Sir Lindsay Hoyle has told MPs that the Metropolitan Police have "no jurisdiction on what this House may wish to do".

It follows Cabinet Office minister Chris Ward saying the government will not publish any documents relating to Peter Mandelson's vetting tonight "because of the conversation with the Metropolitan Police".

But for the Commons Speaker, that appears not to be a sufficient excuse.

He announced: "The Metropolitan Police have no jurisdiction on what this House may wish to do. 

"It will be whether the government provides or not. But just to let you know, they cannot dictate to this House.

"I'm going to leave it at that."

Paste BN has contacted the Met, but the force declined to comment further beyond their statement this evening - which you can see in full in our post at 6.04pm.

In that, the police "advised that the release of specific documents could undermine our current investigation" and "therefore asked them [the government] not to release certain documents at this time".

Ward insisted ministers want to release documents to the public "as quickly as possible".

The prime minister is in a very sticky situation tonight, our political editor Beth Rigby says.

The decision to back the government's amendment to the Tory motion on releasing documents to do with Peter Mandelson's vetting was "much closer than the prime minister was led to believe", she adds.

Beth explains: "The release of further details on Mandelson's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein has really blown up a crisis that the prime minister hoped he had put to bed last September, when he sacked Mandelson as the ambassador to the US."

Revelations over the weekend, such as allegations that Mandelson gave advance notice to the disgraced financier about a huge EU bailout while he was business minister "brought this crisis right to the door of the current prime minister", she says. 

She continues: "Where does it leave the current prime minister? He is in a very, very, very sticky situation tonight.

"The fact that the government have had to amend their own amendment to allow the release of all these documents and then put the adjudication of what should and shouldn't be put in the public domain, not in the hands of the government, but in the hands of parliament through the Intelligence and Security Committee. The reason that is happening is because their own MPs do not trust the government."

The government had to change their amendment this afternoon after coming under intense pressure from influential Labour MPs, including Angela Rayner and Dame Meg Hillier. 

Beth says this hows "very clearly how deeply unhappy about this MPs are".

"There are many MPs and a few ministers telling me that they feel compromised by this.

"I've got MPs telling me that they're not sure they can stay on in government posts. You know, people might resign.

"It is a tinderbox, this that could really ignite, so it's very, very febrile.

She adds: "He is in a very, very, very fragile position this evening. And the mood in the parliamentary party is really, really difficult."

Cabinet Office minister Chris Ward has ruled out any documents being published today due to the ongoing criminal investigation.

Ward explains: "I just want to confirm to the House the material will not be released today because of the conversation with the Metropolitan Police over that, but it will be released as quickly as possible in line with the process.

"The timeline will be as soon as possible. We want to get on with this. We want to get with this. There is a lot of material here to go through. We will get to this as quickly as possible. 

"Other humble addresses have taken a number of weeks or months. We would want to be as quick as possible, and we will work with the ISC as soon as we can on this to get it, to get it, progressing."

Chris Ward is defending the government's decision to introduce an amendment that would give parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) the right to oversee documents related to the vetting of Peter Mandelson.

The Cabinet Office says Sir Keir Starmer "will never compromise" on national security, and adds that a "significant" number of documents relating to Mandelson could "well touch on sensitive issues of intelligence, trade or relations with other countries".

He explains: "For example, we would not inadvertently want to release information about what our red lines are in trade agreements, about the peace negotiations and position on things like Ukraine, Middle East or Sudan, or on sensitive assessments made on a lot on our allies and diplomatic conversations."

The minister tells MPs: "In line with the manuscript amendment, papers determined to be prejudicial to national security or international relations will be referred to the ISC. 

"The ISC are independent. They are rigorous. They are highly respected. They will then decide what to do with the material that is sent to them."

He adds that the cabinet secretary will work "directly in hand with the ISC" and he will "write to the ISC setting out that process".

Ward adds that it will be up to the ISC to determine "what work or if material is deemed to potentially conflict with national security or foreign relations".

He insists: "There will not be political involvement from ministers. There will not be political involvement from number ten in this process. 

"This is the cabinet secretary and the ISC working with lawyers."

Chris Ward has insisted that the PM "acted" when "new information came to light" about Peter Mandelson's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.

The cabinet office minister is winding up the government's argument over the motion to publish all documents relating to the vetting of Lord Mandelson.

The Tories are seeking to force this through, using a humble address, while Labour have tweaked their amendment to try and placate angry backbench MPs.

They now say that any documents related to national security or international relations concerns would be passed to and vetted by parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC).

The minister thanks "everyone who contributed" to today's debate, before telling the Commons: "It's clear from all sides of the House today that they share the public's anger at Mandelson's treachery, his lies and his deceit. 

"As the prime minister said earlier, Mandelson betrayed this country. He lied to the prime minister. He lied during the vetting process, which I will return to because a number of members raised it. Frankly, I suspect he's still lying now. 

"That's why, since new information came to light, the prime minister over the weekend has acted in a number of ways."

