Angela Rayner backs Tory calls for intelligence and security committee to decide what Mandelson files released
Angela Rayner, the former deputy PM, has urged the government to agree to the Tory proposal (see 1.15pm) for the intelligence and security committee to decide what Mandelson files are released, and what are held back.
In intervention while Thomas-Symonds was speaking, she said that she had table a humble address on PPE in 2022.
She said:
Given the public disgust and the sickening behaviour of Peter Mandelson and the importance of transparency … should we not have the ISC not have the same role now [as in relation to a previous humble address] in keeping public confidence in the process?
Angela Rayner speaking in the debate Photograph: HoCShare
Key events
Show key events only
Please turn on JavaScript to use this feature
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.
ShareSpeaker 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.
ShareLabour 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: BBCShare
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.
ShareSpeaker 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”.
Simon Hoare, the Conservative chair of the public administration and constitutional affairs committee, is speaking now.
He is urging Labour MPs to vote against the goverment amendment. He says the hardest vote he ever made was voting against the Tory whip when the Boris Johnson government was trying to shelve the standards committee report saying Owen Paterson should be suspended. It was hard because Paterson was a friend, personally and politically. But he has never regretted it, because it was the right thing to do.
He says the government should pull its amendment.
And Labour MPs should speak to their whips, telling them to do this, he says.
Back in the Commons Matt Bishop (Lab) is speaking. He says he could never vote for something that would be seen by his constituents as a cover-up. He is referring to the government amendment. (See 8.54am.) He says he does not believe the government can “mark its own homework” on a matter of such gravity.
He says, because it is moral necessity, he will be voting in the interests of victims and survivors.
This is the statment that the Conservative party put out about Keir Starmer admitting at PMQs he was aware when he appointed Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the US that Mandelson had remains friends with Jeffrey Epstein after Epstein was convicted of child sex offences. (See 12.11pm.)
The prime minister has just admitted that the official security vetting highlighted Mandelson’s ongoing relationship with the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, but he went ahead and appointed him anyway.
This is the first time the prime minister has admitted this and it raises very serious questions over Keir Starmer’s shocking judgment.
The PM is now trying to orchestrate a cover up by having his own government mark his homework. All MPs must now support the Conservatives’ humble address so that we reveal the full extent of this scandal and the shocking failure of Keir Starmer and his operation.
Share
Peter Walker
Peter Walker is the Guardian’s senior political correspondent.
For all that the Conservatives are very understandably putting Keir Starmer under pressure about Peter Mandelson, it does seem as if their outrage about his appointment is slightly retrospective.
Asked if the party had raised Mandelson’s continued links to Jeffrey Epstein after the latter had been jailed for trafficking, which was in the public domain at the time, Kemi Badenoch’s spokesperson said this was “a fair challenge” and that he could not recall it being raised by the party.
I imagine there would be various quotes on the record about the fact that this is a man who had been sacked from cabinet twice for misconduct. So I imagine there were some [Conservative] voices around, you know, whether this was a sound appointment.
Asked if the party had actively opposed Mandelson getting the role at the time, he added: “I can’t remember.”
ShareLabour MPs say they will vote down plan to limit Mandelson disclosures
Labour MPs have warned they will vote down a government amendment to limit the disclosures about Peter Mandelson’s appointment as ambassador, with government sources saying they may be forced to change their own amendment, Jessica Elgot reports.
ShareThomas-Symonds says government intends to start disclosing Mandelson documents ‘today’
Thomas-Symonds told MPs that the goverment would comply with the motion as amended.
He said going through all the Mandelson documents – “a significant amount” – would take some time.
But the government would “start that process of disclosure, to the extent it can do, today”, he said.
Lindsay Hoyle, the speaker, said that there would be a “high bar” for accepting a manuscript amendment this afternoon (see 1.57pm), but he said that there was a lot to clear up and he was willing to do that.
Jeremy Wright (Con) said Thomas-Symonds’ comment about the ISC was helpful. (See 1.59pm.) He said it would be helpful to have an assurance that everything would be disclosed, either to the ISC or to the whole house.
Thomas-Symonds said his previous comment was “in good faith”.
Thomas-Symonds told MPs that the ISC would play a role in the Cabinet Office process deciding what Mandelson material gets released.
ShareSpeaker suggests MPs could be allowed to vote on last-minute amendment saying ISC should vet Mandelson files for release
Clive Efford (Lab) intervened to ask if it would be possible for someone to produce a manuscript amendment (that is a last-minute amendment submitted on the day, not one printed in the order paper) saying the ISC should take over the process. He said there was a “consenus in the house” that this would be a good way forward.
Lindsay Hoyle, the speaker, said a manuscript amendment would be a matter for the chair. He was the chair, he said. And he said he would be “sympathetic to what the house would need”.
Thomas-Symonds said, again, he would take this issue away.