That's it from the Politics Hub for now.

Today, the agenda in Westminster has been once again dominated by the growing allegations against Peter Mandelson - which the former US ambassador denies.

This evening, the police announced they have launched an investigation into allegations of misconduct in public office.

Tomorrow, the Tories are using their opposition day to bring a motion, which seeks to force the government to publish all documents relating to Mandelson's vetting before he took up his appointment.

In return, the government has added an amendment, seeking to create an exemption on the grounds of national security. 

We'll be back again for all of that and much more tomorrow. 

But for now, catch up on the day's stories by having a look at the key points above, or by watching today's edition of the Politics Hub below.

Thanks for joining us today - goodbye.

Significantly more people will survive cancer in the next decade, under new plans being published by the government.

The new 10-year national plan to tackle cancer, being published in full tomorrow, will say that 75% of those diagnosed in England from 2035 will be cancer-free or living well after five years.

Currently, that figure is 60%, meaning the proposals amount to far more people surviving the disease. 

The Department of Health has said this would represent the fastest rate of improvement in cancer outcomes this century, and will lead to roughly 320,000 more people being saved over the decade covered by the plan.

Other measures in the proposals include a pledge that the NHS will meet all its cancer waiting time targets by 2029, ab expansion in robot-assisted surgery and faster diagnostic tests to reduce delays in cancer diagnosis and treatment.

Speaking ahead of the plan being published, the health secretary said: "As a cancer survivor who owes my life to the NHS, I owe it to future patients to make sure they receive the same outstanding care I did.

"Thanks to the revolution in medical science and technology, we have the opportunity to transform the life chances of cancer patients.

"Our cancer plan will invest in and modernise the NHS, so that opportunity can be seized and our ambitions realised."

Wes Streeting added that it will "slash waits, invest in cutting-edge technology and give every patient the best possible chance of beating cancer".

Currently, the NHS does not meet its target for 85% of patients to be treated within 62 days of their urgent referral for suspected cancer. 

Just 70.2% of patients were treated within this timeframe in November - but the government has set a target of this reaching 75% by March, a goal that will be kept with the new plan.

The new 10-year-plan is not expected to include details of national screening for prostate cancer after this was ruled out by the UK screening committee last year.

However, it will include details of £2.3bn of investment to deliver 9.5 million more tests by 2029, as well as more scanners, digital technology and automated testing. 

Professor Peter Johnson, NHS national clinical director for cancer, said: "This plan sets a clear roadmap for the NHS to diagnose more cancers earlier, ensure more patients are treated on time and improve survival."

It has been backed by Macmillan Cancer Support and Cancer Research UK, but the Nuffield Trust has expressed scepticism about whether the targets can really be achieved.

Sir Keir Starmer and the Labour high command may be relieved that Peter Mandelson has quit the House of Lords.

But for both the prime minister and the soon-to-be ex-peer, their humiliation and torment over the Jeffrey Epstein scandal may be about to get even worse.

Mandelson faces a full-blown probe by the Met's specialist crime team into allegations of misconduct in public office, for which the maximum penalty is life imprisonment.

Yes, really! It's that serious.

In an interview with The Times carried out last week but published on Monday, Mandelson referred to a "handful of misguided historical emails, which I deeply regret sending". 

On other claims, Mandelson questioned the authenticity of the documents, citing false claims he had a US social security number, questionable US-dollar cheque payments into UK banks, incorrect beneficiary details, and multiple basic errors in dates, spelling and formatting. 

The police investigation, no doubt extremely complex, could last several months and Mandelson's agony could last years if he's prosecuted, even if he's acquitted.

The torment for the PM is more immediate. 

He faces a potentially painful onslaught from Kemi Badenoch at tomorrow's PMQs, followed by a bruising Commons debate.

The PM must be cursing the parliamentary calendar, because Wednesday is an opposition day in the Commons, which means the Conservatives choose the business.

And this time the Tories are using a tactic used by Labour in opposition.

In the parliamentary jargon, it's called a humble address, which means the Tory motion demands publication of all the papers relating to Starmer's appointment of Mandelson as ambassador to the US.

Yes, all of them! In theory, at least. A paper trail, in other words.

It’s a device Labour employed with some success during the endless Commons debates on Brexit a few years back when Starmer was opposition leader.

This time, though, the prime minister could face a major rebellion from Labour backbenchers if he whips his MPs to vote against the Tory motion. But will he?

Watch: Richard Burgon speaks to Jon Craig

"I'll vote for a paper trail to be released," left-wing serial rebel Richard Burgon told Paste BN. "But there shouldn't be a vote. They shouldn't be opposing the motion.

"It would be crazy to do so. We can't have a situation where the government is dragged kicking and screaming to do the right thing."

