Keir Starmer apologises to Jeffrey Epstein's victims and says he is "sorry for having believed Mandelson's lies"
He says he understands the "anger and frustration" of Labour MPs at his decision to appoint Peter Mandelson as US ambassador in 2024
The prime minister again accuses Mandelson of lying during the vetting process, saying he gave the impression he "barely knew" the disgraced financier
It is Labour MPs who will determine Starmer's fate - could this be the beginning of the end, asks our chief political correspondent Henry Zeffman
Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch says it's a "question of when, not if" Starmer goes - while one Labour MP says it's "inevitable" the PM will resign
Mandelson has not responded to requests for comment - the BBC understands his position is that he has not acted in any way criminally and that he was not motivated by financial gain
Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle tells the Commons a vote on releasing documents related to Mandelson's appointment as US ambassador could be as late as 19:00 GMT.
He says he will extend the Commons debate prior to the vote to give MPs time to speak at length.
Tory leader Kemi Badenoch tabled a motion, known as a humble address, to release documents including due diligence carried out by the Cabinet Office.
Here's a brief look at what we know about the connections between the pair:
Image source, EPA/ShutterstockIf you're just joining us, or want a recap, here's a summary of what's been happening.
Keir Starmer told MPs during Prime Minister's Questions that Peter Mandelson had "betrayed our country" after "lying repeatedly" about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.
The prime minister voiced his "regret" about appointing Mandelson as the UK's ambassador to Washington, as he was pushed in the Commons on what he knew, and when, before making that decision.
It comes as the connections between Epstein and Mandelson became more apparent after the latest tranche of files was released by the US Justice Department.
This afternoon, MPs have been debating an opposition motion to trigger the release of documents relating to Mandelson's appointment.
MPs will vote on the release later. And a government minister has said the "process of disclosure" will begin today.
Frank Gardner
Security correspondent
That's the question being asked by some in the wake of the latest revelations.
Poland's Prime Minister Donald Tusk certainly has his suspicions. He's ordered a taskforce to be set up to examine the late convicted paedophile's links with Russia and what impact they could have on Poland.
The released files contain 1,056 mentions of Vladimir Putin and more than 9,000 references to Moscow.
Epstein is believed to have held meetings with Russian officials, including Putin, and young Russian women were among those he procured for his rich and famous friends.
None of which amounts to evidence that he spied for Moscow.
Yet despite his flamboyant lifestyle, much of Epstein’s modus operandi followed a well-established Kremlin playbook.
The photographs and records he kept of who stayed at his properties and, more damagingly, who accepted his offers of young women he procured for them, amounted to what is known in Russian as "kompromat" – compromising material potentially of use for blackmail.
The Kremlin is certainly gloating over the Epstein scandal.
But if evidence were to emerge that his kompromat had been somehow finding its way to Moscow then this whole saga will get a great deal more sinister.
In the Commons, MPs are still asking questions of government minister Nick Thomas-Symonds.
He tells MPs that the process of going through documents related to Mandelson's appointment as US ambassador "might take a little time".
Thomas-Symonds adds it is also important that the government starts that process of disclosure to the extent it can do today, and that's what the government will do in response to today's debate.
Rianna Croxford
Investigations correspondent
Peter Mandelson exchanged explicit emails about "strippers" with Jeffrey Epstein on the day the convicted child sex offender was released from jail, in July 2009.
"Free and home," Epstein emails Lord Mandelson at 08.37am on 22 July, as he left a Florida prison following an 18-month sentence for soliciting sex with a minor.
"How shall we celebrate?" writes back Mandelson, who was then business secretary under Gordon Brown.
"With grace and modesty (those are the names of two strippers)," Epstein replies.
"From now on, grace and modesty sd [should] be discovered in London," Mandelson appears to joke back a few hours later, before adding: "How is freedom feeling?"
"She feels fresh, firm and creamy," Epstein says.
Mandelson responds with two words: "Naughty boy."
Henry Zeffman
Chief political correspondent
The mood on the Labour benches is really sour.
More so than I expected as of this morning, frankly.
Senior Labour MPs, most notably the former deputy prime minister Angela Rayner, are signalling that they are not happy with the government's proposals on the release of documents as it stands.
The government may be about to budge on that, giving a parliamentary committee a role in deciding what is redacted and what is not.
But the challenge for the government now is to contain the red hot anger blazing within the parliamentary Labour Party to just this issue, and stop it burning across government.
Henry Zeffman
Chief political correspondent
I'm watching the debate on Lord Mandelson in the press seats above the Commons chamber.
There are signs of activity which suggest the government is about to alter its amendment.
Clive Efford, an experienced backbencher, just called for Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee to have a role in deciding which documents the government releases.
He suggested the government alter its amendment before the end of the debate.
Jonathan Reynolds, the chief whip, turned around and nodded at him.
Meanwhile Sir Alan Campbell, the leader of the Commons, has arrived in the chamber and is having a whispered conversation with one of the clerks sitting in front of the Speaker, Sir Lindsay Hoyle.
This sounds technical but it suggests that the government as it stands cannot be sure that it would win a vote among MPs on their proposal as it currently stands.
Burghart says there should be an independent body to decide which documents to disclose around Mandelson's appointment.
He says the House of Commons Intelligence and Security Committee "would do a very good job" working with government to decide what information can and can't be released.
He adds that an understanding that national security will be protected is built into the humble address mechanism anyway, so there is "no need" for the Labour amendment, which seeks to exempt the release of some documents.
