PM accepts security committee will help vet Mandelson files amid rising anger from Labour MPs – live

Key events

Show key events only

Please turn on JavaScript to use this feature

Tory Esther McVey has described the Mandelson scandal as the “crumbling of Starmer” and has called into question his judgment on other issues, such as the Chagos Islands.

She was speaking in response to as speech by fellow Conservative Christopher Chope, who recounted his dealings with Mandelson in the late 1990s.

Reform’s Rupert Lowe intervenes to make use of the debate to thank Elon Musk and the social media network X “for exposing a great deal of this evil” to retorts of “shame” across the benches.

Andy McDonald said he had “lingering concerns” about the process of releasing documents relating to Mandelson’s appointment despite a government climbdown.

The Labour MP criticised the “appalling failure of judgment” in appointing the peer, telling the Press Association:

I think many of us have still got lingering concerns, firstly about the international relations issue, that could mean anything.

He added that the Intelligence and Security Committee must be “rigorous” in its approach, adding:

You’re still in the situation where the government and No 10 have got to be candid about what it releases.

You’ve got to have a healthy degree of circumspection.

He said he thought it was “reasonable to expect an answer pretty damn quick” on how Mandelson passed vetting. “It beggars belief that we could ever get a security vetting process that would sign off affirmatively on somebody in these circumstances,” he said.

Asked about Keir Starmer’s own judgment given what was already in the public domain about Mandelson, McDonald said:

I think that this is an appalling failure of judgment.

McDonald indicated he would back the new amendment “reluctantly” while stressing the need for “full disclosure.”

Conservative Luke Evans, MP for Hinckley and Bosworth, tells the Commons he is “simply asking was [the prime minister] warned before he wheeled through the trojan horse that is Mandelson into government”.

He says the reason MPs are asking for further details is to better understand what advice was given to Keir Starmer.

“Yet again we are spending parliamentary time about whether there will be more information released, which [Starmer] knows himself,” he says, adding that the prime minister should have attended to answer questions on the issue.

Fellow Tory Stuart Anderson asks Evans if he agrees with him that Starmer’s position is “untenable”, which he says he does agree with.

John Swinney has ordered an investigation into his government’s dealings with Peter Mandelson to see if the “interests of Scotland have been undermined”.

Mandelson, who resigned from the House of Lords this week after more revelations about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein were revealed, is currently under police investigation over alleged misconduct in public office.

Speaking to ITV Border on Wednesday, Scotland’s first minister questioned Keir Starmer’s judgment in appointing Mandelson to the role of ambassador to the US, given his friendship with Epstein was already known. Swinney said he had instructed the country’s top civil servant to launch an investigation.

“What I’m now concerned about is that now we know there’s information about the supply of material by Peter Mandelson in the financial crash to Jeffrey Epstein, I’m now concerned about the implications of that for Scotland,” he said.

In the Commons debate, Your Party MP Zarah Sultana says Peter Mandelson was “besties with a convicted nonce” and criticises the way he was “rehabilitated” and brought back into the fold by Labour leader Keir Starmer.

She says the scandal has only come to light because of the files being released in the US and that there is no record of his emails in the UK.

“When ordinary people make mistakes, they pay the price … but if you belong to the Westminster club, you can be linked to one of the most notorious predators of our time and still reach the top,” she says.

She gives way to Lib Dem MP Vikki Slade, who says if Mandelson did leak market-sensitive information to Epstein, “we have all paid the price”.

This 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.

Starmer backs down, and accepts parliament's ISC will play role in pre-release Mandelson files vetting

Lindsay 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.

Labour's Paula Barker says she is 'ashamed' of government amendment tabled today

Back 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.

Paula Barker speaking in the debate Photograph: BBC

Ministers under pressure to accept last-minute amendment saying ISC should have final say over Mandelson files vetting

Jessica 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.

The 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.

Natalie Fleet speaking in the Commons Photograph: HoC

Stephen 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.

Speaker tells MPs Mandelson debate will end at 7pm, not 4pm as originally planned

Lindsay 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.

Labour MP Polly Billington says 'propriety of public life' on the line in this debate

Back 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.

The 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.

Epstein/Mandleson exchange Photograph: BBC

Here is one from 2010 where Epstein asks Mandelson to intervene on his behalf with Larry Summers, President Obama’s chief economic adviser.

Email from Epstein to Mandelson Photograph: BBC

Here is a smutty exchange sent on the day Epstein was released from jail in 2009.

Mandelson/Epstein exchange Photograph: BBC

Lindsay 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.

Speaker tells MPs that rule about not discussing royals in debate no longer covers Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor

Hoare 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”.