"Labour tried to pull the wool over your eyes. Tonight, the Conservatives forced Number 10 to come clean," Tory leader Kemi Badenoch says in a new video posted online.

It comes following the agreement in the Commons this evening that the government will publish files relating to the appointment of Mandelson as US ambassador in 2024.

"Starmer wanted secrecy, because secrecy is his shelter. The prime minister signed off this appointment, this was not an accident, it was a choice."

She adds that "someone needs to lose their job for this".

Lib Dem MP Lisa Smart tells the BBC there are "huge questions around the judgement" of Keir Starmer after today's session in the House of Commons.

During Prime Minister's Questions, Starmer conceded that he knew that Mandelson had continued his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein after the disgraced financier's conviction when he appointed him as US ambassador. But the PM said the Labour veteran had "lied repeatedly" about the depth of the pair's association.

"I understand why a number of Labour backbenchers were looking grey-faced and utterly aghast with the PM gave the answer he did," Smart tells the BBC.

Looking ahead, she says it is now "wholly right that this work is done at pace" to release the papers around Mandelson's appointment, adding: "Transparency and daylight is often the best disinfectant."

We've heard some reaction from Labour MP Clive Efford, who tells the BBC "Parliament showed itself at its best today" by forcing the government to change its original amendment on the Mandelson papers.

As we've been reporting, the government initially planned to block the release of some documents that would be "prejudicial to UK national security or international relations".

But, Efford says in the Commons "MPs were frustrated and angry at what Peter Mandelson had done" and says the House was clear that "the only way to deal with this is to publish everything".

After tonight's motion, the government has agreed for relevant documents to be referred to the Intelligence and Security Committee in Parliament.

Ultimately, Efford says, he blames Keir Starmer's advisers for the "really poor decision" to appoint Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the US.

Sense of fury across the Labour Party tonightpublished at 19:50 GMT 4 February

19:50 GMT 4 February

Harry Farley
Political correspondent

"We can't be in a good place after today," a senior Labour MP told me when I asked if they were happy with the compromise agreement backbenchers have reached with government.

The sense of fury is wide and deep across the Labour Party tonight.

Kemi Badenoch's questioning of the prime minister first spooked many Labour MPs. Particularly it was the accusation the government was engaging in a cover up by refusing to release documents that might jeopardise international relations and national security.

"I don't want to be part of a cover up," one Labour MP told me, summing up the mood of many.

But Keir Starmer's confirmation that he knew Mandelson had continued his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein after his conviction for child sex offences poured fuel on the already simmering fury on the Labour backbenches.

The prime minister's defence is that Mandelson lied about the extent and nature of that relationship. He "presented Epstein as someone he barely knew", a Downing Street source said.

But that public admission from Starmer, long implied but now confirmed, crystallised the anger.

The fact it was Angela Rayner who led the opposition is significant. She demanded the government release all the information it had on Mandelson’s appointment, not just those it deemed not to breach international relations and national security.

Several other Labour MPs followed her. That demonstrated the power the former deputy PM has on the party's backbenchers, and reminded Downing Street she is willing to wield it.

It leaves the prime minister's authority over his own party – already fragile – severely weakened. That matters not just for his own future but for the government's ability to make difficult decisions going forward.

Speaker Lindsay Hoyle says that Scotland Yard has "no jurisdiction" over the Commons.

It comes after the Met asked ministers to avoid publishing certain documents due to fears they "could undermine" the police investigation.

Hoyle was asked by Conservative MP Simon Hoare if he will be working with the government to "ensure that the rights and privileges" of MPs are protected.

He tells MPs: "The Metropolitan Police have no jurisdiction on what this house may wish to do. It will be whether the government provides or not. But just to let you know, they cannot dictate to this house."

MPs have parliamentary privilege, which means they have a certain level of legal immunity when it comes to things said in the Commons.

Chris Mason
Political editor

We've just heard a response from Downing Street to tonight's agreement in the House of Commons.

A spokesperson says: "Peter Mandelson's actions were unforgivable.

"He lied to the prime minister, hid information that has since come to light and presented Jeffrey Epstein as someone he barely knew.

"We will comply with the motion, including publishing documents relating to Peter Mandelson's appointment, which will show the lies he told."

During that debate that just wrapped up in the Commons, a minister confirmed that no Mandelson documents will be released today, after discussions with Scotland Yard.

Chris Ward told MPs that "the material will not be released today because of the conversation with the Metropolitan Police over that, but it will be released as quickly as possible".

