A Labour MP has insisted his fellow backbenchers would be "crazy" not to vote for a Conservative Party motion that seeks to force the government to publish all documents to do with Lord Mandelson's vetting.

The Tories are using an arcane parliamentary procedure, called a humble address, tomorrow to try and compel the government to make all checks to do with Mandelson's vetting for the role of US ambassador public.

Humble addresses are usually binding on the government, and are used to compel them to publish things they would rather stay hidden - but they're rarely used. 

Asked about it by our chief political correspondent Jon Craig, Richard Burgon said: "Well, I'll vote for a paper trail to be released, but there shouldn't even be a vote because the government should just get on with it."

The Labour rebel added: "They should not be opposing the motion tomorrow. I think it would be crazy to do so. And we need action, not excuses. 

"We can't have a situation where the government is dragged kicking and screaming to do the right thing. 

"What's really important is that we know exactly what happened, which resulted in Mandelson being appointed as US ambassador. 

"So that means a paper trail also means knowing who pushed for it, who warned against it, and who tried to overcome those warnings."

Burgon also told Paste BN he backs Lib Dem leader Sir Ed Davey's calls for a public inquiry.

He said: "There needs to be a full and swift inquiry into exactly how Peter Mandelson was appointed as this country's ambassador to the United States of America, despite what was known at the time being known."

He also warned of a "sickness in the heart of the culture of the Labour Party, a sickness of factionalism", for which he blamed the PM and his advisers.

Sir Keir Starmer has spoken to Donald Trump in a phone call this afternoon, in which the leaders discussed the Chagos Islands.

It follows an unhelpful intervention from the US president for the UK government, after he said Britain's deal to hand over sovereignty of these to Mauritius is "an act of GREAT STUPIDITY".

Last month, Trump posted on social media that he was against the deal, saying he believed the UK was giving away the islands "FOR NO REASON WHATSOEVER".

Under the terms of the deal - which the US administration previously endorsed - Britain will lease the strategic UK-US military base on the island of Diego Garcia for 99 years.

It's now been confirmed that the PM has spoken to the president since that moment last month. 

The read-out of their call says: "[On] Diego Garcia, and the deal the UK has secured to maintain control of the US-UK military base to protect national security, the leaders recognised its strategic importance.

"The leaders agreed their governments would continue working closely to guarantee the future operation of the base and speak again soon."

It also states that both men spoke about the war in Ukraine.

It says: "Putin's fierce attacks on critical national infrastructure, including energy systems, were particularly depraved as temperatures dropped below -20C, the Prime Minister added."

The call follows a further unhelpful intervention, when the PM was in China seeking to boost trade ties. 

Asked about Starmer's activity abroad, Trump warned it is "very dangerous" for the UK to become closer to China.

Pictures of a smiling Lord Mandelson appearing to receive a foot massage have appeared in the Epstein files.

The pictures appear to have been sent by Jeffrey Epstein to Mandelson via email on 2 February, 2011, and are accompanied by the message: "Sorry for all the typos."

No context has been provided for the image. Featuring in the Epstein files is not an indication of any wrongdoing. 

The furniture, setting and emails around the photos has led Paste BN to conclude these pictures of Peter Mandelson were taken in Epstein’s New York mansion.

The images appear in the latest tranche of Epstein files released by the US Justice Department.

On his relationship with Epstein, Mandelson has previously said: "I was wrong to believe Epstein following his conviction and to continue my association with him afterwards. I apologise unequivocally for doing so to the women and girls who suffered."

In an interview with The Times last week but published on Monday, Mandelson referred to a "handful of misguided historical emails, which I deeply regret sending", and described Epstein as "muck that you can't get off your shoe".

A top law professor has said the police will be looking at three main factors as they investigate Peter Mandelson over allegations of misconduct in public office.

Jeremy Horder, a professor of criminal law at the London School of Economics (LSE) is speaking to the Politics Hub about this offence, having written a book on it.

He tells Paste BN that the three factors are about whether somebody was "acting in a public capacity when they did whatever they did", whether there was "wilful wrongdoing" and thirdly, "if they did something wrong, and they did it knowingly, was that something that amounted to an abuse of the public's trust?"

He explains that the third point will be the "key element" in the police inquiry against Mandelson.

Horder adds: "That's quite a high threshold. So it's not as simple as saying, 'oh, well, I leaked some confidential material to a friend because it was gossipy or something'. 

"I mean, that's wrong, but it might not amount to an abuse of the public's trust. There would need to be something more than that."

Pushed on what exactly that would mean, the professor says: "It's a high bar for prosecuting misconduct in a public office.