The government is not falling into the Tory trap, however. 

It will commit to publishing documents about the Mandelson appointment.

But ministers have tabled an amendment to the Conservative motion proposing an exemption for papers affecting national security.

The PM's amendment adds: "Except papers prejudicial to UK national security of international relations."

Which could, of course, mean there are a large number of exemptions. Too many, the Conservatives may claim.

Badenoch claims the normal procedures were "waived away" so the prime minister could appoint Mandelson as ambassador, despite his close relationship with a convicted paedophile.

"Let's see all the correspondence, emails, mobile phone records," she said. "We want to see everything."

The Tories also plan to turn up the heat on the PM's controversial chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, a man who's already the pantomime villain of Labour's woes and blunders.

"Morgan McSweeney, a close protégé of Peter Mandelson, was involved in the vetting," said the Tory leader. "Morgan McSweeney is a man whose fingerprints are all over this embarrassment."

Couldn't come at a worse time

For the PM, the Mandelson nightmare couldn't have come at a worse time. 

His poll ratings are through the floor, he faces a horrible by-election on 26 February and horrendous local and national elections in May.

The mavericks and malcontents on the Labour benches claim the only question about Starmer's survival is when his mutineers move to oust him: after the by-election or after the May elections.

McSweeney, therefore, could be a convenient scapegoat, sacrificed to save an embattled prime minister. 

A Number 10 Svengali dumped just like Alastair Campbell, Andy Coulson and Dominic Cummings were before him.

The only winners from the Mandelson fiasco are Westminster's opposition parties. 

Not just the Conservatives, either. The Liberal Democrats and Scottish National party led demands for the police investigation.

Despite the PM's tough talk and his claim that Mandelson "let his country down", a damning verdict of his bad judgement in him could mean he ends up being as big a loser as the Prince of Darkness himself.

The government is seeking to water down a Conservative motion that is attempting to force the government to publish all documents regarding the vetting of Peter Mandelson. 

The Tories are using an arcane piece of parliamentary procedure, called a humble address, to attempt to make ministers publish all material regarding what checks Mandelson underwent before becoming US ambassador. 

The party is able to do this as it is an opposition day tomorrow in the Commons. 

It's expected that some Labour MPs may vote for the Tory amendment when it comes up for a vote on Wednesday afternoon.

In a bid to minimise what may be published, the government has now added an amendment to the address.

Put forward by the prime minister, his chief secretary Darren Jones, as well as Chief Whip Jonathan Reynolds and Cabinet Office minister Nick Thomas-Symonds, it adds: "Except papers prejudicial to UK national security or international relations."

Ministers will commit to publishing the documents, Paste BN understands. 

But they hope they'll be able to argue that not all the documentation around Mandelson's vetting can be published, as this could compromise national security.

Labour sometimes used the same method to put pressure on the Tories when they were in government.

Tonight, they have insisted that they used to add a caveat on national security grounds on their own humble addresses to the Tories - in a bid to suggest this is a reasonable response.

Tomorrow, we will see how the motion is received by MPs, and what exactly the government commits to publishing.

The Metropolitan Police is investigating allegations that he leaked confidential information from the government to convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein.

The potential offence of misconduct in public office is, however, "unusual" and "vague", Joshua Rozenberg, a legal commentator, has told Paste BN.

In the video, he outlines what this could mean...

On his relationship with Epstein, Mandelson 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."

In an interview with The Times last week but published on Monday, Mandelson referred to a "handful of misguided historical emails, which I deeply regret sending", and described Epstein as "muck that you can't get off your shoe".

 A Labour MP has insisted his fellow backbenchers would be "crazy" not to vote for a Conservative Party motion that seeks to force the government to publish all documents to do with Lord Mandelson's vetting.

The Tories are using an arcane parliamentary procedure, called a humble address, tomorrow to try and compel the government to make all checks to do with Mandelson's vetting for the role of US ambassador public.

Humble addresses are usually binding on the government, and are used to compel them to publish things they would rather stay hidden - but they're rarely used. 

Asked about it by our chief political correspondent Jon Craig, Richard Burgon said: "Well, I'll vote for a paper trail to be released, but there shouldn't even be a vote because the government should just get on with it."

The Labour rebel added: "They should not be opposing the motion tomorrow. I think it would be crazy to do so. And we need action, not excuses. 

"We can't have a situation where the government is dragged kicking and screaming to do the right thing. 

"What's really important is that we know exactly what happened, which resulted in Mandelson being appointed as US ambassador. 

"So that means a paper trail also means knowing who pushed for it, who warned against it, and who tried to overcome those warnings."

