Mark Harper

When you read the evidence from Ian Collard, the head of security at the foreign office, it begs an overwhelming question - why did Keir Starmer sack Sir Olly Robbins? Starmer said he sacked him for failing to inform him of the fact that Mandelson had failed to pass UK Security Vetting But Robbins told MPs he didn’t know this. He says he was told it was a borderline case and decided to grant Mandelson developed vetting with appropriate mitigations in place Specifically never saw the box ticked by UKSV explicitly warning against appointing Mandelson. His argument was twofold: 1) He couldn’t tell the PM something he didn’t know and 2) that the PM had misunderstood the vetting process. The role of UKSV was advisory, and the decision rested with him and the foreign office security team Ian Collard, the former head of the foreign office security team, has tonight corroborated his entire account. He said he told him that it was a borderline case. That he didn’t see the ticked box recommending against Mandelson’s appointment either. And that he also felt under pressure We expect Sir Philip Barton, Robbins’s predecessor, to corroborate his account re pressure tomorrow So again, why did Starmer sack Robbins? He couldn’t tell him something he didn’t not know and had not seen

"PMBs are used for big social changes" Fact check: False, has never been true except for a short period of time under Wilson. Vast majority of big social changes since the war have been through govt bill Receipts below

The Times View: “This uniquely poor — yet hugely consequential — legislation should not come back to parliament. It was not fit for purpose and it must not be rammed through) (link in reply)

Baroness Berger (@lucianaberger) reiterates the fact that not a single Royal College will attest to the safety of this Bill. Why do some Peers believe they know better than those who would have to deliver it?

Baroness Berger (@lucianaberger) explains how the assisted suicide Bill is the longest Private Members' Bill ever, and that it has avoided so much of the pre-legislative scrutiny that a Bill of its magnitude necessitates.

‼️VERY IMPORTANT: Baroness @Fox_Claire reminds fellow Peers that MPs had told them to fix the flawed assisted suicide Bill. The Lords’ scrutiny of the Bill has therefore been entirely appropriate, contrary to the misleading claims of Bill supporters.

📢 Baroness Berger (@lucianaberger) states that it should concern us all that supporters of assisted suicide still wish to debate this Bill, even after not a single Medical Royal College has been able to support it.

Former Cabinet Minister Lord Deben explains how not only is he opposed to the assisted suicide bill in principle, but also because of the lack of detail about how it would be implemented. It’s hard to see how any Peer could have voted for this.

Lord Deben reiterates that there has not been a filibuster of the assisted suicide Bill, evidenced by how much more well-informed Peers in the House of Lords have become over the course of the Bill's scrutiny.

📢 Lord Deben makes it clear that criticising opponents of the assisted suicide Bill for "nitpicking" minimises the massive societal change that such legislation would bring. The Bill should be accorded the greatest degree of scrutiny available.

Baroness Grey-Thompson (@Tanni_GT) explains that claims that the assisted suicide Bill is the "safest in the world" are just opinions from people outside of Parliament, who don't understand how legislating works. The Bill, in fact, is weaker than it was when first presented.

As it collapses today, Baroness @Tanni_GT says all that needs to be said about the assisted suicide Bill: “OUR JOB IS TO PROTECT EVERYONE IN BRITISH SOCIETY. THIS BILL DOES NOT DO THAT!”

👏“WE OWE THE DYING BETTER THAN THIS BILL!” In a must-watch speech, former Cabinet Minister Baroness @VictoriaPrentis explains how the dying deserve better than assisted suicide. She pleads for parliamentarians to focus on better hospital, palliative & social care instead.

This is the key point for what comes next. Assisted suicide supporters want to use the Parliament Acts to force this Bill through. That means bringing back the original version of the legislation, with all its many faults. They want to ignore every risk and danger highlighted.

MOVING! Former Attorney General @VictoriaPrentis gives a brilliant speech summarising her views watching the Lords assisted suicide debates while receiving cancer treatment: contrary to what is claimed, scrutiny has been impressive & concerns have come from many Peers not a few.

'Our concern is we go from a National Health Service to a national death service' Baroness Finlay, who is opposed to a bill to legalise assisted dying in England and Wales, spoke to #BBCBreakfast as the legislation fails to become law following opposition in the House of Lords bbc.co.uk/news/articles/…

Assisted death campaigners, @MDMDmydecision and @Humanists_UK are mocking Baroness Finlay, a leading palliative care expert, talking about a little boy's goldfish in debate. They say this is evidence of a filibuster. What could be more ridiculous than trying to resuscitate a goldfish? Well if they had actually bothered to listen to the debate they would have heard how this little boy, with advanced cancer, was dealing with the knowledge he was dying, supported to the end by Baroness Finlay. That little boy told her "I'm going to die when my goldfish dies". "He went on to talk through what he wanted when he was dying and how he would play football in heaven with another boy who had died recently. Not long after, his goldfish was found floating". Baroness Finlay, caring for that child, describes in a single sentence how she tried to hold back death - not from the goldfish but the child. "My strenuous attempts to resuscitate his goldfish failed, and he gently died soon" "He" is the little boy. With advanced cancer. I cannot imagine the grief that must sit with palliative care experts as they help these young children, but to mock Baroness Finlay for it is terrible. She shared this experience because she was trying to amend Clause 6 which had been added at Report stage by opponents. It prohibits raising assisted dying with a child. She wanted the House of Lords to understand why the language needed to be changed. She was explaining, from experience, that children can speak with extraordinary frankness about death, and that they deserve “gentle, honest planning of their care”, and to be able to ask questions about what they may have heard on TV or on the internet about assisted dying, including an explanation of why they are not eligible for assisted suicide. It's an amendment and a speech that supporters of assisted dying should have supported - they resisted restricting discussion with children. Instead they've mocked it and that little boy's death. Listen to her speech in this thread. Then read again the press release at the end of the thread. And ask yourselves who has actually demonstrated bad faith.

For our soldiers at the Battle of Danny Boy, wriggle room meant mustering the physical courage to crawl through fields under enemy fire.   For Lord Hermer and his clients, it meant an escape hatch for when their allegations collapsed. 1/9

The greater the scrutiny, the greater the concern

Olly Robbins acted with the calm integrity and intelligence that have defined his public service. His job was to judge whether #Mandelson’s risks could be mitigated, not tell the PM what he already knew. Starmer should retract his accusations and reinstate him.