[0:00]He betrayed his country, his parliament, and his party. Sakiria Stala told MPs, insisting he regretted appointing Peter Mandlesson as ambassador to the United
[0:10]States. Later, number 10 said new information had emerged in September, which showed the depth and extent of Mandlesson's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein was materially different from
[0:20]what he had claimed, and so he was sacked. But Labour anger over the vetting process and the prime minister's handling of the appointment is only growing. As Anna Pop reports,
[0:31]>> Mandlesson lied throughout the process and beyond the process. He lied. He lied and he lied again to my team. >> No shortage of superlatives today. >> He has betrayed our country.
[0:43]>> As a belleaguer Kstarma on the back foot tries to distance himself from the disastrous decision to appoint Peter Mandlesson as his US ambassador. a political drama say those opposite of
[0:54]his own making. >> Can the prime minister tell us did the official security vetting he received mention Mandlesson's ongoing relationship with the pedophile Jeffrey
[1:06]Epstein? >> So clear prime minister. >> Yes it did. A >> as a as a result various questions were
[1:16]put to him. I want to make sure this house sees the full documentation so it will see for itself the extent to which the extent to which time and time again
[1:28]Mandlesson completely misrepresented the extent of his relationship with Epstein. >> The government tried to get ahead of a Tory motion to publish all communications relating to Lord Mandlesson's appointment promising to
[1:40]release them but tableabling an amendment to exempt anything relating to national security or international relations. This is not about national security. This is about his job security.
[1:51]>> His amendment lets him withhold anything to do with international relations. But this whole appointment is to do with international relations. So if they're
[2:01]voting for it, they are voting for the cover up. If the prime minister is serious about national security concerns, then he should ask the intelligence and security committee to
[2:12]decide which documents should be released. Backing the Tory leaders call for external oversight, an unusual ally, the PM's former right-hand woman, Angela
[2:22]Raina, clearly not trusting her old boss to mark his own homework. Should we not have the ISC not have the same role now in keeping public confidence in the process?
[2:33]>> As the debate went on, it was clear the government's huge majority has grown yet more worthless and the amendment wouldn't pass. How can we stand in this chamber and say to victims that we
[2:43]believe them, that we will stand with them while refusing to release full documents relating to serious concerns about one of our own? >> I'm really sad to say that I am ashamed
[2:54]of the amendment that was laid today. >> Ministers rushed to amend their amendment before a vote, promising to give oversight to the Intelligence and Security Parliamentary Committee, a
[3:04]capitulation that pretty much guarantees it will pass tonight's vote. Do you think the government can survive this? Is it that big a moment? >> I think I've never seen the PLP as
[3:15]unhappy as I've seen them today. I don't know what that means uh for the future, but what I would say is people aren't happy. And that's why I believe that the
[3:25]amendment has been changed today. And I hope at this very dire time, it now signifies the change that we need. We can't continue like this. The decision to appoint the so-called prince of
[3:36]darkness will forever haunt the prime minister. The release of some of the documents may be delayed still after Met police tonight said it might compromise their investigation into Lord Mandlesson's alleged leak of sensitive
[3:47]information. But today marks another major government climb down after the most excruciating of weeks for the prime minister calling into question not just his judgment but the power and respect
[3:58]he still retains amongst his own MPs. Well, our senior political correspondent Paul Magdamara is with me. Is the government drowning?
[4:09]>> I think when the history books of Karma's time in Downing Street are written and those books are looking like they're getting shorter and shorter at the moment, today is going to look like
[4:19]a very very significant moment. There's so much to pick apart. Firstly, we I understand now that the Met Police is asking for number 10 not to release specific documents because it might
[4:30]prejudice the trial. This is getting echoes of party gate. Number 10 themselves are getting frustrated about this because what happened then during party gate which you had the Sue Gray report that had to be parts were dripfed
[4:41]and it was a death by a thousand >> today's argument could have been avoided. Therefore, >> it could have been avoided. I understand that what we got to today, the amendment that was actually put to down the street last night. Where we've ended up today,
[4:52]they could have gone with that. They chose not to, which brings on to another issue of K Star's political judgment. Thirdly, we then got the intelligence and security committee. That's not going
[5:04]to be a happy place for K for Karma and the government. It's also a committee that's only got 20 members of staff. One of the terms of reference for what they're going to be looking at is every
[5:15]single communication that Peter Manderson had with government adviser, special adviser, his time in Washington. This could go on for absolutely ages. There's going to be no quick resolution. Fourth thing, there's so many of these
[5:27]moments. We've got I've got more down here. There was a real moment in PMQs today when KS was asked if he knew about the ongoing relationship between Peter
[5:36]Manderson and Jeffrey Epstein. We've had all sorts of obiscation and and and verbal gymnastics. So the government spokesman or Kasama didn't really want to answer that in the last couple of
[5:47]months. Today he did and he said yes it did know and you could almost feel the energy levels of Labour MPs reducing. You could see you could see
[5:59]this moment in their face. You could see the stony faces of all the cabinet members around him. That was pivotal. And then fifth, after all the shenanigans we get, this is the government that even with the majority
[6:10]of 170, it cannot force through anything that it wants in parliament. There were no people standing up. There were no defensive voices standing up for the government. All those defensive voices
[6:21]now have left K star. And lastly, there is bloodlust. Talk to backbench MPs. They want a head to roll whether it's
[6:31]Morgan Mcweeny or Karma. Now the major thing saving K star at the moment. This was always going to be a tricky couple of weeks for him. The Gorton by election. We're not talking about that
[6:41]at the moment. We've got the um uh the May local elections. This is all going to be tricky for Kier Stalmer. It is looking so dicey for the prime minister
[6:51]right now. This is a man who day by day looks like according to his MPs is taking more and more steps closer to the edge. >> Paul McNamara, thank you very much indeed. Well, uh, stepping in now, um,
[7:03]our two Labour MPs, um, John McDonald, of course, and Clive Efford. John McDonald, you have said Karma should consider his position. >> Are you saying he should go?
