Commons speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle has said the debate on releasing the Mandelson papers will be extended until 7pm.

He told MPs a few moments ago that while the debate would otherwise likely have ended at 4pm, "the opposition may want to extend the time available".

They have now clearly decided that this is something they want to do, as Hoyle has just confirmed it will run until 7pm.

He said: "Just for the benefit of the House, the debate will now go throught to seven o'clock - that will allow more people to speak."

As it is an opposition day debate, the Tories control what happens - they have a second debate on social media for under 16s afterwards, but they have now chosen to spend more time on this debate and less time on that - if any at all.

Dame Meg Hillier has backed proposals for the release of documents to do with the vetting of Peter Mandelson to be checked by a parliamentary committee first.

The senior Labour MP made the intervention as part of an opposition day debate about a Conservative Party motion, which is seeking to force the publication of all documents to do with the vetting carried out by the government to appoint Lord Mandelson as US ambassador last year.

Ministers have scheduled an amendment to that motion - seeking to create an exemption on the grounds of national security and international relations. 

But this has all resulted in "something of a muddle", Hillier said.

It's the latest sign that Labour MPs are unhappy with the government's amendment, and that ministers may have to back down on their current resistance to publishing all the documents.

What did Hillier say?

The chair of the Treasury Committee explained she believes that "to put all information openly in the public domain could have risks".

But she has called for parliament's Information and Security Committee (ISC) to assess which documents can be made public. 

This follows on calls from former minister Angela Rayner calling for the same a little earlier (see our 1.25pm post).

Explaining her view in the Commons, Hillier said: "There are well-worn filters through parliament, through the select committee corridor, and there are various committees that could have locus in this space to properly and sensitively handle information, which has, in my time, never leaked from a committee."

She added that there is "consensus" in parliament that the committees should hold the government to account.

"Everybody wants as much information as possible in the public domain so that we can get to the bottom of what has happened in this egregious situation," she added.

It appears a compromise may be being brokered on releasing papers related to Peter Mandelson's appointment as UK ambassador to the US.

Our political editor Beth Rigby has been told that the government is now amending the motion, with some of the MPs’ demands for independent oversight.

Paste BN has seen government chief whip Jonathan Reynolds and Tory chief whip Rebecca Harris having five minutes of intense discussions behind the Speaker's chair in the Commons.

Reynolds was seen referring to text on his Commons order paper and taking notes.

The government's attempt to remove information from the files that would prejudice national security or international relations is beginning to look increasingly untenable.

Multiple MPs have criticised it in the debate, including former deputy prime minister Angela Rayner, who has suggested parliament's Information and Security Committee should decide what to redact.

Paste BN has spoken to multiple Labour MPs who say they won't vote for the government's amendment - with the prime minister's performance at PMQs seeming to only strengthen that resolve.

The government will begin the "process of disclosure" for releasing Mandelson papers today.

Speaking in the Commons, Cabinet Office minister Nick Thomas-Symonds said: "Whilst that process of going through a significant amount of documents might take a little time, it is also important that the government starts that process of disclosure to the extent it can do today.

"And that is what the government will do in response to the debate and the very reasonable questions that are being put."

"Process of disclosure" doesn't necessarily mean any documents will be published today - it could just mean officials start to process them.

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'.

By Faye Brown, political reporter 

Sir Keir Starmer is hoping to avoid a difficult vote with his own MPs today by disclosing documents relating to Peter Mandelson's US Ambassador appointment - apart from those that could impact national security or damage national relations. 

The Tories had been planning to force the publication of all records using an ancient parliament mechanism - which several Labour MPs had said they would support before the government's intervention late last night.

Now, MPs tell Paste BN they are "split" on whether to back Number 10's rival amendment or the Conservatives' one.

There is concern that the national security exemption could be used broadly to keep important documents out of the public domain - and risk widening the row.

"We need everything out in the public now to move on from it - many are split on it," says one MP. 

Another said the government's amendment "won't wash" as "you could say anything embarrassing to the government could impact international relations or national security".

MPs weighing up their options want assurances on what the government might hold back and who is making that decision.

Many are furious with both Starmer and his chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, for deciding to appoint Mandelson to the top diplomatic job, saying his close association with Epstein was known about at the time. (Ministers said when they sacked him, they weren't aware of its depth or extent).

One MP said the PM needs to "answer" why Mandelson was appointed "when he had knowingly associated with a convicted child sex offender",  while another said there has been "quiet anger at McSweeney for a long time", claiming his "fingerprints are on quite a lot of what's wrong about this government".

"We are all done with this hold your nose crap", a third said.

But while there is anger it would be a big deal for Labour MPs to support the Tories over the government.

One left wing MP - while lambasting Starmer and McSweeney - said: "I don’t ever support the Tories on any issue."

Another said the government amendment seemed "reasonable" but stressed: "We want to not only understand the dark shadow [Mandelson] cast over our Party for many decades but how far his influence reached, right up to this very day."

Some MPs may express their opposition by abstaining.

Ultimately,  the toss-up is whether to stay loyal and save Starmer's skin at a time when he is already on thin ice, or risk accusations of a cover up if the government tries to hold back too many documents in the name of national security. 

Former deputy prime minister Angela Rayner has suggested parliament's Information and Security Committee (ISC) should decide which Mandelson papers to redact.

MPs have started to debate the humble address on the Mandelson papers.

Rayner said to MPs: "In 2022, I proposed a humble address seeking information about PPE, which the party opposite was listed, and [as Labour MP Meg Hillier] mentioned just before, should... the ISC not have the same role now in keeping public confidence in the process?"

Our political editor Beth Rigby says it's a very significant intervention, suggesting that the government's amendment to prevent information that prejudices national security or international relations is insufficient.

It's a massive blow for the government and reveals the depth of unhappiness among Labour MPs, Beth says.

Sir Keir Starmer was full of regret and remorse over the appointment of Mandelson, but the look on this former prosecutor's face suggests he was not convinced by his own argument.

The prime minister looked uncomfortable as he was asked to explain why he appointed Mandelson when the question was raised in vetting his ongoing friendship with Epstein, even after the disgraced financier's conviction in 2008 for soliciting a minor.

Tory leader Kemi Badenoch asked: "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.

To that, he said he did not know the "sheer depth" of the relationship but was as "angry as anyone" to learn that Mandelson's friendship extended to allegedly passing on government secrets.

To that, MPs will ask - how much evidence did he need?

Sir Keir almost portrayed the entire Labour family as victims of Mandelson, saying the former Cabinet minister had "lied repeatedly" to his team and had "betrayed our country, our parliament and my party".

And while it is true that the prime minister can't have known everything Mandelson was doing on his emails, the charge is that he knew enough.

It was one the prime minister failed to shake, even as he scrambled to take remedial action by agreeing to publish documents surrounding Mandelson's appointment - albeit with the caveat that international relations and national security should not be compromised.

For many it will be too little, too late.

If you missed it, you can watch the full PMQs here:

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 that Conservative leader 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."

You can watch Beth's full analysis here:

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.