A Merseyside MP has rejected reports suggesting he would stand down to make way for Andy Burnham to return to Parliament.

Peter Dowd, who has represented Bootle since 2015, said speculation he would step aside for the Greater Manchester mayor was “unfounded” and his intention to remain as the constituency’s MP was “absolutely unequivocal”.

Speculation about a possible path back to Westminster for Burnham has been swirling for months – amid suggestions he could mount a leadership challenge to Sir Keir Starmer.

However, he was blocked by Labour’s ruling committee from standing as the party’s candidate in the recent Gorton and Denton by election.

Several veteran MPs have been mentioned as likely candidates to retire and create a vacancy for the former cabinet minister, but Dowd said it was “tittle tattle” that he wanted to “put to bed”.

“I was elected to represent and serve the people of the Bootle constituency at the last election and intend to continue doing so,” he told BBC Radio Merseyside.

He added speculation about Sir Keir’s leadership and constant rumours about who might replace him “distracts and detracts” from the job Labour MPs were trying to do.

“We just need to end the speculation, and certainly in my case, I’ve ended it,” he said.

Bootle has long been regarded as Labour’s safest seat and in 2024 handed the party its biggest majority.

The speculation around Burnham’s link with the constituency is tied to him being born in Aintree, which is in the neighbouring constituency of Walton.

Last month, Burnham told BBC Radio Manchester that suggestions St Helens South MP Marie Rimmer was being pressured to “step aside” were “fiction”.

Some reports had claimed Rimmer was being pressed by Burnham’s supporters to step down in return for a seat in the House of Lords.

Reform’s Welsh leader has said his party is not racist in a heated Senedd election debate where leaders clashed over immigration.

Dan Thomas made the comments while criticising the Welsh government’s Nation of Sanctuary policy, which aims to help refugees and asylum seekers placed in Wales to integrate and access public services.

On BBC Wales’ Your Voice Live: The Leaders’ Debate the leaders of four left-wing parties ruled out working with Reform to form a government, but did not rule out working with each other.

Meanwhile Thomas challenged all the main parties to publish the full costs of their promises to voters ahead of next week’s Senedd election on 7 May.

Immigration is not something which the Welsh government controls, but in recent years it has had policies to assist asylum seekers and refugees, which it has labelled the “Nation of Sanctuary”.

Official figures say it makes up a small proportion of the government’s overall budget, with the vast majority of the cash being spent on supporting Ukrainians in Wales who are fleeing the war with Russia.

The debate on Tuesday evening saw strong exchanges on the policy, which is opposed by both the Conservatives and Reform.

Wales Green leader Anthony Slaughter accused the two parties of playing a “dangerous game” in which immigrants get blamed for “decaying” public services.

Reform’s Thomas rejected this: “Listening to the majority of the people in Wales isn’t a dangerous game.

“It’s called democracy and it’s called listening to people.”

He was challenged on comments made when he was leader of Barnet Council in 2021 that it had a “proud history of providing sanctuary”.

“That was before the floodgates were opened”, he said.

“The fact that I welcomed that showed that we’re not racist, we’re very reasonable people”.

Thomas was asked by presenter Bethan Rhys Roberts whether he “distanced” himself from a social media comment made by a prominent member of the party, Arron Banks, which sparked accusations of racism from Plaid Cymru.

Banks is not standing in the Senedd election and told BBC Wales that his comment was ” a joke”, adding that “Plaid have understandably lost their sense of humour”.

Thomas did not respond directly but said: “I’ve had my Welshness questioned by supporters of Plaid Cymru. They’ve called me a plastic Taffy because I happened to live in England.

“I’ve been called an English nationalist, because I happen to be a member of Reform. I am Welsh through and through”.

Plaid Cymru leader Rhun ap Iorwerth criticised Thomas’ response, saying: “Outright racism from a righthand man of Nigel Farage and Dan Thomas chooses to play the victim.”

Referencing the Nation of Sanctuary policy, Tory Senedd leader Millar said: “The Welsh government needs to spend the money on the things that it is responsible for.”

