'Let's have some honesty': Housing Secretary appeals to Mandelson as he brands Epstein files underwear images 'disturbing'

His comments come after the former ambassador to the US was named and pictured again in the latest Epstein Files release by the US Department of Justice.

In one image, Mandelson can be seen standing in his underwear, as he speaks to a female whose identity has been redacted.

Speaking with LBC's Lewis Goodall on Sunday, Mr Reed was repeatedly asked whether Mr Mandelson should be stripped of his peerage.

Mr Reed kept insisting that Mandelson is not currently a Labour peer as "he's taken a leave of absence and therefore he doesn't have the Labour Whip at the moment".

It comes as Conservative MP Chris Philp told LBC that there is a case for the removal of Andrew Mountbatten Windsor from the line of succession over his ties to paedophile Jeffrey Epstein.

However, Lewis questioned whether this is the same as facing sanctions and having the Labour peerage removed from him.

Mr Reed reiterated that Mandelson has denied any wrongdoing, and noted unlike Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, has not paid money to any accusers.

Read more: Andrew 'should not be in the line of succession', says Philp after Epstein files release

Read more: Sir Richard Branson said ‘bring your harem’ in email reply to Jeffrey Epstein

It comes after Mandelson insisted that the sexual side of the paedophile financier's life was kept from him because he was gay.

Mr Reed did, however, push for the Labour peer to share any information he might have about Epstein that "can help shine a light on what went wrong".

Mr Reed said: "With the latest revelations, allegations, whatever you want to call them, we really do need to understand what's gone on and they're disturbing to look at.

"I feel the same way as other people will feel when they saw that picture of Peter Mandelson in his underpants when he's telling us he doesn't know anything about what's going on. Well, let's have some honesty."

He added: "I've already said people should come forward if they have information to share. I hope he'll reflect on that and what this image may or may not show."

The latest files show Epstein wired thousands of pounds after Lord Peter Mandelson’s husband asked him to pay for his osteopathy course fees.

On September 7 2009, Mr Avila da Silva sent Epstein a message saying: “I sent you a couple of emails last week regarding my osteo course expenses, incl fee, anatomical models, lap top if you can help me with this. I hope you received them.

“I just managed to speak to the fees office at the osteo school and confirmed that my annual fee is of £3,225.”

He then explains the school accepts bank transfer and provides the account details before thanking Epstein for “anything you can help me with”.

The financier replied later the same day: “I will wire your loan amount immediated’y (sic).”

Mr Avila da Silva followed up with a further email which makes reference to a £10,000 transfer.

He said: “Just sent an email back to Rich regarding the £10,000 with my personal bank details.

“I would like to clarify if this amount includes my school fees or if the amount of £3,225 (school fee) will be sent directly to the school itself.”

Epstein told him: “includedd (sic)” before Mr Avila da Silva sent him another email days later thanking him for the cash.

“Just a brief note to thank you for the money which arrived in my account this morning,” he wrote.

The files appear to show Mandelson was paid 50,000 US dollars by Epstein over two payments in June 2004, when he was a Labour MP.

The peer was sacked as the ambassador to Washington DC last year after revelations of his continued contact with Epstein following his guilty plea in 2008 to soliciting prostitution and soliciting a minor.

A spokesman for Lord Mandelson told the Sunday Mirror he had no recollection of receiving the payments, and did not know if the documents were genuine.

Lord Mandelson has previously offered an unequivocal apology to Epstein’s victims.

Being pictured or mentioned in the Epstein files is not an indicator of any wrongdoing.