This follows our earlier reporting that the Met has asked the government to avoid publishing "specific documents" at the risk of it undermining its investigation.

Shadow Cabinet Office minister Alex Burghart tells the BBC that the Conservatives have managed to "force the government to agree" sensitive information will go to the Commons Intelligence and Security Committee.

He says if this committee decides that certain files are too sensitive, they will respect that – "but it won't be the government marking its own homework".

"If the government does not play fair on this, we will come back again," he says.

MPs have just agreed that ministers will have to share papers relating to Peter Mandelson's appointment as US ambassador.

Originally the government wanted to retain the power to block the publication of certain documents relating to matters "prejudicial to UK national security or international relations".

Instead, after the government altered plans following backbench pressure, the relevant documents will be referred to the Intelligence and Security Committee in Parliament.

The new Met Police statement – that we've just reported – comes as the force conducts a criminal investigation into Peter Mandelson over allegations of misconduct in public office.

Mandelson has been accused of passing market-sensitive information to Jeffrey Epstein, when he was business secretary under former PM Gordon Brown in 2009.

The current government has said it will publish files relating to their vetting process in choosing Mandelson for the role of ambassador to the US in 2024.

But now in its update, the police force is asking the government to avoid releasing certain documents, after it approached them with their intent to publish material.

Mandelson has not responded to requests for comment but the BBC understands his position is that he has not acted in any way criminally and that he was not motivated by financial gain.

A government spokesperson previously said: "The government stands ready to provide whatever support and assistance the police need."

The Metropolitan Police has released a new statement asking the government to avoid publishing "specific documents" following the release of files in the US related to Jeffrey Epstein, because it could "undermine our current investigation".

The full statement reads:

"As with any investigation, securing and preserving any potential evidence is vital. For this reason, when approached by the UK government today with their intent to publish material, we reviewed it immediately and advised that the release of specific documents could undermine our current investigation. We therefore asked them not to release certain documents at this time.

"Going forward as material is made available to us, and if we identify further documents that we believe could prejudice our investigation, we will continue to ask the government to pause their release until such time as the risk of prejudice no longer exists. The integrity of our investigation is paramount to securing justice. We are grateful for their cooperation.

"We continue to assess all relevant information brought to our attention as part of this investigation."

Harry Farley
Political correspondent

The government’s climbdown this afternoon has consequences.

Firstly it means that senior MPs and peers on the Intelligence and Security Committee will see the documents the government deems prejudicial to national security and international relations.

That committee can decide to publish reports, although the security services can request sensitive information is redacted.

More immediately there are consequences for the prime minister’s authority.

An amendment the government tabled has had to be changed because Labour MPs – including most notably Angela Rayner – made it clear they would not support it.

Sir Keir Starmer’s ability to control his own party was already weakened. Now some MPs are asking whether it is more permanently damaged.

We're now refocusing on Lord Mandelson, and the process to appoint him as the UK's ambassador to the US in 2024.

That appointment came despite the vetting process revealing Mandelson had an "ongoing" relationship with Jeffrey Esptein, after he was convicted in 2008.

A Downing Street source says:

"Before Peter Mandelson was appointed, there had been reports that linked him with Jeffrey Epstein, including after he was first convicted.

"This was looked into as part of the appointment process, as the prime minister referenced today.

"Peter Mandelson lied to the prime minister, hid information that has since come to light and presented Epstein as someone he barely knew.

"In September, new information revealed the depth and extent of the relationship was materially different to what was known at the time of his appointment and that he had utterly misled the prime minister.

"He was swiftly sacked.”

Hannah Price
Investigations reporter

Jeffrey Epstein set up a London dinner with Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and a 26-year-old Russian woman in August 2010, emails show.

The woman later thanked Epstein describing it as an "amazing night" and describing her trip to London as "a special adventure".

In emails released last week by the US Department of Justice, Epstein contacts the former prince via email on 11 August saying he has a friend "I think you might enjoy having dinner with".

He describes the woman as "26, russian, clevere [sic] beautiful, trustworthy" after Andrew says he would be "delighted to see her" and inquires if there is any information about her that might be "useful to know".

The correspondence and suggested meeting came two years after Epstein was convicted for soliciting prostitution for a minor and registered as a sex offender.

Mountbatten-Windsor has always denied any wrongdoing.

