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.

The health secretary tells Paste BN that Peter Mandelson "must now suffer the consequences of his actions" and has "betrayed his country".

Speaking to our lead politics presenter Sophy Ridge, Wes Streeting says: "We mustn't let Peter Mandelson off the hook in all of this. 

"He is the person who is responsible and who is at serious fault and must now suffer the consequences of his actions, both in office and since."

Streeting is responding to questions around the prime minister's judgement in appointing Lord Mandelson as UK ambassador to the US, when his association with paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein was already known.

The senior cabinet minister says: "What Peter Mandelson did was completely outrageous. And there is a feeling of deep betrayal here. 

"He's betrayed two prime ministers, he's betrayed his country and our national interest. He's betrayed Epstein's victims."

Good morning and welcome to Politics Hub this Wednesday, 4 February.

The Conservatives will today attempt to force the release of all information relating to Sir Keir Starmer's appointment of Peter Mandelson as UK ambassador to the US.

It follows continued revelations around Lord Mandelson's friendship with the paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein.

They will try and use a humble address - a little used parliamentary-mechanism - which would make the government publish vetting checks done on Lord Mandelson prior to his appointment.

The Tories also want the release of all contact between Lord Mandelson and the PM's chief of staff Morgan McSweeney for six months prior to his appointment.

If passed, the humble address is binding.

The government says they want to release the papers - although they have added an amendment that would prevent papers which have an impact on the UK's national security or international relations.

In short, they want to stop the release of anything that's embarrassing with the White House.

Multiple Labour MPs have told Paste BN they plan to vote for the humble address.

Lord Mandelson is now no longer a member of the House of Lords, although an act of parliament would be needed to formally remove his title - which the government has indicated they are willing to do.

The police have confirmed they have launched an investigation into him over allegations of misconduct in public office, following evidence that Lord Mandelson appeared to leak market sensitive information to Epstein while he was in cabinet under Gordon Brown.

Lord Mandelson has not responded to the latest allegations, but has previously apologised to the victims of Esptein.

Starmer is likely to face a barrage of questions on the scandal when he faces PMQs at noon - following missing last week's session because of his trip to China.

Coming up on Mornings with Ridge and Frost on Paste BN:

• Health secretary Wes Streeting
• Tory chairman Kevin Hollinrake
• Labour MP Andy McDonald

Stick with us on Politics Hub for all the latest updates.

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.