Burgon also told Paste BN he backs Lib Dem leader Sir Ed Davey's calls for a public inquiry.

He said: "There needs to be a full and swift inquiry into exactly how Peter Mandelson was appointed as this country's ambassador to the United States of America, despite what was known at the time being known."

He also warned of a "sickness in the heart of the culture of the Labour Party, a sickness of factionalism", for which he blamed the PM and his advisers.

Sir Keir Starmer has spoken to Donald Trump in a phone call this afternoon, in which the leaders discussed the Chagos Islands.

It follows an unhelpful intervention from the US president for the UK government, after he said Britain's deal to hand over sovereignty of these to Mauritius is "an act of GREAT STUPIDITY".

Last month, Trump posted on social media that he was against the deal, saying he believed the UK was giving away the islands "FOR NO REASON WHATSOEVER".

Under the terms of the deal - which the US administration previously endorsed - Britain will lease the strategic UK-US military base on the island of Diego Garcia for 99 years.

It's now been confirmed that the PM has spoken to the president since that moment last month. 

The read-out of their call says: "[On] Diego Garcia, and the deal the UK has secured to maintain control of the US-UK military base to protect national security, the leaders recognised its strategic importance.

"The leaders agreed their governments would continue working closely to guarantee the future operation of the base and speak again soon."

It also states that both men spoke about the war in Ukraine.

It says: "Putin's fierce attacks on critical national infrastructure, including energy systems, were particularly depraved as temperatures dropped below -20C, the Prime Minister added."

The call follows a further unhelpful intervention, when the PM was in China seeking to boost trade ties. 

Asked about Starmer's activity abroad, Trump warned it is "very dangerous" for the UK to become closer to China.

Pictures of a smiling Lord Mandelson appearing to receive a foot massage have appeared in the Epstein files.

The pictures appear to have been sent by Jeffrey Epstein to Mandelson via email on 2 February, 2011, and are accompanied by the message: "Sorry for all the typos."

No context has been provided for the image. Featuring in the Epstein files is not an indication of any wrongdoing. 

The furniture, setting and emails around the photos has led Paste BN to conclude these pictures of Peter Mandelson were taken in Epstein’s New York mansion.

The images appear in the latest tranche of Epstein files released by the US Justice Department.

On his relationship with Epstein, Mandelson 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."

In an interview with The Times last week but published on Monday, Mandelson referred to a "handful of misguided historical emails, which I deeply regret sending", and described Epstein as "muck that you can't get off your shoe".

A top law professor has said the police will be looking at three main factors as they investigate Peter Mandelson over allegations of misconduct in public office.

Jeremy Horder, a professor of criminal law at the London School of Economics (LSE) is speaking to the Politics Hub about this offence, having written a book on it.

He tells Paste BN that the three factors are about whether somebody was "acting in a public capacity when they did whatever they did", whether there was "wilful wrongdoing" and thirdly, "if they did something wrong, and they did it knowingly, was that something that amounted to an abuse of the public's trust?"

He explains that the third point will be the "key element" in the police inquiry against Mandelson.

Horder adds: "That's quite a high threshold. So it's not as simple as saying, 'oh, well, I leaked some confidential material to a friend because it was gossipy or something'. 

"I mean, that's wrong, but it might not amount to an abuse of the public's trust. There would need to be something more than that."

Pushed on what exactly that would mean, the professor says: "It's a high bar for prosecuting misconduct in a public office.

"If there's any evidence of corruption, for example, if someone has sought to influence a private party for their own gain, so that would be significant."

He also admits that it is "not common" for this offence to be used in the UK because "most parliamentary wrongdoing is dealt with through parliamentary processes".

"Prosecuting someone for an offence with a maximum life penalty is not something to be taken lightly," he insists. 

But when somebody is prosecuted for a serious case, there is a "presumption of a sentence of imprisonment of some kind".

Away from the Lord Mandelson story, our political editor Beth Rigby has some interesting news from the Commons.

MPs have been voting on the two-child benefit cap tonight (see our 7.31pm post), but there's been some confusion within Reform.

Beth writes: "I hear that Robert Jenrick and Suella Braverman ended up WITH LABOUR MPs in the AYE lobby on lifting two-child benefit cap.

"A source tells me they 'got on their phones trying to get instructions from Farage as to whether they should be there or not'.

"They tried to leave at one point but got trapped as the doors were locked"

Beth says that a Reform source has confirmed to her that this happened and that it was a "genuine mistake".

Voting records from parliament show the two of them did, in fact, register a vote in favour of scrapping the bill, while all other Reform MPs voted against it.

Responding to Beth's post on X, Tory leader Kemi Badenoch replied: "They're Nigel's problem now", with a laughing emoji.