise.

But the reality is, if she has substantial evidence

to present forward to the police, then it needs to be

thoroughly investigated.

And we need to believe survivors.

We need to start with that basis of, hey,

let's start here and not give all this resistance to have

to make her come all the way forward.

Let's give them a little bit of grace here

so they can come forward, feeling like they're

going to be believed,

and not like they're going to be feeling like they're criticised.

On the survivors, Sky,

some have said, many have said they feel

the redactions have allowed for their identification.

There've been non-redactions.

And do you accept that some people want

the material removed from the site?

I've seen on my social feeds lots of content creators

using photographs with women as objects from these files.

I wonder do you support calls for them to be removed,

these photographs, until the redaction is better organised?

There are no survivors, not one that I know of

that didn't want these files released.

They wanted these files released.

Now that the files are released, this isn't

a case of "oh, well, you know, you can't pick or choose."

This is not that kind of case.

This is our own government.

Our government in the United States,

and the DOJ and Pam Bondi violated the law.

They unredacted names of survivors, my sister's name's redacted.

And there are hundreds of survivors names that are unredacted.

And that is a complete violation of their security, of their privacy.

It allows those rich and powerful men to potentially come after them.

This is not justice.

So in the millions of pages that have come out has been

the name of a former peer of the realm,

a Lord who today renounced his access to the House of Lords,

he removed himself from the House of Lords, on the 4th.

And I wonder, can you tell me what he should do next,

Peter Mandelson?

He needs to travel here and give testimony in front of our Congress.

Finally, Sky, do you think the British Prime Minister

got the message in the way that you wanted it delivered 30 years ago,

20 years ago, ten years ago?

He appointed Peter Mandelson as UK ambassador to the US,

knowing that he had continued a relationship,

a friendship, a connection with Jeffrey Epstein

after his conviction.

Well, I bet you they're regretting that decision now.

I mean, you know, I don't know what the circumstances

were around that time, but if it is, in fact that they knew

that there was some underlying issues,

it just shows to you how far this goes.

And unfortunately, we accepted that as a society for too long.

And I think this is the new wave of society

that says "we want something different."

I think the people have spoken.

I think that if you continue to speak,

we can hold these people to account, including the Prime Minister,

for those actions.

He should answer for those.

He should say, "why?"

I mean, those are the right questions to be asking.

Sky and Amanda, thank you for talking to Newsnight.

It's been a bruising day for Keir Starmer.

He's backtracked on one plan to release the Peter Mandelson

papers, and confirmed his other plan, to make him US ambassador

was taken knowing he'd kept up a relationship with Peter Mandelson

-- Epstein after Epstein's conviction for child prostitution.

Nick, what's been happening?

I would say that two words sum up the moods across the House of

Commons, and that is he knew. That is a reference to Keir Starmer's

mission on the third time of asking by Kemi Badenoch that at the time he

appointed Peter Mandelson as ambassador to Washington, he knew of

his continuing friendship with Jeffrey Epstein after his conviction

for child sex prostitution in 2008. At the point of that admission by

Keir Starmer, you could see the authority drain away from him,

because it highlighted this widespread feeling in the Labour

Party, and in the Government, that the Prime Minister showed poor

judgment in making that appointment. And when as a Prime Minister your

authority starts to go away, you lose the ability to do what you

want, and here was the swing moment. I thank the Minister for giving way.

Given the public discussed and the sickening behaviour of Peter

Mandelson and the importance of transparency, in 2022 I proposed

eight humble address seeking information about PPE, which the

party opposite mention just before.

Should we not have the ISC not have the same role now in keeping

public confidence in the process?

That was his former deputy telling him to do what he didn't intend to

do, which was to hand over to Parliament's intelligence and

Security committee a crucial role in vetting which papers can and cannot

be released, related to the appointment of Peter Mandelson. And

the few hours later, to avoid the risk of defeat in Parliament, Keir

Starmer agreed to that. You are acknowledging every time Nick says

something appalling about the handling by the Labour Government of

this affair. How appalling it has the handling been by the Labour

Government? The first thing I want to say as having listened

to say as having listened to the Giuffres, we need to listen to

victims, and not to the voices of the elite who think they are

untouchable stop is that what the Prime Minister did when he appointed

Peter Mandelson? The Prime Minister today made an omission, which I

think everybody in that chamber knew he had to make, but which he

resisted making, as Nick says, twice already. You cannot hide behind

process and say this is the process we followed. He should have come

straight out and he should have said, look, I need to say I made a

big mistake here, a mistake of judgment. I believed the lies I was

told, and that is on me. I got it wrong. He could have then said

whatever he wanted to about the reasons he thought Mandelson had a

good relationship with Trump or whatever he wanted to say. But to

try and tuck it in the way he did and hide behind process, we were

squirming. The backbenchers on the Labour benches were going over, for

gods sake, get on with it, just admit it. The public look at this

and say typical politician. Won't tell you straight. Did you agree

that this Labour MP is telling Nick his authority seemed to end as he

would not answer Kemi Badenoch's question, one, two or a third time?

