A Labour MP says he will "probably" vote against the government's attempts to stop Peter Mandelson vetting documents that impact national security or international relations - saying it would "throw a cloak over the entire Mandelson affair".

Andy McDonald tells Wilfred Frost he will probably vote with the Conservatives; "because I've seen the amendment and it brings in issues of national security, international relations and foreign affairs. 

"Well, that's what this is about. And if this amendment were to stand at face value, it would be to throw a cloak over the entire Mandelson affair."

While he says he "acknowledge[s] the need to have full reconnaissance about issues of national security," but "we cannot have the government marking its own homework".

He adds: "But this amendment to simply say that 'we support what the Tories are saying, save for the impacts upon foreign affairs, international relations, and national security' is nonsense because it just is a way of not revealing information."

Wes Streeting was excoriating on Mandelson: "We have seen evidence in black and white of a betrayal of two prime ministers, of our national interest, of Epstein’s victims not believed and our values, which why Labour MPs feel particularly let down."

For Gordon Brown, there is the contempt Mandelson displayed the former PM in his messages to Epstein - "finally got him to go", which is clearly deeply upsetting. 

There is, more importantly, the criminal investigation into Mandelson. It is shaping up to become the biggest scandal of this century after emails allegedly revealed he sent market sensitive information to Epstein. 

As Streeting - and the PM has said yesterday at cabinet - this tarnishes all politicians

But for Starmer, his decision to bring back Mandelson means the scandal that could have been contained to the last Labour government is now at his door. 

And now he and his ministers and his advisors will have to try to ride that out. 

The government will today agree to release documents relating to the appointment of Mandelson. 

Streeting has said vetting information specifically would be published, but the government is also saying anything that could have impact on national security or international relations will be held back. 

Such is the anger of the backbenches over Mandelson, that any attempt not to release information was an absolute non-starter. 

MPs are angry with Morgan McSweeney, the Downing Street chief of staff, who pushed for the appointment. And with the prime minister for allowing it. 

One MP messaged me last night saying: "Can’t believe how stupid they all were, putting us in this position. Morgan pushing for it means they all just think a man is so talented you can ignore the risk to everyone else."

Streeting said the prime minister is going for "maximum transparency" and that is what Labour MPs want. 

It is going to be a very big day today: PMQs followed by the humble address tabled by the Tories as the government bows to pressure and agrees to release information.

We can expect lots of questions as to what gets released and what should be withheld.

I imagine the government line on not releasing information on international relations might refer to private exchanges over Donald Trump that could blow relations up. 

There will be questions too as to what form of electronic communications will be covered in this data release. 

McSweeney’s exchanges with Mandelson, with whom he was close, will be an intense focus. There are genuine questions as to whether he can survive it. 

The prime minister is also vulnerable here as the vetting process is pored over. Because ultimately, this comes back to a questions of judgment as the appointment was the PM’s call. 

We’ll be covering it all live for you on Paste BN. Tune in

Kevin Hollinrake says Peter Mandelson "was clearly a wrong'un" - as pressure on the prime minister continues over his decision to appoint Lord Mandelson as UK ambassador to the US.

The Tory chairman tells Mornings with Ridge and Frost that Starmer hired Lord Mandelson despite his "very chequered record in politics before he was appointed to this role. He resigned twice from the cabinet, once because of a financial scandal.

"And indeed it was clear he knew Jeffrey Epstein had a relationship with him after he was a convicted paedophile, and yet still Keir Starmer, despite lots of people expressing reservations about that, appointed him to that top job."

"Clearly it's a very bad decision about appointing somebody to that role who was clearly a wrong'un," he says.

The chairman of the Conservative party says his party could accept some redacting of Peter Mandelson vetting papers on national security grounds - as long as it isn't used as a "smokescreen".

The Tories are trying to force the release of all papers, but the government is trying to change that to remove ones which have an impact on the UK's national security or international relations.

Speaking to Sophy Ridge on Paste BN, Kevin Hollinrake says Sir Keir Starmer has "put that caveat on it about national security, which we understand as long as that's not a smokescreen to conceal information that should be released.

"Information that may embarrass Keir Starmer himself, that cannot be a reason."

He says it's "pretty clear what reasoning you would need to redact something". 

Hollinrake adds: "But if you're stopping the release of documents, you don't know what they're not releasing. I'm sure the officials within the Cabinet Office who will be responsible for this are decent people, and I'm sure they do the right thing.

"But it's very, very important that the public has confidence that all the information has now been revealed."

Paste BN understands the Tories haven't decided yet exactly what they will do about the government's amendment.

Let's bring you some of our deputy political editor Sam Coates's thoughts on this morning's Politics at Sam and Anne's podcast.

Sam says the vote forced by the Tories today on releasing the Mandelson vetting documents is "a big parliamentary test of Keir Starmer's strength".

That's because lots of the prime minister's own MPs want them released.

Sam says the government admitting they will release the documents - although with an attempt to redact them for security concerns - shows the prime minister is diminished.

"Keir Starmer cannot get a majority for something as important as this from his own side. He's lost his MPs. The signal that sends is terrible.

"The prime minister is only the prime minister ever, because he commands the confidence of the House of Commons. And on this, he does not command the confidence of his MPs to stop them force disclosing stuff that they don't want to.