"If there's any evidence of corruption, for example, if someone has sought to influence a private party for their own gain, so that would be significant."

He also admits that it is "not common" for this offence to be used in the UK because "most parliamentary wrongdoing is dealt with through parliamentary processes".

"Prosecuting someone for an offence with a maximum life penalty is not something to be taken lightly," he insists. 

But when somebody is prosecuted for a serious case, there is a "presumption of a sentence of imprisonment of some kind".

Away from the Lord Mandelson story, our political editor Beth Rigby has some interesting news from the Commons.

MPs have been voting on the two-child benefit cap tonight (see our 7.31pm post), but there's been some confusion within Reform.

Beth writes: "I hear that Robert Jenrick and Suella Braverman ended up WITH LABOUR MPs in the AYE lobby on lifting two-child benefit cap.

"A source tells me they 'got on their phones trying to get instructions from Farage as to whether they should be there or not'.

"They tried to leave at one point but got trapped as the doors were locked"

Beth says that a Reform source has confirmed to her that this happened and that it was a "genuine mistake".

Voting records from parliament show the two of them did, in fact, register a vote in favour of scrapping the bill, while all other Reform MPs voted against it.

Responding to Beth's post on X, Tory leader Kemi Badenoch replied: "They're Nigel's problem now", with a laughing emoji.

The Tories are going to try and force the government to publish all documents relating to the vetting process carried out for Peter Mandelson, Paste BN understands. 

They hope to force ministers to publish the documents regarding the checks made into Lord Mandelson's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein before he took up the role of US ambassador in February last year. 

It's not something the government is keen to publish. 

So, to do that, they are using an arcane parliamentary procedure called a humble address. 

So, what is that exactly, and why does it matter? 

Our deputy political editor Sam Coates explains below...

A proposed law to scrap the two-child benefit cap has passed its first vote in the Commons.

MPs backed the bill 458 to 104, giving it a majority of 354 at its second reading.

Labour announced it would scrap the cap, which restricts welfare payments to those with more than two children, at the budget in November last year - in a bid to raise thousands of children out of poverty.

It wants the bill to come into effect from April, though it is subject to further scrutiny from MPs and peers.

The Conservatives have said they would not remove the cap, as they believe having children is a matter of "personal responsibility".

The policy was introduced in 2017 by the then-Tory government.

Reform UK previously said they would scrap the cap, then re-announced they would scrap the cap for British families, and today said they would reverse Labour's plans to scrap it in order to make the cost of a pint cheaper.

Previously, seven Labour MPs were suspended by the party after backing an SNP motion to scrap the cap in a vote in the Commons in 2024.

The government had at the time cited spending controls as a reason for not being able to ditch the policy immediately, indicating there would be no change without economic growth.

But this was later reversed last year.

The vote to scrap the cap was backed by Labour, the Liberal Democrats, independent MPs, the Greens, the SNP and Your Party.

Reform's Robert Jenrick and Suella Braverman mistakenly ended up in the 'aye' lobby and accidentally voted for the bill.

Alongside the Tories and the rest of Reform UK, independent MPs Rupert Lowe and Patrick Spencer voted to keep the cap in place.

Sky's deputy political editor Sam Coates has been across the Peter Mandelson news today.

But how did we get to this point? Sam talks through the story in this video.

Kemi Badenoch says the police launching an investigation into Peter Mandelson over allegations of misconduct in public office was "inevitable" and is "right".

The Conservative Party leader tells Paste BN: "We should not let this distract us from the fact the prime minister has his fingerprints all over this.

"He knew all of the allegations, concerns and reports about Peter Mandelson, knew that he was a close friend, an associate, of a convicted paedophile, and he still gave him the biggest job in the Foreign Office, at a time when UK-US relations are at a critical point.

"That's what he chose to do, and he's got a lot of questions to answer."

This is in reference to what was known about Mandelson's public relationship with Jeffrey Epstein at the time he was chosen (December 2024) and then appointed (February 2025).

The revelations that have come out in recent weeks are a result of documents published by the US Congress, and Downing Street has said it was not aware of these allegations until they were made public in recent days.

Badenoch continues: "I think it is a national embarrassment.

"There are many people who should have been given that job, who should have been interviewed for that job, and they didn't get a chance. That's not right."

Asked if the police should interview Sir Keir Starmer, she says the "police will make this call".

But she adds: "If there is evidence that shows that there's something to do with the prime minister, then yes, of course."

Reacting to the news that the police have launched an investigation, a government spokesperson said: "The government stands ready to provide whatever support and assistance the police need."