That's it from the Politics Hub for today. 

Monday has been dominated by the fall-out from the latest documents released by the US Congress, regarding disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein.

Those have led to further accusations against former ambassador to the US, Lord Mandelson.

Peter Mandelson has denied all the accusations, but 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."

You can catch up on all the day's news by having a look at the key points, or by watching tonight's edition of the Politics Hub below.

We'll be back again tomorrow morning - but for now, goodbye.

By Jeness Mitchell, Scotland reporter

Anas Sarwar has vowed to ban transgender women from the female prisons "within days" if he becomes first minister after the Holyrood election.

The Scottish Labour leader has pledged that his party will "act swiftly" to ensure prisons are "single-sex, based on biological sex" if it gets into power in May.

His declaration comes ahead of a Court of Session hearing this week between For Women Scotland (FWS) and the Scottish government over the management of transgender prisoners.

FWS is taking action at Scotland's highest civil court, claiming the current guidelines are "unlawful" in light of last year's landmark Supreme Court judgment over the definition of a woman.

Mr Sarwar said: "The Supreme Court is clear; the Equality Act must be respected.

"That means defending single-sex spaces for biological women in services, in sport and in everyday life. That is what I will deliver in government.

"But nowhere does this matter more than in our prison system. Women's prisons exist for a reason - to keep women safe.

"Many women in custody have experienced trauma and violence, often at the hands of men.

"It is simply not right that men who have committed sexual or violent crimes against women can be housed in women's prisons. That undermines safety, dignity and trust.

"A Scottish Labour government would act swiftly. 

"Within days, we would ensure prisons are single-sex, based on biological sex, and bring an end to years of confusion and costly legal disputes paid for by the taxpayer."

Resident doctors in England have voted to continue industrial action for another six months as part of their row over pay and jobs.

Of the resident doctors - formerly known as junior doctors - who voted in the ballot, an overwhelming 93.4% backed further strike action, the British Medical Association announced.

Dr Jack Fletcher, chairman of the BMA's resident doctors committee, said: "None of this needs to mean more strikes.

"In recent weeks, the government has shown an improved approach in tone compared with the name-calling we saw late last year.

"A deal is there to be done: a new jobs package and an offer raising pay fairly over several years can be worked out through goodwill on both sides, in the interests of patients, staff and the whole NHS."

The union has said doctors had suffered years of real-terms pay ‍erosion and that thousands more training posts were needed to break the deadlock.

Health Secretary Wes Streeting has previously said that the government cannot go any further on pay and called resident doctor strikes "self-indulgent, irresponsible and dangerous".

Defence personnel are to get new powers to take out drones near military bases.

It follows a doubling of drone incidents near UK bases last year, from 126 in 2024 to 266 in 2025.

Currently, only the police and certain other agencies have the power to take out drones.

Drones are usually defeated by using an electromagnet to jam its signal, causing it to fall out of the sky, although they can also be shot down in some circumstances.

New legislation will give the armed forces the ability to take out any drones near defence sites that are deemed to be posing a threat.

It covers land and underwater drones, as well those in the air.

Defence Secretary John Healey said: "The doubling of rogue drones near military sites in the UK in the last year underlines the increasing and changing nature of the threats we face.

"Through the Armed Forces Bill, we're giving our military greater powers to take out and shoot down threatening drones near bases, and stepping up investment in counter-drone technology to keep Britain secure at home and strong abroad."

Lord Mandelson has insisted that "there's nothing I can tell Congress about Epstein they don't already know".

In an interview with The Times newspaper, he insisted that he had "no exposure to the criminal aspects of" Jeffrey Epstein's life and that "none of [the Epstein files] indicate wrongdoing or misdemeanour on my part".

Mandelson also said "hiding under a rock would be a disproportionate response to a handful of misguided historical emails, which I deeply regret sending. 

"If it hadn't been for the emails, I'd still be in Washington," he said.

And he described the paedophile financier as like "muck that you can't get off your shoe... like dog muck, the smell never goes away" and like "bubonic plague".

The former ambassador to the US made the comments to the newspaper across two interviews - on 25 January, and on the phone last night.

