Starmer backs down and accepts security committee will play role in vetting Mandelson files for release – live
Starmer backs down, and accepts parliament's ISC will play role in pre-release Mandelson files vettingLindsay Hoyle says the manuscript amendment, which has been tabled by the PM, has been accepted. (See 3.50pm.) He says a minister will formally move it in the winding up speech.That means MPs will definitely vote on the amendment. As a Labour amendment, it should be passed easily.When Alex Burghart was opening the debate, he indicated that the Tories would accept it. At PMQs Kemi Badenoch also floated the idea. (See 12.16pm.) She said:
If the prime minister is serious about national security concerns, he should ask the intelligence and security committee to decide which documents should be released. Will he commit to doing so here and now?
But not all MPs will be happy about this. In the Commons a few minutes ago Jeremy Corbyn, the former Labour leader how is now a Your Party MP, said he would vote for the original Tory motion. He suggested he was not happy about the ISC compromise proposals, which he argued could lead to a hold-up in the release of material.ShareUpdated at 17.16 CETKey eventsShow key events onlyPlease turn on JavaScript to use this featureAndrew SparrowThis is from the Times’ Aubrey Allegretti, who says Labour MPs are furious. And he says some of them are gunning for Morgan McSweeney, the PM’s chief of staff, who is blamed for persuading Keir Starmer to
More reaction coming through…
Minister: “PMQs made things worse. People [are] really upset.”
A second minister on McSweeney: “He has to go.”
Labour MP and Starmer loyalist: “Inexplicable PMQs today. This has an end of days feel.”
Another backer of the PM: “Fucking car crash.”
MP and ally of Rayner: “Morgan is finished.”
McSweeney’s position has not been helped by this story just published by Catherine Neilan at the Observer. She says:
Morgan McSweeny sought official advice over whether Peter Mandelson, who resigned from the Lords this week in disgrace, could be the UK’s ambassador to the US and chancellor of the University of Oxford at the same time, sources have claimed …
Senior government sources told The Observer that McSweeney asked Cabinet Office officials for advice as to whether Mandelson could carry out the two roles – based thousands of miles apart – simultaneously. McSweeney questioned whether the US ambassador role could be carried out on a part-time basis.
Officials “had to explain that being his majesty’s ambassador in Washington was a full-time job… in Washington”, said one person close to the matter. Another source said that the query was made at Mandelson’s behest.
Tom Ambrose is now taking over the blog for a bit.ShareUpdated at 17.27 CETStarmer backs down, and accepts parliament's ISC will play role in pre-release Mandelson files vettingLindsay Hoyle says the manuscript amendment, which has been tabled by the PM, has been accepted. (See 3.50pm.) He says a minister will formally move it in the winding up speech.That means MPs will definitely vote on the amendment. As a Labour amendment, it should be passed easily.When Alex Burghart was opening the debate, he indicated that the Tories would accept it. At PMQs Kemi Badenoch also floated the idea. (See 12.16pm.) She said:
If the prime minister is serious about national security concerns, he should ask the intelligence and security committee to decide which documents should be released. Will he commit to doing so here and now?
