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."

 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."

The prime minister appointed Peter Mandelson as US ambassador, despite his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein being flagged in the vetting process, after the former Labour peer presented the paedophile financier "as someone he barely knew", according to a Downing Street source.

It appears to be an attempt to clarify Sir Keir Starmer's earlier comments in the Commons.

The PM was asked by Kemi Badenoch at PMQs this afternoon whether official security vetting he received mentioned Mandelson's ongoing relationship with Epstein.

"Yes it did," Starmer replies.

Watch here as Starmer says he "regrets" appointing Mandelson

But he also said Mandelson "lied repeatedly" to the government during the vetting process, and that he regretted his appointment.

In a statement, a Downing  Street source explained: "Before Peter Mandelson was appointed, there had been reports that linked him with Jeffrey Epstein, including after he was first convicted. 

"This was looked into as part of the appointment process, as the prime minister referenced today.

"Peter Mandelson lied to the prime minister, hid information that has since come to light and presented Epstein as someone he barely knew.

"In September, new information revealed the depth and extent of the relationship was materially different to what was known at the time of his appointment and that he had utterly misled the prime minister. He was swiftly sacked."

The latest clarification comes after the PM was forced to concede on his amendment to the Conservatives Party's motion, calling for all documents relating to Mandelson's vetting to be published. 

Earlier, the PM insisted those relating to national security and international relations would be exempted.

But Labour MPs pushed back, leading to a new amendment, saying that these documents will be examined by parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC).

The government hopes this change means the amendment may be nodded through by pliant Labour MPs, without a vote.

A Labour MP has said a government amendment to limit the publication of documents regarding the vetting of Peter Mandelson was "unacceptable" and could damage trust.

The government had hoped to put in an exemption, which would have allowed some to be blocked on the grounds of national security or international relations.

The deputy chair of the Standards and Privileges Committee, Paula Barker, told our chief political correspondent Jon Craig: "The prime minister was very clear about when he went to the country and asked for their vote for change [in 2024] that we should be different, that there was going to be no cover-ups, no sleaze.

"And actually to bring an amendment to the House today that looked as if it was covering things up is, quite frankly, unacceptable."

She also said she is satisfied by the PM's decision to backdown on the original amendment and allow documents seen to involve national security to be vetted by the Intelligence and Security Committee, instead of the government.

"I've spoken to several colleagues who are on the committee -  they're happy with that," she said.

"I think that we should have done that in the very first instance, and we wouldn't have had all this issue today. 

"I think it's a lesson for us to learn going forward. And I sincerely hope that we restore that trust and faith that has been lost in us and that we, we prove to the country going forward that we will do better."

She also stated that she believes the PM has been "advised particularly badly" and should launch an investigation into this. 

But Barker refused to say if she was talking about Sir Keir Starmer's chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney.

"I don't comment on individual staff members," she added.

Barker also insisted she hopes this issue does not bring down Starmer.

"I want our prime minister to succeed, I want our Labour government to succeed. Do I think we need to do better? I absolutely do."

As we've been reporting, MPs are currently debating a motion which is seeking to force the government to publish all the documents relating to the vetting of Peter Mandelson.

Lord Mandelson became the UK's ambassador to the US last year, taking up the role in February - before being sacked for his relationship with convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein in September. 

MPs want to know how he was appointed and what was known by the government at the start of last year.

The Conservatives have used their opposition day debate to schedule a humble address - a way of forcing the government to publish all the documents. 

But who is supporting them?

The Liberal Democrats

The Lib Dems are in favour of the motion, and will vote for it if it comes to a vote in the Commons.

The Greens

Ellie Chowns, the leader of the Greens in the Commons, has said her MPs will vote in favour of the Conservatives' motion as they "want transparency".

She has also called on the government to scrap its original amendment, exempting some material on grounds of national security and international relations.

Reform UK

Earlier in the debate, Richard Tice argued in favour of the motion and said that the Intelligence and Security Committee should be the ones to vet which documents should be withheld on the grounds of national security.

This is a change the government has since accepted and added to its amendment.

The SNP

Westminster leader Stephen Flynn has made an impassioned speech in favour of the Tories' amendment, saying the PM "knew that they [Mandelson and Epstein] had a relationship and yet he ignored it".

"This debate today is important because we will get to the bottom of what Peter Mandelson did.

"It was not a political risk, it was a betrayal of the victims of Jeffrey Epstein."

Your Party

Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana have spoken in favour of the motion.

In particular, Sultana told MPs: "The government must publish all the documents and the corruption and the cover-up and stop insulting the public with empty words when what we need is transparency."

Labour 

A number of Labour MPs, such as Richard Burgon, have said they will vote for the Conservatives' motion - despite their party's own amendments.