'Substantial' number of documents could relate to sensitive issues

He points to Sir Keir Starmer instructing the cabinet secretary to investigate all papers released by the US Department of Justice, the government referred material to the police and since then, the Met have launched an investigation.

He insists the government will "cooperate fully and must go wherever the evidence takes it".

Ward also insists that Mandelson wouldn't have come "within a million miles of government" if the PM knew now what he claims Starmer didn't know then.

More than nine in 10 people in Britain have heard about the growing furore over Peter Mandelson's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.

If you're wondering whether the growing anger about why Lord Mandelson was appointed - and later sacked - as US ambassador is a bit of a 'Westminster bubble' story, new data suggests it's not.

New polling carried out by YouGov has found that just 5% of people polled admitted to being unaware of the story.

That is a staggeringly small number for a political issue. 

Of those who say they have heard about the Mandelson story, around half (44%) of people say they are following it closely.

 The chair of parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) has suggested his members would decide what to do with documents relating to Peter Mandelson's vetting, if presented to them.

It follows the government changing its amendment to a Tory motion, which seeks to force the government to publish all information regarding the process carried out before Mandelson was made US ambassador.

Now, the government's amendment says documents relating to national security and international affairs would be put before the ISC.

Lord Beamish, who chairs the ISC, has been asked what his role would be.

He told Paste BN: "Well, we'll wait and see what we get first of all.

"As a committee, we never agree terms of reference. We follow the evidence, so we'll see what comes forward, and then we'll take a decision on how we deal with it."

Watch: What would the role of the ISC be?

Asked if they'll clear what will and won't be made public, Beamish replied: "No, it's going to be looking at the reports we get and see what we need to do, whether we need to produce a report or whatever. 

"The point is, is that we as a committee decide what we do with it.

"We have the highest classification of security clearance so we can see anything, but we also have legal powers to summon evidence as well. So. if we feel that these things haven't been given to us, we will ask for it. 

"But like I say, the committee needs to decide when we get the information, how we deal with it. Parliament's not yet passed this resolution."

The Metropolitan Police says it has asked the government not to release certain documents at this moment that could undermine its investigation into Peter Mandelson.

The force announced yesterday that it was probing allegations that Lord Mandelson leaked market sensitive information from Downing Street to Jeffrey Epstein.

That came after emails, released as part of the latest tranche of Epstein documents published by the US Justice Department, appeared to show conversations between the pair about political matters while Mandelson was serving as business secretary and the de-facto deputy prime minister in 2009, in Gordon Brown's government.

MPs are currently debating whether to release government documents relating to Mandelson's appointment as the UK's ambassador to the US last year - a job he was sacked from in September over his links to Epstein.

It comes amid pressure over whether the government knew about Mandelson's continued relationship with the paedophile financier following his 2008 conviction for sex offences before appointing him.

Commander Ella Marriott, of the Metropolitan Police, said: "As with any investigation, securing and preserving any potential evidence is vital. 

"For this reason, when approached by the UK government today with their intent to publish material, we reviewed it immediately and advised that the release of specific documents could undermine our current investigation. 

"We therefore asked them not to release certain documents at this time. 

"Going forward, as material is made available to us, and if we identify further documents that we believe could prejudice our investigation, we will continue to ask the government to pause their release until such time as the risk of prejudice no longer exists. 

"The integrity of our investigation is paramount to securing justice. We are grateful for their cooperation. 

"We continue to assess all relevant information brought to our attention as part of this investigation."

Yesterday, the force announced it had launched an investigation into a 72-year-old man, a former government minister, for misconduct in public office offences.

 Jeremy Corbyn has dismissed suggestions that documents about Peter Mandelson's vetting should be seen only by parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC).

Instead, the co-founder of Your Party has told Paste BN he believes an independent public inquiry into Mandelson must be held - something first championed by the Liberal Democrats. 

The former Labour leader explained: "I don't think the political establishment in Westminster or the senior echelons of the civil service can be trusted to undertake the kind of inquiry that's necessary in these circumstances - because the web of Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein goes very wide.

"I don't think merely putting all this into the hands of a security intelligence committee is good enough. I don't agree with that at all," he added.

You can watch the full interview here:

Asked what else he thinks a public inquiry into the former US ambassador might achieve, Corbyn said: "Well, I think a great deal could emerge because there are more than strong suggestions that Mandelson was involved in negotiating favours on behalf of various businesses trying to access our health service. 

"There's the clear message that was there that he sent to Epstein during the depths of the financial crisis of 2008, and I suspect there's a lot more I haven't read.

"More and more is going to emerge. I don't believe a parliamentary committee is sufficient to deal with that. 

"It needs to be something much tougher and held outside of parliament."

Corbyn added that his successor as Labour leader, Sir Keir Starmer, is "in a very much weakened position" as result of this issue - but insisted whether he should go is a matter for Labour MPs.

But he suggested that Starmer will "definitely be challenged... probably after the local elections, maybe even before then."