That was before a Downing Street spokesperson today called on Lord Mandelson to no longer be a member of the House of Lords, and no longer use the title given to him by his peerage, and to testify to the US Congress, if asked. 

Lord Mandelson also admitted that his husband, Reinaldo, accepted money from Epstein to pay for an osteopathy course, while Mandelson was business secretary and being lobbied by the financier over changes to banker bonus rules.

But he recognised this was "clearly a lapse in our collective judgement" and insisted the idea this could have influenced government policy is "risible".

Our chief political correspondent Jon Craig has been assessing what happens next for Lord Mandelson, as new mentions in the Epstein files continue to emerge.

The former UK ambassador to the US resigned from the Labour Party yesterday, and has faced calls today - including from Keir Starmer - to give up his peerage in the House of Lords.

Political historian Sir Anthony Seldon has been discussing Lord Mandelson's lengthy political career.

He tells Paste BN that each leader who hired Mandelson knew that "he came with baggage" and had "profound flaws".

But Seldon added that Mandelson was "one of the first people in British politics to deeply understand the importance of focus groups and polling and the science of of electoral politics", which made him popular with successive Labour governments. 

But while he was "kind of genius... most geniuses have their dark sides, and he does," Seldon added.

You can watch the full interview below...

Rachael Maskell has said the growing scandal around Peter Mandelson is "about judgement of character".

Speaking to the Politics Hub, the backbench Labour MP calls for an independent investigation into his conduct, asking "where else has his tentacles of power run into?"

Maskell previously introduced a bill to parliament, the Removal of Titles Bill, which she calls "timely".

"It's waiting for its second reading, and parliament could rush that through and address the issue of the peerage," she says. 

Asked about why Lord Mandelson has bounced back so frequently throughout his career - he has been forced to resign or been fired three times - Maskell says: "Well, it's a very good question why so many people have depended on Peter Mandelson over the years, because clearly he has fallen so many times and yet seems to then be elevated to higher positions. 

"So I think there are serious questions that have got to be asked about judgement. 

"This is about judgement of character, but also it's about ensuring justice to those people who have fallen under him."

Challenged if she is referring to Sir Keir Starmer's judgement specifically, Maskell responds: "Well, none of us know exactly what those conversations are at the heart of government, but apparently there is close relationship between Peter Mandelson and several people, whether in the cabinet, the prime minister himself and of course his chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney. 

"We don't know what those conversations are, but we want to know."

She adds that within the Labour Party, there are "concerns that there are a few people controlling our party, when we believe it should belong back to the members, back to the public".

Mandelson has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing. 

Stephen Flynn has attacked Sir Keir Starmer for his judgement, over the growing scandal around Lord Mandelson.

His comments follow the SNP Westminster leader reporting Mandelson to the Metropolitan Police earlier today.

He did this after new documents suggested Mandelson - then serving as business secretary - gave paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein advanced notice of a €500bn EU bank bailout in 2010.

Mandelson has been contacted for a comment following the fresh allegations.

Speaking to Jonathan Samuels on Paste BN, he said: "This is a matter of judgement - the prime minister's decision to appoint Peter Mandelson as the ambassador to the United States. 

"This is a matter of weakness. The prime minister's inability to take swift and decisive action, and this is now a matter of trust. Trust from the public in our institutions."

Challenged that the PM says these are all fresh revelations and that Mandelson was sacked in September as soon as he learned of the depth of Mandelson's relationship with Epstein, Flynn responded: "The prime minister knew that Peter Mandelson was pals with Jeffrey Epstein. 

"He knew what Jeffrey Epstein had been convicted of previously, and he still chose to appoint Peter Mandelson as his ambassador."

MPs should sit all night to remove Mandelson from Lords

Asked whether he believes the government is doing enough to remove Mandelson from the Lords, he said: "We could be sitting tonight, all night moving primary legislation to remove Peter Mandelson from the House of Lords. 

"They're choosing not to do that. Instead, they say that there needs to be some sort of reform of the rules in the House of Lords.

"That could take, I don't know, an unknown period of time, weeks, months, even, maybe beyond that."

He suggested ministers "don't want to get into this" because it would open up a way to remove other Labour peers.

"If the government wanted, they could give time to that bill tonight or tomorrow," he added.

"They're choosing not to do that."