Anna Turley MP told Sky News "there's no place [...] in the Lords" for people like Matthew Doyle, who she suggested hadn't been truthful before being elevated to parliament's upper chamber earlier this year. Lord Doyle apologised and was suspended from Labour on Tuesday for his links to Sean Morton, who he campaigned for in 2017 after he had been charged over indecent images of children. The peer said he had believed Morton's initial assertions of innocence at the time, before he later pled guilty. Downing Street 10 was not aware Lord Doyle had campaigned for Morton at the time of his appointment, it is understood, and Ms Turley said "what we'd been told was not the truth when that decision was made". Asked if he should remain a peer, she told Sky News: "No, I don't think he should. That's my personal view." "There's no place for them in the Lords" for people who "have not been clear and transparent", she added. Politics Hub: Follow the latest Lord Doyle has apologised "unreservedly" for supporting Morton, who was a councillor in Moray, Scotland. He first appeared in court in connection with indecent child images in late 2016, and was suspended by Labour. He was running as an independent when Lord Doyle campaigned for him in May 2017. He didn't plead guilty until November that year. Lord Doyle said he had "extremely limited" contact with him after his conviction, and described his offences as "vile". "My thoughts are with the victims and all those impacted by these crimes," he added. He continued: "At the point of my campaigning support, Morton repeatedly asserted to all those who knew him his innocence, including initially in court. "He later changed his plea in court to guilty. "To have not ceased support ahead of a judicial conclusion was a clear error of judgment for which I apologise unreservedly. Those of us who took him at his word were clearly mistaken." Read more from Sky News:Double stabbing at schoolOlympian admits cheating on girlfriend Lord Doyle only took his place in the upper chamber last month. The SNP had opposed his peerage. Tory leader Kemi Badenoch has called on the prime minister to publish "vetting advice and due diligence" reports provided before the peer's appointment. A Labour spokesman said Lord Doyle had lost the party whip while an investigation is carried out, and added: "All complaints are assessed thoroughly in line with our rules and procedures."

Sir Richard Moore, who left his post last September, told Sky News' lead world news presenter Yalda Hakim he had not been part of the process, amid more revelations about the ex-Labour peer's relationship with paedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Sir Keir Starmer last week apologised to the public and to Epstein's victims for believing what he called "Mandelson's lies". The prime minister insisted he was misled over the extent of Lord Mandelson and Epstein's links, saying he had "no reason" to believe the peer was allegedly lying when he said he barely knew Epstein before being made ambassador. Sir Keir criticised the vetting process that Lord Mandelson went through. The Epstein files appear to show regular contact between the former Labour grandee and Epstein after the US financier's sex offence conviction in 2008. 👉Listen to The World With Richard Engel And Yalda Hakim on your podcast app👈 Speaking about background checks more broadly, former spy chief Sir Richard said: "Undoubtedly there would have been some background checks and then there's an interview process, where you rely to a degree. "You've got the background checks, of course, to set it against, but you rely on people in those interview processes being very honest." He added: "I've been through that many, many times. They can sometimes be uncomfortable conversations because you're being asked about very private elements of your lifestyle or about your financial situation, and you are required to answer those questions truthfully. "And the system depends on the balance between truthful answers in the interview process and the checks on whether what's been said is truthful." Read more: What do the Epstein files say about Mandelson? Sir Richard said he was not aware of any intelligence relating to the peer's appointment as US ambassador, but even if he was, he would not be able to share it. He added: "I'll say to you, I'm not aware of anything, but I repeat what I said, you have to understand the sensitivities of this, this stuff does not get circulated around the building. So the answer is, I have no idea." He also called out what he described as the "rancid misogyny and appalling systematic abuse of women and girls" exposed in the Epstein files. Lord Mandelson was appointed ambassador in December 2024 and was sacked by Sir Keir in September 2025 over the peer's ties to Epstein. It comes as government figures prepare to hand over huge amounts of material to Parliament's security watchdog after they came under pressure to reveal what was known about the peer's friendship with Epstein when he was picked for the Washington job. Meanwhile, the Metropolitan Police has launched an investigation following accusations that Lord Mandelson passed market-sensitive information to Epstein in 2009.