Welsh Liberal Democrats leader Jane Dodds accused Reform of “stoking division”, while Welsh Labour leader and First Minister of Wales Eluned Morgan said: “I think it’s really important that what we do is we address the reality, not the myth, that the Conservatives and Reform are trying to create.

“The numbers of asylum-seekers in Wales are incredibly low.”

No party is expected to win a majority of seats in the next Welsh Parliament, and some level of co-operation could be needed to form Wales’ next government or help pass laws.

There have been calls for parties on the left to work together to lock Reform out of power, including from former first minister Mark Drakeford earlier in the campaign.

And on Tuesday night the leaders of Plaid Cymru, Liberal Democrats, Labour and the Greens all said they could not work with Dan Thomas’ Reform party to form a government – but did not rule out working with each other.

Plaid’s ap Iorwerth said Reform stood in “diametric opposition to all the values that I stand for”.

Labour’s Morgan said she did not think her party had “enough in common” with Reform, and Green leader Slaughter said his party will not work with “Reform or the Conservatives in any shape or form”.

He said he agreed with comments by the UK leader that it would be a “relief” if Plaid did well in the election.

Dodds said the Lib Dems would also not work with Reform or the Tories.

“We are willing to be a responsible partner to stop Reform UK trashing our services,” she said.

Thomas said Reform would work with any party “that will help deliver our manifesto”.

He accused Labour and Plaid of stitching up the new voting system for the expanded Senedd “to make sure they end up in power one way or another”.

Tory Senedd leader Millar also said would not rule out working with Reform or any other party if it could help deliver Tory policies like cutting income tax.

There can be moments of high jeopardy in Parliament when Westminster holds its breath to await the outcome of a crucial debate that could determine a government’s future.

In the end this didn’t feel like one of them, but that doesn’t mean Sir Keir Starmer has escaped unscathed.

Ultimately he won the vote pretty comfortably with a clear majority of MPs rejecting the idea that he should be referred to a parliamentary committee for investigation over his statements about Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador.

But beyond the headline win, this was not a victorious moment.

No 10 expended considerable political capital in keeping its troops onside.

There was a ring-round by cabinet ministers, interventions from Labour big beasts including the former Prime Minister Gordon Brown, and Scottish MPs were called back from the campaign trail to bolster the ranks – all signs that Downing Street doesn’t feel it can automatically count on the loyalty of its own MPs.

There was undoubtedly support from some Labour backbenchers, pointing to ongoing work to shed light on the process surrounding Lord Mandelson’s appointment and rejecting the notion another inquiry was necessary.

Others said opposition parties were playing political games ahead of crucial elections, something denied by the Conservatives who insisted this was about the integrity of parliament.

In the end, 14 Labour MPs voted against the government, and while they were predominantly people who’ve previously criticised the prime minister, some of their interventions were scathing.

Sir Keir Starmer will not face a parliamentary investigation over claims he misled MPs about the process to appoint Lord Mandelson as US ambassador.

The House of Commons voted 335 to 223 against a Conservative-led motion which sought to trigger the inquiry.

Some Labour MPs on the left of the party said the PM should have referred himself to the Privileges Committee, but the majority voted to reject the motion after a concerted operation by No 10 to ensure they were on side.

Sir Keir has denied accusations he misled MPs over whether vetting for the role of US ambassador followed “full due process” and his assertion that “no pressure whatsoever” was applied to officials at the Foreign Office.

Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch tabled a motion which sought to have the PM’s remarks assessed by the cross-party committee responsible for looking into cases of MPs breaking parliamentary rules.

The Ministerial Code states that ministers who knowingly mislead Parliament are expected to resign, while any inadvertent error should be corrected “at the earliest opportunity”.

Badenoch had suggested Labour MPs were “acting like sheep” for labelling the motion a “stunt”.

But some Labour MPs questioned why they had been instructed to oppose it and suggested it risked looking similar to a “cover-up”.

The division list showed 14 Labour MPs rebelled to support the motion while another voted both aye and no, which is usually regarded as a formal abstention.

It is not yet clear what action those Labour MPs who did not follow No 10’s orders to oppose the motion will face.

The Lib Dems, SNP, Greens, DUP, Plaid Cymru, Reform and nine independent MPs were among those who also voted with the Tories in favour of the motion.

