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.

Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar has said the last time he met Peter Mandelson was in the US when Lord Mandelson was the UK's ambassador to Washington.

He told a press conference: "The last time I spoke to or met Peter Mandelson was when I was in the US when he was a US ambassador, and I met him at the ambassador's residence to speak to him about the US-UK trade deal."

He said it was "right to engage with the US ambassador".

Sarwar is said to have last year described Lord Mandelson as an "old friend," and faced calls on Monday to disclose past private communications between the two.

"But of course, he should not have been the US ambassador. He should not be a member of the Labour Party and I'm pleased he's not, and he should not be a member of the House of Lords," Sarwar added.

He said appointing Lord Mandelson "was clearly a mistake".

Sir Keir Starmer is set to face a grilling from MPs at Prime Minister's Questions at 12 noon - after missing last week's session because of his trip to China.

He will face Tory leader Kemi Badenoch and Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey - who will surely quiz him about his decision to appoint Peter Mandelson as UK ambassador to the US.

Here's who else is asking the questions today:

• Johanna Baxter (Lab)
  
• Julie Minns (Lab)
• Kerry McCarthy (Lab)
• Charlie Dewhirst (Con)
• Luke Charters (Lab)
• Alex Baker (Lab)
• Jonathan Brash (Lab) - who is MP for Hartlepool, where Peter Mandelson was the MP from 1992-2004
• Neil Hudson (Con)
• Alan Strickland (Lab)
• Helen Hayes (Lab)
• Layla Moran (LD)
• Ben Goldsborough (Lab)
• Christine Jardine (LD)
• Chris Coghlan (LD)

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 question of judgment as the appointment was the PM’s call.

And as for Epstein’s victims, we are seeing powerful men trying to protect themselves rather than providing evidence and testimony that will help bring justice and recognition to the victims of sexual abuse. 

There is a strong sense among many it's time to lance that boil and any more attempts at covering up will be tipping point.

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.