When he answered it and said yes, I didn't know that he had some

relationship with Epstein, there was almost a palpable grasp and you

could feel his authority going away at that time. To pick up on Barry's

point, this whole sorry saga is about powerful men in positions of

authority. And women and girls being trafficked across the world, it

seems, to be used and abused. And very sadly, Virginia Giuffre is not

here today. She took her own life, presumably because of everything

that happened. So I think absolutely, the victims must be

centre stage in this whole thing and the political farce that is going on

at the moment about who knew what and when it comes second. All of the

guests want to talk about victims and we have tried to respect that

but can I ask Zack to talk to me about the Prime Minister. What

contrast would you make to the man at the dispatch box today and the

DPP pursuing Boris Johnson with his moral compass pointing north? When

Keir Starmer was head of public prosecutions it was all about his

judgment, his forensic ability to ask the right questions. Here we see

the most catastrophic lapse in judgment you can imagine. The Prime

Minister should do the right thing and step down because actually the

rot runs right through the Labour government. This is a man Keir

Starmer, who knew that Peter Mandelson was friends with one of

the most known paedophiles in the world, was still staying in his

apartment, and he brought him into the heart of government solely

because, I imagine, he thought he could whisper in Trump's ear. Did

you say that then? It was in plain sight. Are the days of Keir Starmer

numbered because of how it looks now, Barry? Erm... Look, this was

our manifesto, right. One man, one word. Change. That's what we

promised. That was the whole of what we as the Labour Party promised this

country, change. This looks more like the same. Should he step down?

I think that he needs to think very hard about what is in the country's

best interest... So, yes? And in the party's best interest. So that is a

veiled yes? You don't want to say it but you are saying it with your

eyes. Arlene, you have led a party. Once you start losing your

colleagues around you and your colleagues are saying the sort of

things that were being said today, then you have to think about whether

you have the ability to lead from the front any more. Can I say I

think there are other serious consequences, like Palantir, the

spying firm. The defence industry was lobbied by Peter Mandelson, his

group, and Wes Streeting was mentioned. It has crucial data on

our health care systems so the idea that this defence company from the

US has its fingerprints all over our fingerprints alongside Peter

Mandelson is a range of questions that need answers. Can I ask you,

including Nick, to compare this, as people have done tk, to Profumo.

This seems to be an Angela Reina moment as well. Starting with the

Daily Telegraph, it seems the moment, according to this paper,

that Angela Rayner turns on Starmer. This was the sound bite that Nick

brought us at the top. We had been waiting for the New Year to see when

she made her move. Prime Minister's authority in doubt. The Sun

newspaper simply says revolting. Labour MPs forcing PM Mandy U-turn.

The Guardian has the strongest version of Word to predict for the

Prime Minister, it is over, say Labour MPs. The Daily Mail, Starmer

in great peril as Angela Rayner twists the knife. Nick, does this

strike you as the moment when Angela Rayner could have held back but went

straight pedal to the metal? You talked about history and maybe I got

this wrong but wasn't it said of Sir Thomas more that his silence

reverberated around the world? Some very significant silence from Barry

Gardiner about whether Keir Starmer should resign as Prime Minister. Let

me be clear... Keir Starmer, as a project, came about from somebody

who had been the protege of Mandelson, and is now the chief of

staff in 10 Downing Street. There's connectivity and common to use your

historical analogy, the guy at the top is not the only thing, here.

There are barons, and when they begin to feel that they are under

pressure, it's a very dangerous time for the Prime Minister. And there's

so much that is dependent on Mandelson, through the chief of

staff, then has initiated and the people who are now in positions as

ministers that have been dependent on that whole process. OK. That

means this is not just one man at the top. You're talking about an

aristocracy within the party. You've named the chief of staff in

particular. Does changing Morgan McSweeney, who Barry is talking

about, a way out? No, and I'm concerned about reports that Morgan

McSweeney and Peter Mandelson were vetting the new Labour MPs. That

means we have Labour MPs in parliament who are associated with

this sordid mess. That's not to say that every single one of them isn't

a decent person and doesn't have values in their heart but it raises

questions about Morgan McSweeney and Peter Mandelson and their

interference in this. It comes back ultimately to Keir Starmer. There

was a report in the new statesman that said Peter Mandelson and Morgan

McSweeney don't breathe without Peter Mandelson knowing about it, so

again, questions. Questions about that but also questions, interesting

to see what comes out of the papers and e-mails and documents that have

come out. Not only what Zack has said about the company that Peter

Mandelson was involved in, but what is going on in terms of Russia,

China, the Chagos Islands, dare I mention that? Does it come up? Why

is there such a push to give away the British family? I want to know

what is in those documents. The Intelligence and Security Committee

have a huge job ahead of them. I thought it was ridiculous to say

that they weren't going to give, originally, documents relating to

international relations when at the end of the day, this is about

appointing our ambassador to the US. That was a ridiculous thing to hide

away from. A lot has been said in anger about the Chagos Islands but

not the British family. You can't say that! What we need to say is,

what is your Intel from the Labour MPs tonight? Briefly, to be fair to

the Labour Party and what Zack, a long-standing member of the NEC says

it isn't tree -- isn't true that Peter Maddison vetted candidates. I

made a point of going in for the last half an hour of the debate.