A total of 53 Labour MPs did not have a vote recorded – this can be because they have been given permission to miss the vote or are on government business, and does not mean they are abstaining.

The PM’s former chief of staff has said he made “a serious mistake” in recommending the appointment of Lord Mandelson as the UK’s ambassador to the US.

Morgan McSweeney, who resigned in February over the advice, said he felt the peer’s experience as an EU trade envoy would help the UK secure a US trade deal.

However, he told MPs on the Foreign Affairs Committee that after fresh revelations about Lord Mandelson’s friendship with the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein emerged, it “dawned” on him that he had not given the “full truth” about their friendship.

McSweeney admitted No 10 wanted Lord Mandelson in post “quickly” but insisted officials were never asked to “skip steps”.

In a rare public appearance by a senior advisor, he also denied telling the Foreign Office “explicitly or implicitly” that security checks “should be cleared at all costs”.

The decision to appoint Lord Mandelson has dogged the prime minister for months but anger was reignited over the issue after it emerged the peer was given security clearance for the role by the Foreign Office, despite concerns being raised by vetting officials.

The prime minister has said no one in Downing Street – including himself and McSweeney – were aware the Foreign Office had gone against the vetting recommendation until recently.

On Tuesday evening, MPs rejected the call to hold a parliamentary investigation over claims he misled the House of Commons about Lord Mandelson’s vetting.

While he was unlikely to lose the vote, some MPs did express discontent, with some unhappy that they have spent the week before crucial elections discussing the appointment of Lord Mandelson rather than campaigning.

Lord Mandelson was sacked as ambassador in September 2025, after new information came to light about the depth of his relationship with Epstein.

This included photos of the pair together and supportive emails he sent to Epstein as he faced charges for sex offences in 2008.

McSweeney told the committee that when he saw the revelations “it was like a knife through my soul”.

“The nature of the relationship that I understood he had with Epstein was not a close friendship,” he said.

“How I understood it at the time was a passing acquaintance that he regretted having and that he apologised for.

“What has emerged since then was way, way, way worse than I had expected at the time.”

Before Lord Mandelson was appointed, a due diligence check – a separate process to the security vetting – was carried out by a team at the Cabinet Office and sent to the prime minister.

This flagged Lord Mandelson’s continued relationship with Epstein after his conviction as a potential “reputational risk”.

McSweeney was subsequently asked by the PM to send three follow-up questions to Lord Mandelson about his association with Epstein.

While at the time McSweeney said he believed the answers were truthful, he later realised he was not given the “full truth” and that revelations in the Epstein files showed Lord Mandelson was “unfit” for the job.

The BBC understands Lord Mandelson’s view is that he answered questions about his relationship with Epstein in the vetting process accurately.

In-depth security vetting was not carried out until after Lord Mandelson’s appointment was announced.

McSweeney said this “didn’t jump out to me as a problem at the time” although he acknowledged it would have been “very embarrassing” if the appointment had to be pulled because Lord Mandelson failed vetting.

He insisted that if Downing Street had been aware of any problems with his vetting, his ambassador job would have been withdrawn.

Earlier, Sir Philip Barton, the top civil servant at the Foreign Office at the time, told the committee Downing Street had been “uninterested” in the vetting process and the focus was on making sure Lord Mandelson was able to start his job by the time of Donald Trump’s inauguration.

This backed up the account of his successor, Sir Olly Robbins, that there was “pressure” from Downing Street to complete vetting quickly and that No 10 had been “dismissive” about the process.

However, both men denied this affected the vetting decision.

In response to the claims, McSweeney acknowledged that the PM’s private office would have chased the Foreign Office for updates on Lord Mandelson’s vetting.

He added that Downing Street wanted the process completed “quickly” so Lord Mandelson was in post by the time of Trump’s inauguration.

However, he insisted nobody was asked to “skip steps” in any part of the process.

“Yes we wanted it done quickly but at no point did I witness anyone being dismissive about DV [developed vetting] or national security,” he added.

McSweeney denied reports he had sworn at the top civil servant at the Foreign Office while asking him to approve the appointment.

Sir Philip also said he had no recollection of being sworn at by McSweeney.