But of course, the government is seeking to avoid a vote on the motion altogether. 

As we've reported, the PM has conceded on his original motion, and it's understood, hopes this will be accepted without a vote.

 John Swinney has ordered an audit of all of the Scottish government's dealings with Peter Mandelson.

Scotland's first minister says the audit will examine whether the country's interests were undermined by Lord Mandelson.

That includes around the time of the 2008 financial crisis - Mandelson has been accused of sending market sensitive information to paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein at that time - and during recent talks about US tariffs on Scottish whisky.

Speaking to Jon Craig on Paste BN, the Scottish National Party's (SNP) leader in Westminster, Stephen Flynn, said: "So during a financial crisis, when the Scottish Government was working to protect Scotland's economy and to protect families, we do not know what, if any, documents were passing through to Peter Mandelson and potentially passing out of the UK - because UK government documents were.

"Could it possibly be the case that Scottish government documents were?"

You can watch that video here:

He added: "That's why John Swinney is taking the right action here to make sure that we are not caught up and any of Peter Mandelson mess, and that is deeply unforgivable, that when John Swinney went to the US to bat on Scotland's behalf to secure a whisky deal, he had to do so in the company of Peter Mandelson, because Keir Starmer put him there.

"We don't get to choose. We don't get to choose who represents us abroad because we are not an independent nation. We rely on the UK government, and Keir Starmer has let down the Office of Scotland's First Minister."

John McDonnell has said the prime minister's decision to alter an amendment to a Tory motion calling for all documents around Peter Mandelson's vetting to be published is "another unnecessary U-turn".

Speaking to our chief political correspondent Jon Craig, the former shadow chancellor said: "I think we're getting into the right place. But, you know, this is another unnecessary U-turn. 

"I don't know what they were thinking of. They realised this would be disastrous. 

"It wasn't just me writing to the chief whip, we had Labour MP after Labour MP getting up and saying they couldn't vote for the government. That's why this has happened."

Challenged on how many Labour backbenchers might have rebelled against the government's previous amendment, McDonnell added: "The government's got this wrong. They need to change their mind. 

"That's why the chief whip and others, the leader, have scuppered out of that chamber, then agreed with the opposition and a new draft."

He said supporting the Liberal Democrats call for a public inquiry into Peter Mandelson is "almost certainly on the cards".

But he called Sir Keir Starmer's move to strip Mandelson from the Privy Council a "gesture" and urged for the PM's advisers - who encouraged Mandelson's appointment - to be "stripped of their jobs".

Asked if he has lost confidence in Starmer and if he should step down, the former Jeremy Corbyn-ally replied: "I'll never call for him to go, but I have lost confidence in him. 

"Yes, I certainly have, and I think the decisions around Mandelson certainly pushed me over the edge because I thought this was just such a poor decision."

Instead, he called for Starmer's chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney to go "in the interest of the party and the interest of the administration".

Earlier, our chief political correspondent Jon Craig reported that the PM had backed down over plans to limit the release of files relating to Lord Mandelson's appointment as UK ambassador to the US, following a rebellion by Labour MPs.

That reporting has been confirmed, with the government's amendment now being published.

The amendment says: "At end, add 'which shall instead be referred to the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament'".

It means, if the amendment is accepted by MPs, that the  Intelligence and Security Committee will decide what documents relating to Mandelson's appointment as US ambassador will be released.

Previously, the government wanted to decide itself which documents would be released, and that it would be able to exempt some on the grounds of national security or foreign relations.

Formally announcing the change in the Commons, Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle told MPs: "I must inform the House the manuscript amendment to the amendment A has been tabled by the prime minister, and I have selected that amendment."

He then read out the new version, before saying: "I will call the minister to move that amendment formally when winding up the debate."

That's expected to happen as late as 7pm.

The Conservatives have responded, following the news that the prime minister has conceded on the government's amendment seeking to exempt them from publishing all their documents on Peter Mandelson.

Previously, ministers were pinning their hopes on an amendment that documents relating to national security and international relations could not be published.

But following pressure from influential Labour MPs, they have now watered this down - saying those documents will be vetted by parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC), which will decide what will be released.

This was earlier a suggestion put forward by Kemi Badenoch, the leader of the opposition.

Responding to this, a Tory party spokesperson said: "Kemi forced Starmer to admit he'd known Mandelson was still hanging out with Epstein after the child sex conviction, and Number 10 went ahead and appointed Mandelson anyway. 

"You could feel in the Commons that was the moment Labour MPs stopped backing the prime minister. 

"The government have now had to cave to Kemi's demand for all documents to go to the ISC. 

"Starmer is no longer in control, Kemi is calling the shots."