Plans to reform the 12-year-old approach to SEND are expected to be announced within weeks - but how bold will they be given the complexity and opposition ministers are likely to encounter? That's the question at the heart of a Sky News investigation revealing the scale of the political challenge around reforming the system. Figures from the Department for Education found one in five children were identified as having special educational needs, with most supported by their existing schools. But a growing minority of these children have been given specific funding and legally enforceable programmes to meet their needs, via education, health and care plans (ECHPs), which can provide access to special or independent special schools. The number of these has nearly doubled since 2017 and is due to rise further to the end of the decade. This boom has led to long wait times - 6,500 children waited over a year for a EHCP in 2024 - and professionals who are overwhelmed with paperwork rather than directly supporting children. Meanwhile, unhappy families who initially fail to secure an EHCP are increasingly going to court to secure support. In 2023, there were 21,000 appeals, with 99% going in favour of parents. The biggest rise of all in ECHPs is an increase in diagnosis of pupils with autism. As a result, high needs spending by local authorities has exceeded funding for years. The Institute for Fiscal Studies had projected the annual deficit to be £6bn in two years time, although the government has committed to paying off 90% of the deficits that councils have accrued over the last decade. Without reform, however, the costs will continue to outstrip funding and the deficits would grow once more. SEND system needs 'root and branch reform' Sky News was told the current system is unsustainable by the chair of the County Council Network - and leader of Suffolk Council - Matthew Hicks. He said "root and branch reform of the current system" is needed. "There are many children who come into the system where the parents want to get the best for their child and that's absolutely right," he said. "But the scale of the demand has grown. If I just look at my own county, we've gone from about 5,500 children with educational health and care plans to over 11,000 in a very short period of time." Asked if the government has got the stomach for this fight, he replied: "I think the government has to deal with this. If it's not looked at [we] go back to 60 councils that won't survive if that deficit sits on their books." Ministers have made clear they want to reduce the number of children with special educational needs going to special schools, aiming for more to be educated closer to home and in mainstream provision. But to provide sufficient levels of support will require considerable investment to stop children without help from dropping out of education altogether. Sky News has been told ministers ultimately want to restrict the number of children with specific per pupil funding packages, and to curb the number of parents who end up taking their case to tribunal. Under one plan discussed in government last year, the indicative threshold above which a council would fund a specific pupil would rise from around £6,000 to upwards of £40,000, £50,000 or £60,000. A Department for Education spokesperson said no decision had been taken and that the changes were not being driven by the need for cost savings. 'Children would be failed' by cuts in pupil funding Andy Nowak, executive head of The Rise School in west London, which teaches 147 autistic students, told Sky News it would be a massive effort for mainstream schools to be able to deal with the needs of a wider range of pupils. "It would take an increase in funding so that those teachers' spaces are adequately equipped to meet needs," he said. "I think it would require a change in perspectives and culture in the workforce." Asked what would happen if the system made it a lot harder for individual children to have money allocated to them, he said: "Lots more young people would be failed, families would be failed." Nicky Morgan, the former Conservative education secretary who oversaw the drive to greater reliance on special schools (now likely to be reversed), said the system 12 years ago was designed for a different era and levels of need. It would be a "huge mistake" for the government to assume "mainstreaming" children with special educational needs would provide "rapid savings", she warned. Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davey, whose son has a disability, said early intervention is key but that he would fight any attempts to substantially tighten the qualifying criteria. "Those legal rights are critical" and must be protected, he said. "But we need to organise in a much better way. They're looking too narrowly at the thing that's in front of them, they're not looking at a transformation of the system."