But not all MPs will be happy about this. In the Commons a few minutes ago Jeremy Corbyn, the former Labour leader how is now a Your Party MP, said he would vote for the original Tory motion. He suggested he was not happy about the ISC compromise proposals, which he argued could lead to a hold-up in the release of material.ShareUpdated at 17.16 CETLabour's Paula Barker says she is 'ashamed' of government amendment tabled todayBack in the debate, Labour’s Paula Barker has just told MPs that she was “ashamed” of the government amendment tabled today. The government had to do “much, much better”, she said.She said the government should withdraw its amendment, unless it is changed to allow the intelligence and security committee to deal with the document vetting.If the government did not withdraw its amendment, she would vote against it, she said.View image in fullscreenPaula Barker speaking in the debate Photograph: BBCShareMinisters under pressure to accept last-minute amendment saying ISC should have final say over Mandelson files vettingJessica Elgot says he has seen the text of the manuscript amendment that is likely to be agreed later this afternoon. (See 1.57pm.) It is an amendment to the government amendement, which says everything mentioned in the Tory motion should be released “except papers prejudicial to UK national security or international relations”.Under the manuscript amendment, this would read “except papers prejudicial to UK national security or international relations which shall instead be referred to the intelligence and security committee”.Given the strength of opposition on the Labour benches to the government amendment, we are expecting the government to agree to this. The minister winding up the debate (possibly Darren Jones, the chief secretary to the PM) may announce at the despatch box in the speech winding up the debate (at about 6.50pm) that the government is accepting that.The amendment implies that, if the Cabinet Office passed material it considered “prejudicial to UK national security or international relations” to the ISC, the ISC could publish it if it decided that there was no risk from publication”. But MPs are seeking clarification on this point.ShareUpdated at 16.59 CETThe Labour MP Natalie Fleet said that she was glad that information about Jeffrey Epstein was being released. And she said that she was glad that there seemed to be a “cross-party consensus” in the chamber about the need for the government to release more information about the Mandelson appointment than originally planned.But she used most of her speech to speak up on behalf of victims. Fleet, who has spoken about being groomed and raped herself when she was a teenager, said:
While the sheer number of victims Epstein preyed upon may put him in a class by himself, he was no outlier.
The way he viewed women and girls as playthings to be used and discarded is not uncommon amongst certain powerful men, who believe they are above the law.
Many of those men still go about their daily lives enjoying the benefit of their power.
Do you know why the world is as bad as it is? It’s because people can only think about their own business and won’t trouble themselves to stand up for the oppressed, nor bring the wrongdoers to light …
I hope for a world in which predators are punished, not protected, victims are treated with compassion, not shamed, and powerful people face the same consequences as everyone else.
View image in fullscreenNatalie Fleet speaking in the Commons Photograph: HoCShareStephen Flynn, the SNP leader at Westminster, said MPs should support the Tory motion for the full disclosure of the Mandelson documents “to ensure that the treachery of Peter Mandelson is not ignored”.He said Starmer had still not apologised for appointing Mandelson as ambassador. And he said Starmer’s lack of judgment would lead to his departure from No 10.ShareSpeaker tells MPs Mandelson debate will end at 7pm, not 4pm as originally plannedLindsay Hoyle, the speaker, has just intervened to say that, in response to a request from the Conservative party (whose debate this is – they chose the motion), the debate will run until 7pm.That means what was meant to be the second Tory debate of the debate – on a motion saying under-16s should not have access to social media – has been cancelled.ShareLabour MP Polly Billington says 'propriety of public life' on the line in this debateBack in the debate Polly Billington (Lab) has just finished speaking. She said people voted Labour for change. She went on:
This is the moment where the propriety of public life is on the line.
The actions of this government can go one of two ways; a decision to draw a line under the culture of certain people being worth the risk, or an agreement that there will no longer be situations where particular individuals, because of connections or talent, are exempt from the rules that apply to the rest of us.
ShareThe BBC live blog has a good selection of new email exchanges between Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein released in the US.Here is one where Epstein complains that Mandelson is ungrateful for all that Epstein has done for him. It is from 2012.View image in fullscreenEpstein/Mandleson exchange Photograph: BBCHere is one from 2010 where Epstein asks Mandelson to intervene on his behalf with Larry Summers, President Obama’s chief economic adviser.View image in fullscreenEmail from Epstein to Mandelson Photograph: BBCHere is a smutty exchange sent on the day Epstein was released from jail in 2009.View image in fullscreenMandelson/Epstein exchange Photograph: BBCShareLindsay Hoyle, the speaker, says this debate is due to end at 4pm.But he says that the Tories can ask for extra time if they want.ShareSpeaker tells MPs that rule about not discussing royals in debate no longer covers Andrew Mountbatten-WindsorHoare was asked during his speech if he agreed that MPs should pass a bill removing Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor from the line of succession. Hoare said MPs were not able to discuss the royal family. At that point Lindsay Hoyle, the speaker, intervened to say that rule not longer applied, because Andrew is now longer a prince. After that, Hoare said that he did favour legislation like that, although he thought the chance of Andrew ever succeeding to the throne was “so remote as to be unimaginable”.Share
