Today's session was "an extremely difficult and tense Prime Minister's Questions for Keir Starmer," our political editor Beth Rigby says.

Beth is giving her snap analysis of PMQs live on Paste BN.

"You could sense from the benches his MPs stony faced there, as they take in the enormity of this Mandelson scandal and how it is ballooning back into the previous Labour government," she says.

Beth points out Kemi Badenoch got Starmer to admit vetting did raise Peter Mandelson's ongoing relationship with the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein - which Badenoch described as "shocking".

Beth says some Labour MPs are unsure how to vote on the government's amendment that would carve out any documents that impact national security or international relations.

"There are many, many MPs on [Starmer's] benches, particularly some of the female MPs actually, who feel very strongly that Mandelson should not have been appointed in the first place."

Lib Dem leader Sir Ed Davey uses both his questions to ask about Jeffrey Epstein.

He asks the prime minister whether there will be a public inquiry.

And Davey goes on: "Mr Speaker, the Polish government think Epstein may have been spying for Vladimir Putin.

"Is the prime minister concerned that Peter Mandelson may have been leaking state secrets not just to a paedophile American financier, but also a Russian agent?"

Starmer says: "Well, Mr Speaker, he talks about a public inquiry.

"Obviously, the focus now has to be on the criminal investigation, which has started.

"As he knows, that investigation will go wherever the evidence leads it. 

"And I've made it absolutely clear that the government will cooperate, as he would expect, with that criminal investigation, wherever it goes."

Noticeably, he doesn't address the allegations of Epstein association with Russian intelligence.

Sir Keir Starmer says the vetting done on Peter Mandelson before his appointment as UK ambassador to the US raised his ongoing association with Jeffrey Epstein.

Tory leader Kemi Badenoch asks: "Can the prime minister tell us, did the official security vetting he received mention Mandelson's ongoing relationship with the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein?"

"Yes it did," Starmer replies.

He continues: "Various questions were put to [Lord Mandelson].

"I intend to disclose to this House all of them, national security, and international relations on one side."

The prime minister said Lord Mandelson "completely misrepresented the extent of his relationship with Epstein and lied throughout the process".

In a later reply to Plaid Cymru Westminster leader Liz Saville Roberts, Starmer says of Lord Mandelson: "He lied, he lied, and he lied again to my team."

Starmer appointed Mandelson as the UK's ambassador to the US in February last year. 

However, he sacked him in September after new emails revealed Mandelson sent messages of support to Epstein even as the paedophile financier faced jail for sex offences in 2008. 

Badenoch goes on to question Starmer about the relationship between Morgan McSweeney and Peter Mandelson.

McSweeney is the prime minister's chief of staff and known to have been close to Mandelson.

The PM says McSweeney is "an essential part of my team".

Starmer adds: "He helped me change the Labour Party and win an election.

"Of course I have confidence in him."

The PM then criticises Badenoch for suggesting that cabinet secretary Sir Chris Wormald is not independent.

MPs backing the government's attempt to stop anything that prejudices national security or international relations from being released as part of the Mandelson papers are "voting for a cover up," Kemi Badenoch says.

The Tory leader told MPs: "The national security issue was appointing Mandelson in the first place... humble addresses already exempt genuine national security. 

"This is not about national security. This is about his job security."

She adds:  "[Starmer's] amendment lets him withhold anything to do with international relations."

Challenging Labour MPs, Badenoch says: "If they're voting for it, they are voting for the cover up."

Sir Keir Starmer says he intends to publish all documents related to Peter Mandelson, apart from those that could impact national security and international relations.

He says: "I intend to make sure that all of the material is published... the only exemptions are national security... and anything that would prejudice international relations".

"[There are] of course discussions, country to country, there are very sensitive issues of security, intelligence and trade, which cannot be disclosed without compromising the relationship between the two countries or a third country," he tells MPs.

Starmer also says the police have asked him not to reveal anything that could impact an investigation.

"The Metropolitan Police have been in touch with my office this morning, to raise issues about anything that would prejudice their investigations. We're in discussion with them about that, and I hope to be able to update the House."

It's 12 noon, and Prime Minister's Questions is just starting.

Tap on the stream above to watch the exchanges - and we'll bring you all the key points here on Politics Hub.

The stakes couldn't be higher for Sir Keir Starmer as he heads into PMQs this afternoon.

It is hard to overstate the level of anger on the Labour backbenches - and politics as a whole - at how this whole unedifying saga surrounding Peter Mandelson has unfolded.

Labour minister after Labour minister has lined up to condemn Mandelson - a man they recommended for one of the plushest jobs in politics just last year - as a traitor who has "betrayed his country" by allegedly passing on sensitive information to a convicted paedophile.

At the time, Mandelson's appointment was deemed "worth the risk" because of his enviable networking skills and his ability to seal a deal - nevermind his friendship with Epstein.

It is that value judgment that Sir Keir will be forced to defend this afternoon.

Expect the prime minister to look extremely uncomfortable when he is asked why he appointed Mandelson when his friendship with Epstein was well known and continued after the paedophile financier's 2008 conviction.

The government has scrambled to get ahead of the fresh row over the release of documents surrounding Mandelson's appointment by tabling an amendment to a Conservative motion that would allow their release - but only those that do not jeopardise national security or international relations.

Cynics believe this caveat is a ruse to prevent the full and proper disclosure of the vetting documents under the guise of responsibility.

Will Labour MPs buy it? We'll find out this afternoon.

I'm chatting around government today, trying to get sense of where No 10 in as we all reel from the jaw dropping revelations over Mandelson contained in the Epstein files.

The view from some in No 10 is that the bombshells dropped in the last few days strengthens the argument made by Sir Keir Starmer in September when he dismissed Lord Mandelson, that he hadn’t been given information on the depth of the friendship. They didn’t know Mandelson had taken $75k from Jeffrey Epstein while a prominent politician, had allegedly leaked market sensitive information.

This strengthens the case Starmer and the government were badly misled, and I think Starmer will come out swinging in PMQs. 

I'm told that Starmer is furious about all and genuinely wants to be as transparent as possible. One government source said that the vetting documents they intend to release will not be as interesting as everyone anticipates. I'm also told WhatsApp exchanges will be released.

I think Starmer will also go on attack at the Tories' motion for not carving out national security in their demands on humble address. The view in government is that it’s "incredibly irresponsible" to ask for every piece of information between PM and ministers when nothing to do with vetting and would be "bad for country" if released. 

One source points out to me on the question of carving out exchanges on "international relations," the government does not want to publish details of trade negotiations, fall back positions, or private observations an ambassador would be sending on either Donald Trump or the US government. This would be bad for UK. 

I imagine whips are frantically making this case to MPs now as they push them to accept the Labour amendment to the humble address.

Finally - for now - the documents the Tories have asked run into the millions. The government will set out its approach later. It's likely Nick Thomas Symonds, the Cabinet Office minister, will speak for the government in the Commons.