Burghart says it was reported in the press this morning that in September, after Mandelson was sacked as ambassador, there was a cabinet investigation into any further wrongdoing.
He wants to know whether that report will be disclosed, should it come to light.
Burghart moves on to an investigation in Poland, looking into any potential links between Jeffrey Epstein and Russia's intelligence services. He notes "thousands" of references to Putin and Moscow in the latest batch of released files.
He says the House "cannot be deprived" of consideration of this issue in the case of the Mandelson papers.
Shadow Cabinet Office minister Alex Burghart opens the debate, which calls on the government to release documents related to Mandelson's appointment as US ambassador.
He tells MPs that the judgement of the PM in appointing Mandelson is important, he also says it was Starmer's responsibility that Mandelson was appointed.
He goes on to say that a "failure of transparency" across the process is "compounding the problems" ministers are now facing.
Burghart says that we now know the PM was aware of Mandelson's relationship with Epstein after Epstein's conviction, and that the Conservatives expect the due diligence report to be disclosed by the government to the Commons.
The Tories are using an arcane parliamentary mechanism, known as a humble address, in order to seek the release of documents.
Chris Mason
Political editor
Sir Keir Starmer is a prime minister who is wary of superlatives and almost preternaturally inclined not to show emotion in public.
This is what made Prime Minister’s Questions today so extraordinary — the volley after volley of superlatives of disgust and betrayal and the clear anger in Starmer’s tone.
He "lied, lied and lied again" claimed the prime minister.
There was a "litany of deceit", his behaviour was "beyond infuriating" and Mandelson had betrayed his party, parliament and the country, he added.
The government is desperate to bury Mandelson under a pile of opprobrium visible from space – and that anger and sense of betrayal is authentic. I have heard it face to face and over the phone from Labour figures in the last day or so.
But the question remains - and will be repeated no doubt many times in the chamber this afternoon - what did the prime minister know and when about Lord Mandelson’s conduct, what questions were asked before his appointment to Washington, and what wasn't?
This is why Mandelson’s conduct still matters for the prime minister’s reputation.
It could yet be weeks or longer before we see some of the documents the government is now saying it will publish about the process that led to Lord Mandelson’s appointment as the ambassador in Washington.
Watch: 'Did the official security vetting mention Epstein and Mandelson’s relationship?'
PMQs has now come to an end and, as many expected, it was dominated by questions around Prime Minister Keir Starmer's appointment of Lord Peter Mandelson as the UK's ambassador to the US.
It comes after the launch of a criminal investigation into Mandelson, who has been accused of passing market-sensitive government information to US financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
Today, Starmer has told the Commons that:
Liberal Democrats MP Christine Jardine next asks Starmer about support for victims of Epstein and women around the country triggered by the discussion of his offences.
Will the prime minister set up support, for instance helplines, to ensure that women who have been the victims of similar offences receive help, she asks.
Starmer says Jardine is right to raise this.
As well as assisting the police with their investigation, he says, the government will press on with its work to address violence against women and girls.
How can we trust Starmer to remain as PM, Liz Saville Roberts asks.
Plaid Cymru's Westminster leader refers to exchanges that appear to show Mandelson describe convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein's release from prison after his conviction for child sex offences as "liberation day".
"This man's association with Epstein was known when the prime minister personally appointed him as the UK's ambassador to the USA. How can we trust the prime minister's judgement? And in questioning that, how can we trust him to remain as prime minister?"
In response, Starmer says he shares in the disgust at Mandelson's comments. He says the scale and extent of the relationship between Mandelson and Epstein was not disclosed.
"Mandelson lied throughout the process and beyond the process," Starmer says, adding: "He lied, he lied, and he lied again to my team."
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.
Brian Wheeler
Reporting from the House of Commons
Glum faces and stony silence on the Labour benches during the exchanges between Badenoch and the PM - and Ed Davey’s questions about Mandelson.
Image source, House of CommonsThe victims of Jeffrey Epstein "deserve far better", Davey says as he demands a full public inquiry to "get justice for the victims and protect our national security".
Davey says the full extent of Epstein's dealings has yet to be uncovered, noting that the Polish government thinks Epstein may have been spying for Vladimir Putin.
He then asks if the PM is concerned that Mandelson may have been leaking state secrets to a Russian agent.
For context: The Polish government has launched an investigation into possible links between Epstein and Russian intelligence.
Starmer replies the focus has to be on the criminal investigation and says the government will cooperate with the investigation “wherever it goes".
Liberal Democrats leader Sir Ed Davey is up next asking questions, describing how he's been thinking of the victims of Jeffrey Epstein in the last few days.
He asks Starmer whether he thought at all about Epstein's victims before giving such an important job to Lord Mandelson.
The prime minister replies that his thoughts are with Epstein's victims.
He then says Davey is right to express "anger" at the alleged leaking of sensitive information in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crash.
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.
Chris Mason
Political editor
The strongest of language condemning Lord Mandelson continues from the prime minister — branding it a "litany of deceit" in his final answer to the Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch.
Image source, House of CommonsBadenoch now asks if he has "the same full confidence in Morgan McSweeney as he had in Peter Mandelson".
In response, Starmer says: "Morgan McSweeney is an essential part of my team. He helped me change the Labour Party and win an election. Of course I have confidence in him."
He goes on to say it's not right for Badenoch to suggest the cabinet secretary would be involved in a "cover up" as the Tory leader suggests that's what would happen.
Starmer goes on to emphasise once again his anger over the situation, adding that the moment right now also demands action – which, he says, he is taking through his government's actions to strip Mandelson of his title and remove him from the Privy Council.