The prime minister told broadcasters on Tuesday: "I had a five-year mandate to deliver the change. I intend to get on with what I was elected to do." Asked whether he would lead his party into the next election, scheduled for 2029, he said: "Yes, I will." Politics latest: What are the next challenges for Starmer? Despite his strong words, with his cabinet and Labour MPs having rallied round him, Sky's political editor Beth Rigby said the prime minister remains in a "weak position". There have been growing doubts since last week about whether Sir Keir would stay in post - and for how long. He faced the biggest challenge to his leadership yet on Monday as Labour's leader in Scotland, Anas Sarwar, called for him to resign following the scandal over his appointment of Peter Mandelson as his US ambassador. In Sir Keir's first remarks since, he joked at an event in Hertfordshire on Tuesday: "It's been a busy week." He then largely repeated the message he gave his own MPs on Monday evening, saying he "will never walk away from the people that I'm charged with fighting for". "And I will never walk away from the country that I love," Sir Keir added. Addressing Labour infighting, he said his party needs to focus on improving living standards and public services, as well as battling what he described as Reform UK's politics of "grievance". But Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch told Sky News that Labour MPs had given Sir Keir a "stay of execution, because they are terrified of losing their own jobs". Labour MPs 'stepped back from the precipice' The PM's comments came after he chaired a cabinet meeting on Tuesday morning, having received its unanimous backing to remain in his post. Energy Secretary Ed Miliband told Sky News that Labour MPs had "looked over the precipice yesterday and thought, we need to step back. We need to back our leader. We need to back the man who was elected only 18 months ago as prime minister." He said that Monday had been a "very difficult day" for the government, admitting that it had made "mistakes" and needed to change course. Challenged that Downing Street was briefing that Health Secretary Wes Streeting - often seen as a potential leadership challenger - told Mr Sarwar to make his statement, Ed Miliband said: "MoveOn.org. I mean, let's just move past all this, honestly." Meanwhile, Manchester mayor Andy Burnham also gave his backing to Sir Keir, as did Welsh First Minister Eluned Morgan. Mr Burnham - who Sir Keir blocked from standing in the Gorton and Denton by-election - called for "stability" and "greater unity".

For Women Scotland (FWS) won the case last April when the UK's highest court ruled "woman" and "sex" in the Equality Act 2010 refer to "a biological woman and biological sex". The Scottish government was ordered to pay a portion of the campaign group's legal costs, with FWS confirming on Tuesday it had received a "full and final settlement" of £392,500. In total, FWS has received £540,000 from the Scottish government. Adding this to its own legal costs, the SNP administration has spent at least £766,498.80 of taxpayers' money on two judicial reviews linked to the case. FWS said the funds received will be used to cover the costs of its current legal challenge against the government's policy on the management of transgender prisoners, and "any future legal action necessary to ensure the Scottish government complies with the law". In a statement, the group said: "We are eternally grateful for the overwhelming public support that enabled us to successfully challenge the Scottish government's unlawful actions and to clarify that 'woman', 'man' and 'sex' have always taken their biological meaning in the Equality Act 2010." Figures revealed by a Freedom of Information (FOI) request last year showed the Scottish government spent £216,182.50 on the judicial review at the Court of Session in Edinburgh, which FWS won in February 2022. This included £68,682.50 for its own counsel and court costs and £147,500 to cover FWS legal fees. The Scottish government then spent at least £550,316.30 on the judicial review at the UK Supreme Court in London. This included £392,500 to FWS and £157,816.30 for its own costs, although the campaign group noted that amount is "expected to rise slightly" to reflect the legal work in settling FWS's bill. That means the Scottish government has spent at least £766,498.80 on these two judicial reviews. Final costs are yet to be confirmed and will be published once complete. Read more from Sky News:Man sought after rape on university campusTeen sentenced for murder of 12-year-old Scottish Conservative shadow equalities minister Tess White MSP said the government had "taken far too long to pay what is owed". She added: "They should never have squandered taxpayers' cash in the first place on defending the indefensible. "Worse still, the Nationalists have not learned their lesson and are wasting even more public cash on a legal fight to allow male-bodied prisoners to be housed in women's jails." Ms White urged First Minister John Swinney to "grow a backbone and stop dancing to the tune of gender extremists". A Scottish government spokesperson said: "The Scottish government has made clear it accepts the Supreme Court ruling and is taking forward the detailed work necessary. "There is an established process whereby parties seek to establish the final costs payable for a legal case. "This has now concluded and payment has been settled."