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.

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.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.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.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.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,Here is one from 2010 where Epstein asks Mandelson to intervene on his behalf with Larry Summers, President Obama’s chief economic adviser,Here is a smutty exchange sent on the day Epstein was released from jail in 2009.

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.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.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,”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,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.

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,