Angela Rayner was sitting there and her face and the Labour MPs, they

were sitting largely in silence, stony faced and they looked angry. I

made a point of coming out of the debate to canvass opinion and these

are the opinions I picked up. A minister said to me, it is shameful,

it is embarrassing. A backbencher said to me, you could see the Prime

Minister shrinking in front of our eyes. I don't see how he survives,

he said. And this is from a loyalist. This is so sad, I think

that power is moving irretrievably to the Labour left. For God's sake!

If that is what Labour loyalists think this is about, then where is

their loyalty to? That's what I want to know. This is not a fight between

right and left within the Labour Party. It is much bigger than that

and if they don't get that, then they need to smell the coffee.

Because it's about judgment, Arlene, I think the point everyone is

making. Because time and time again, Keir Starmer's judgment as Prime

Minister has been called into question, which, under our

adversarial system, he has been snookered by Kemi Badenoch on his

judgment. I think that's a fair question and I think she was on top

form today, if I may say, in terms of how she performed in comparison

to the Prime Minister, who looked incredibly under pressure, so much

so that his hand was shaking at one point. He is under incredible

pressure, there is no doubt about that but I agree with Barry that he

should have been upfront about what he knew instead of having to be

questioned about it in the fashion he was. On the question of loyalty,

since we've been on air a Labour MP has said that we should be loyal to

the prior minister and that too many colleagues are addicted to

opposition. One minister said to me, we aren't smiling but it is

delirium. Another backbencher said, that was Kier's worst performance in

Prime Minister's Questions and I don't see how he comes back from

this. He is toast. I began by saying the two words associated with today

were, he knew. One former member of the government said to me, no, the

two words that should be associated with today are Morgan, out. Get mid,

they say, of Morgan McSweeney, the Prime Minister's chief of staff, who

was instrumental in that appointment. I have learned tonight

that Starmer loyalists have been going to the whips and saying, we've

helped you. You need to help us, you need to help the Labour Party. Get

him out and put him in charge of Labour campaigning. We have been

warned about going straight to politics but bluntly, is this kind

of chaos good news for the Green Party? I don't think it's a good

thing for the country and I don't doubt Barry's honesty here in terms

of how much rage he is feeling and this is what the country is feeling.

It is one of the rare times, it isn't about party politics. It's

about trust. If Barry wanted to cross to the Greens at...? Never

going to happen! You are wearing a green badge. As a politician you

learn to take responsibility for the decisions you make. This is on Keir

Starmer. Let me launch another line on you, Keir Starmer is a

well-meaning lawyer, who fought against injustice through his career

and tried hard to catch criminals in our country. He made a mistake.

Hello, this is what happens in life. Arlene, you made one. We don't have

time to go into it. Can I put it this way,... Or mine! What he has

done, he has called Peter Maddison, said that he betrayed Britain. As

Prime Minister he has tried to own the Labour catastrophe. Do we give

him credit for that and do you agree it is as serious as that? Is it up

there with Profumo? It is serious, it is not just the Prime Minister or

his chief of staff. It is politics in general because the only thing

people are speaking about is Peter Mandelson and trust in politics and

that's bad for everybody here sitting on this panel. I think what

has to happen now is there has to be a police investigation about exactly

what Mandelson gave away, what were state secrets and confidential

information, and that goes to the heart of trust in politics. I think

that's right. I would love to add something more but this is above

politics, it's about making sure we are protecting democratic

institutions. Nick can you sum up this tumultuous day? A moment of

surprising anger. Not surprising to as we follow it but the political

classes. Keir Starmer's authority and position as Prime Minister has

been substantially weakened today, partly because there were

difficulties in the Commons but mainly because it crystallised the

feeling that he showed very poor judgment in this appointment and

what you saw from those stony faces, not just amongst backbenchers but

among ministers, you saw them standing there, you thought, this is

clearly very difficult and you wonder whether he could recover his

authority from today. Thank you all very much for joining us. You are

regular Friends of our viewers on Newsnight. I'm afraid to tell you

that I'll be back tomorrow! Good night. You'll be able to see me on

the radio as well, I'm told. Thanks for watching.