"So they're now just seeing to try and stop really damaging disclosure if they can hide behind a national security exemption and sort of get that through."

Mandelson would have ran 2029 election campaign

Sam also points out that, despite attempts to distance themselves from Lord Mandelson, he was heavily involved with Labour.

Sam says a source told him that the "absolute assumption was that he actually stopped being ambassador before the next election and went back to the heart of the Labour machine to try and help run Keir Starmer's 2029 re-election campaign, to succeed where he didn't in 2010."

Lord Mandelson ran Labour's failed 2010 election campaign, where they lost government after 13 years in power, and advised on the successful 2024 campaign.

By Tim Baker, political reporter

The European Commission is investigating whether Peter Mandelson broke their rules, having served as a trade commissioner between 2004 and 2008.

This could result in the disgraced former ambassador losing his pension from the institution.

Paste BN understands that the Commission has decided to evaluate the decision following the latest release of documents from the Epstein files.

The body is assessing whether their code of conduct was breached, and take action if they find this has happened.

Under Commission rules, members must: "Give a solemn undertaking that, both during and after their term of office, they will respect the obligations arising therefrom and in particular their duty to behave with integrity and discretion as regards the acceptance, after they have ceased to hold office, of certain appointments or benefits."

As for the punishment, the rules state: "In the event of any breach of these obligations, the Court of Justice may, on application by the council acting by a simple majority or the Commission, rule that the member concerned be, according to the circumstances, either compulsorily retired in accordance with Article 247 or deprived of his right to a pension or other benefits in its stead."

Let's bring you something else Health Secretary Wes Streeting had to say on Paste BN a little earlier.

He said that Sir Keir Starmer is "going for maximum transparency" over the release of vetting documents on Lord Mandelson's appointment as ambassador - "apart from some exceptions".

The Tories are trying to force disclosure of "all" internal vetting documents - but the government is trying to change the call to remove anything that would impact on the UK's national security or international relations.

Streeting told Sophy Ridge: "I think the prime minister's going for maximum transparency here. 

"He's obviously drawing a line that I think people will understand and agree with, which is not releasing information where it might compromise our national security and our security services, or where there may be information in there that might undermine international relations with other countries. 

"But apart from those exceptions, the prime minister is going for real transparency here," he said.

Another day and another Politics at Sam and Anne's dominated by Peter Mandelson – but as the political pressure ramps up across parliament, how will Number 10 react and is the carnage over? 

In a frantic 24 hours, Lord Mandelson resigned from the House of Lords and is facing a criminal investigation over alleged leaking of sensitive material to convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein. 

The Tories will try and force a vote to release vetting information - can Sir Keir Starmer bury his associations with Lord Mandelson and his decision to appoint him as the UK’s ambassador to the United States? 

Plus, Sam explains the significance of the battle ahead in parliament between the prime minister, his own MPs and opposition parties on whether he will be forced to disclose sensitive information.

Listen to the full episode...

The Conservatives this afternoon will attempt to force the government to release "all papers relating to Lord Mandelson’s appointment as His Majesty’s Ambassador to the United States of America".

It's an opposition day debate in the Commons this afternoon, meaning the Tories get to decide what MPs debate.

They're using a rare parliamentary procedure called a humble address - the last time it was used was by Labour in 2022, when they wanted to force the then-Conservative government to release documents about the appointment of Russian-British millionaire Evgeny Lebedev to the House of Lords.

Humble addresses were also used to force the release of documents during Brexit.

The Tories are calling for the release of all papers, "including but not confined to":

• Cabinet Office due diligence on the appointment
• The conflict of interest form filled in by Lord Mandelson
• Material provided by the Cabinet Office and Foreign Office to the vetting service
• Papers for and minutes of meetings on the decision to appoint
• Electronic communications and meetings between Lord Mandelson and the PM's chief of staff or ministers for six months before his appointment
• Electronic communications and minutes of meetings between Lord Mandelson, ministers, officials and special advisers while he was ambassador
• Details of payments made to Lord Mandelson on his departure as ambassador
• All information given by Lord Mandelson to the PM, which allowed the PM to tell MPs in September that ‘full due process was followed during this appointment’.

That last one is an attempt to catch out Sir Keir Starmer, as if the evidence that Starmer used to tell MPs that "full due process was followed" is minimal, he'll be open to accusations he misled the House of Commons - and he'd be expected to resign.

If passed, a humble address is binding. But the government has tabled an amendment, saying "except papers prejudicial to UK national security or international relations."

That's a bit of a get out of jail free card, and would allow them to redact bits of the documents.

The government considered Peter Mandelson "not guilty by association" with Jeffrey Epstein when he was appointed as UK ambassador to the US, says Wes Streeting.

He says that Lord Mandelson was appointed because of his experience as business secretary, EU trade commissioner, and because the government wanted someone political during a "sensitive time for UK-US relations".

This was despite Lord Mandelson's association with the paedophile financier already being known about.

Speaking to Mornings with Ridge and Frost, Streeting says:  "Assurances were given [by Lord Mandelson], and I think there's a general principle people tend to abide by, which is not presuming people to be guilty by association."

But he says Lord Mandelson didn't tell the government the whole truth: "When the last tranche of information from the Epstein files was released... clearly he had not been given a full and accurate picture of that association."

"That is why the prime minister sacked him rapidly," he says.