[7:14]>> Well, I've worked with Karma. He's a responsible person. I think he has to consider whether or not he's capable now of continuing on as prime minister in the interest of the country of the party. >> Why is it his fault?
[7:26]>> Because he appointed Madison in the first place, despite all despite what he knew. what he knew on in December 24 when he appointed when the appointment's coming for I said then look people will
[7:37]think he's lost all sense of judgment as a result of this decision we knew what the relationship was with Epstein Mandlesson and he's not the sort of person you would it's a huge huge error
[7:49]of judgment and then subsequently like today I think completely mismanaged the whole issue the house wanted to get to the bottom of this they want all the papers published we then have amendment after amendment it It was just
[8:00]mismanagement all the way through and I think this is so serious. It is damaging our party but it's also damaging the country. >> Clive effort, how many of your colleagues are saying similar things quietly.
[8:10]>> I think people are very disappointed with today because you know the revelation at prime minister's questions that Kia did know you that clearly shook people that you could feel it in the chamber. There's no denying that it's a
[8:21]terrible day for the for number 10. >> I mean this was a soft left rebellion, wasn't it? led by Angela Raina and these are people who kind of want Starmer out anyway. >> Well, I was on the fringes of the
[8:31]negotiations about the uh manuscripts amendment. I didn't see Angela Raina there, but but let's leave that aside. But but I mean we really do need to consider where we're at now in
[8:43]government because we've got important elections coming along and we're really in danger now of plunging ourselves into an internal wrangle about who's going to be leading the Labour party when we should be getting on. We're getting our
[8:55]message across about what this government is doing that is changing. >> So do you want it to go or not? Are you saying don't have >> I don't want a leadership contest. We're not very good at it in the Labor Party. It takes a very long time and it and and
[9:05]we'll be focusing on that and not on running the country. Amazon. >> But I do think, can I just finish? I do think that K has been badly advised by people around him in number 10. And I think that's been too >> So you think Morgan Mcweeny should go?
[9:17]>> I'm not putting names on anything. I'll >> let me put that name to you. Should he go? >> But but what Kia needs to consider right now is who around him is not giving him
[9:27]the advice that he needs at crucial moments. >> Well, this key adviser is Morgan Mcweeny. >> You can say that, but I'm not going to. >> It's not for me to come here and issue names. That's right. The the reality is
[9:37]this and this is one of the issues as well. When he was asked about Morgan Max Sweeney today, he got up and defended him and I think most of the labor MPs were absolutely shocked at that. It
[9:47]calls to question Kier's judgment and I I think K needs to think himself about whether he's the right person to continue on now and I many feel he should move on and it would be better
[9:58]for us as a party and as a country if he does that, >> right? Even if you had a leadership election and a new leader, isn't this so huge that the the damage to the Labour
[10:08]brand caused by Peter Mandlesson is unreoverable now? >> I think it's really difficult to see us recovering whilst Kier is there almost defending the decision he took. >> Why would anyone else make a difference?