Noor Nanji
Royal correspondent

Image source, US Department of Justice

An email seemingly from Ghislaine Maxwell appears to confirm that the now-infamous photograph of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor with his arm around his accuser, Virginia Giuffre, was real.

In a message headed "draft statement" sent by a G Maxwell to Jeffrey Epstein in 2015, at a time of mounting claims in the press, she wrote: "In 2001 I was in London when [redacted] met a number of friends of mine including Prince Andrew.

"A photograph was taken as I imagine she wanted to show it to friends and family.

"Prince Andrew and [redacted] were at my house but I am not aware not saw anything improper that took place at my home."

The so-called statement, which emerged in the latest release of Epstein files and was first reported by the Mail, appears to contradict the former prince's assertion that he never met Giuffre and his longstanding suggestion that the image of him with his arm around her may have been doctored.

Last year, an email from July 2011 by the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein also appeared to confirm that Andrew was photographed with Virginia Giuffre.

The message sent by Epstein - who is alleged to have taken the photo - reads: "Yes she [Giuffre] was on my plane and yes she had her picture taken with Andrew."

Giuffre - a prominent accuser of Epstein – alleged Andrew had sex with her three times as a teenager.

Andrew, who has denied the allegations, reached an out-of-court settlement with Ms Giuffre in 2022. It contained no admission of liability or apology.

In a 2019 interview with BBC Newsnight, Andrew denied meeting Giuffre and suggested that the photograph - or elements of it - may have been faked.

Andrew said at the time: "Nobody can prove whether or not that photograph has been doctored but I don't recollect that photograph ever being taken."

In the disastrous interview, he also famously claimed he was not at Maxwell's home but at a Pizza Express in Woking.

BBC News has approached Mountbatten-Windsor’s representatives for comment. He has always denied any wrongdoing.

Angus Thompson
Live editor

We're briefly steering away from our coverage of the political fallout over Peter Mandelson's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.

On Friday, the US justice department released more than three million documents relating to the late sex offender.

The BBC is continuing to sift through them and in our next few posts we'll be bringing you updates of what has been discovered.

Caitlin Doherty
Live reporter

As we've just reported, the government has shifted its stance on the release of documents relating to Mandelson's appointment as ambassador in Washington DC.

Ministers now agree that any documents deemed a risk to national security should be referred to the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) in Parliament.

Previously, they had sought to block the release of any such papers.

Earlier, during PMQs, Keir Starmer had warned that there could be sensitive information "about security and intelligence and trade relations" caught up in the Mandelson documents.

The shift comes after several Labour MPs, including former deputy PM Angela Rayner spoke out, suggesting the ISC should be involved in scrutinising the documents.

Labour MP Clive Efford added to calls for ISC scrutiny following concerns raised on both sides of the Commons that the government would use national security exemptions to withhold documents.

The vote on releasing the documents is set to come later today, so stick with us.

The speaker has just told MPs that the government has put forward a change to its amendment.

Keir Starmer earlier said ministers could not release documents related to Mandelson's appointment as US ambassador that could have been "prejudicial to UK national security or international relations".

Now, the government proposes that such evidence will be referred to the intelligence and security committee in Parliament. Backbench Labour MPs – including Angela Rayner – had been calling for this earlier today.

We'll have more on this change soon.

Megan Bonar
BBC Scotland

Scotland's first minister has ordered an "investigatory audit" looking into the Scottish government's dealings with Peter Mandelson.

Speaking to ITV Borders, John Swinney says the investigation will aim to find out if the "interests of Scotland have been undermined as a consequence of the behaviour that Peter Mandelson has been involved in".

John Swinney visited the White House in September last year to lobby for lower Whisky tariffs. During the trip he stayed at Mandelson’s Washington DC residence, and he was accompanied by Mandelson to a meeting with US President Donald Trump at the White House.

Swinney says Sir Keir Starmer’s judgement is "completely flawed" and appointing Mandelson despite knowing about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein was a "disastrous and very damaging decision".

Harry Farley
Political correspondent

The scale of anger on display among Labour MPs today is quite striking.

Led by Angela Rayner, one after another they are making it clear they will not back the government only releasing documents that do not affect international relations or national security.

"We stood on a promise to do politics differently this time," the Labour backbencher Matt Bishop told the Commons. He added he cannot support a position he said "risks further eroding trust".

The extent of fury appears to have taken the government by surprise. And it looks like they will have to back down and agree to give a committee of MPs a role in deciding which documents are published.

But the risk for the government is this spills into wider mutiny.