[10:19]>> Because actually we need a new clean broom. It's as simple as that. Sometimes you just have to clear out the stable, don't you? And I think that's what we have to do now. And it is about manlosome. It's also about the influence of corporations and other rich
[10:30]individuals too. We need a fresh approach to restore confidence of labor. We could be losing a government here as a result of this issue. That's how risky this is. >> Why is that wrong? >> Well, I think bringing back Madison was
[10:42]a huge mistake. I thought that from day one and and would >> Why didn't he listen to people like you? >> Well, this is just appalling. >> We were all saying it. We were all saying it. We were we were all saying it
[10:54]because we've had experience and we've been around a long time and unfortunately too many people who have been around a long time are not being listened to. But we need to put repair ourselves while we're in government and we can't do that while doing a leadership contest. Kira's been doing a
[11:06]good job in getting things through. He's done a good job on the international stage. But and we need to pull together here. But it cannot be done whilst there is bad bad information advice being given to the leader.
[11:17]>> I think we could have a caretaker leader for a period of time while we sort this mess out. It's clearly an argument you you need to have ondeed, both of you. The Metropolitan Police
[11:28]have told the government that releasing some of the documents connected to Lord Mandlesson's appointment as ambassador to the US would undermine their investigation into Mandlesson over allegations of misconduct in public
[11:39]office. The common speaker Oil told MPs that the police had no jurisdiction over the Commons and could not dictate to this house. Well, Lord Beamish is a
[11:49]Labour peer and chairs the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament, which now has this key role in the release of the material, and he's with me now. Um, so the police going to end
[12:00]up delaying your work, or will you get on with it and then release it when they're happy for you to release it? >> Well, we'll we're waiting for the government to release the information to
[12:10]us. Uh, we will conducting our investigations in private anyway, so we're not releasing anything. We would obviously go to prejudice a police investigation, but we'll have to wait and see how that
[12:21]develops. >> I mean, you you can bury almost anything on grounds of national security. Is your instinct to publish or to save embarrassment? >> Well, no, we we take our job very
[12:32]seriously at the committee and what we try to do is put as much in the public domain as possible. Uh embarrassment isn't one reason why you should redact things. that we have clear procedures in
[12:42]terms of being able to look at what shouldn't be put in the domain for national security reasons, but embarrassment certainly isn't one of them. >> So the the idea is that the committee will decide which of these documents
[12:53]should go public, but will you also be making a judgment on the government's behavior and the decision to appoint Mandlesson as ambassador? >> Well, we haven't uh received the information yet, so we don't know what
[13:04]uh we will do. Uh what we do, we act collectively. We will decide as a committee what course of action we will take in terms of whether there's uh enough information provided to come to
[13:16]any conclusions or we may ask for more information uh and uh any documents that we feel are not there. So you might write a report as well as deciding >> we we we could uh but that as I say
[13:27]until we see what is actually provided to us we don't know but the important thing is is that you know we do have the powers actually to uh ask for further information if we don't feel that everything's being covered.
[13:38]>> Security is your expertise but one of the other reasons the government wanted to redact some of this material was to save diplomatic relations. >> Now that's not really in your remit is
[13:49]it? Will you be also deciding that? >> Well, that's interesting that uh the information will be included because that doesn't cover our remit of the uh
[13:59]uh the ISC. Uh so a judgment call will have to be made on that. Uh >> so will you be judging what might be diplomatically embarrassing? >> Well, once it's given to us, we'll have
[14:09]to decide uh you know what to publish. But the important thing is we always do this is try and put as much much in the public domain as possible. you know, guarding the fact that sometimes you can't because of protecting national
[14:21]security. >> How do you feel about having this dumped on you? >> Well, it's the way the government have uh uh proposed to do this. Fine, we'll have a look at it. Uh what we're not
[14:31]going to do is shy away from making tough decisions. >> I mean, what you don't know is how much material there is. I mean, there could in theory be thousands of documents. Are you staff to deal with that?
[14:42]>> Well, we have we have staff. We have to have more resources. We will, but we often uh start inquiries where we ask for documentation and we don't set terms of references. What we do is follow the
[14:52]evidence and on a number of occasions, one of our reports at the moment, for example, we thought was going to be short is now long because of the amount of material that we actually have uncovered.
[15:02]>> And as a Labour peer, long time in parliament, how do you feel about what's happened? >> Well, it's a shameful day, frankly, uh for government and parliament. I mean, it's a terrible thing that you've got a
[15:13]serving cabinet minister uh, you know, leaking this type of information. >> Do do you think it's possible that Mandlesson could take the government down with him? Well, I don't know about
[15:22]that, but the point is is that uh you know this is a stain uh I think and will I think needs exposing because quite
[15:32]clearly uh a there's nothing like this ever happened in my political time here that you've got a cabinet serving cabinet minister leaking very sensitive information to a third party.
[15:43]>> Do you think it's the worst scandal ever? Some people are describing it. Well, it takes it's it's a pretty high bar that but yes, I think in terms of some of the implications that you've got a um
[15:54]cabinet minister who's actually leaking this as it's happening uh is just remarkable. Lord Dish, thank you very much indeed.