Image source, House of Commons

Badenoch says the national security issue was appointing Mandelson in the first place.

This is not about national security, she says, this is about Starmer's job security.

She says the PM should ask the Intelligence and Security Committee to decide which documents should be released. Will he commit to that?

Starmer replies that he's doing everything he can to make sure the process is fully transparent.

But information about security, intelligence and trade relations are inevitably caught in exchanges that are being asked for, and it's essential that these are protected, the PM says.

Starmer tried to bury Mandelson - but questions will continue to swirlpublished at 12:22 GMT 4 February

12:22 GMT 4 February

Chris Mason
Political editor, reporting from the House of Commons

In tone and language, the prime minister sought to bury Lord Mandelson and put as much distance as he possibly can between him and the man he appointed the UK’s Ambassador to the United States.

Starmer said it was "beyond infuriating" and claimed that Mandelson had “lied repeatedly".

He also confirmed that the government will work up specific legislation to strip Mandelson of his peerage — so can no longer call himself a lord.

But the bottom line today, is the questions will continue to swirl about the prime minister’s judgement in appointing him to the job in Washington.

Image source, House of Commons

Badenoch says it is "shocking" to hear the prime minister admit that his teams knew about Mandelson's relationship with Epstein.

She says this is why the Conservatives are calling on the government to release all documents relating to Mandelson's appointment as US ambassador, "not just the ones the government wants us to see".

She accuses Starmer of trying to "sabotage" the Tory motion to release the files with a "whitewash amendment", adding: "Labour MPs now have to decide if they want to be accessories to his cover-up."

She asks Starmer to guarantee that he won't remove the whip from MPs who vote against the amendment.

Starmer replies that there must be an exemption on release of information in relation to anything that could compromise national security.

"To vote to release something that would prejudice national security is wrong in principle," he says.

The PM adds that "things that would prejudice international relations" will also be exempt, including information on intelligence and trade that are "highly sensitive".

He emphasises that the process for deciding what falls into these categories is not "a political process" and instead led by the cabinet secretary.

He mentions again that Downing Street is also in conversations with the Met Police about making sure any release doesn't prejudice their investigation.

Badenoch presses further on what Number 10 didn't know about Mandelson, claiming information about the former ambassador's relationship with Epstein was available online.

"The prime minister cannot blame the process," she says. "He did know, it was on Google. If the Conservatives' research department could find this information out, why couldn't Number 10?"

She asks the PM if the official security vetting he received mentioned Mandelson's "ongoing relationship with the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein".

"Yes, it did," says Starmer.

He says that "as a result, various questions were put to him".

Starmer adds he wants to make sure the Commons can see the full documentation to show how Mandelson "completely misrepresented the extent to his relationship with Epstein" and "lied throughout the process" of questioning.

Opposition leader Kemi Badenoch goes back to the same question, asking if the prime minister knew that Mandelson had continued his friendship with Epstein after Epstein's conviction.

Badenoch says that in January 2024 a journalist from the Financial Times informed the PM that Mandelson had stayed at Epstein's house after the conviction for soliciting prostitution from a minor. She asks if Starmer forgot this, or if he decided it was "a risk worth taking".

Starmer says they went through the processes, adding that there was security vetting but what was not known was the "depth" of Epstein and Mandelson's relationship.

"He lied about that to everyone for years," Starmer says.

Starmer says that when new information came to light he sacked him. "We did go through a due diligence exercise," he says, adding that points put to him were addressed during that exercise.

In response to the humble address this afternoon, Starmer says he intends to make sure all material relating to the appointment process to be published, with the exception of matters that compromise national security or international relations.

Our home and legal correspondent has more on what checks Mandelson may have faced prior to his appointment.

Image source, House of Commons

Keir Starmer starts by saying his thoughts are with Epstein's victims.

To learn that Mandelson was leaking sensitive information is beyond infuriating, the PM says, adding that he is as angry as the public must be.

Starmer says Mandelson "betrayed our country and our party" by repeatedly lying to his team when asked about Mandelson's relationship with Epstein,

"I regret appointing him," he says, adding that the government is referring material to the police.

Starmer says his team will draft legislation to strip Mandelson of his title and this morning he agreed with the King that Mandelson should also be removed from the list of those in the Privy Council.

For context: Mandelson's friendship with Epstein was known when he was appointed as US ambassador in 2024. He was sacked last year when embarrassing details about their association were released.

Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has her first question of the session for the prime minister.

She begins by criticising Starmer's decision to appoint Lord Mandelson as his ambassador to the US.

When he made that appointment, was he aware that Mandelson had continued his friendship with Epstein, even after Epstein's conviction [in 2008] for soliciting prostitution from a minor, she asks.

Image source, House of Commons

Chris Mason
Reporting from the House of Commons

It will be fascinating to observe the prime minister's tone and language today about the conduct of the man he appointed as the UK's ambassador to the United States.

I think it is likely we'll see flashes of anger and passion from Sir Keir Starmer today about Lord Mandelson – the sense of betrayal and fury within Labour is palpable.

Brian Wheeler
Reporting from the House of Commons

I have just taken my seat in the Commons' Press Gallery for one of the most hotly-anticipated sessions for some time.

Expect Keir Starmer to react with anger to the ongoing Mandelson revelations.

This will be the first time we have heard from the PM since the police launched an investigation.

Starmer will be up in the House of Commons in a matter of minutes. We'll bring you the top lines from this week's PMQs here - you can also follow along by ticking Watch Live at the top of this page.

Brian Wheeler
Political reporter

Image source, US Department of Justice

An email exchange between Lord Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein from May 2012 appears to show the depth of their friendship – and how it is souring.

Epstein tells Mandelson “after years of being by your side. supporting your boyfriend when he needed it, unwavering in my guidance, though emotionally rejected, I am disappointed in what appears to be a one way street… jeffrey can I have, jeffrey can you give jeffrey can you organize… can you call, can you arrange .. you have yet to offer real assistance, sign of gratitude or appreciation. …sorry.”

Mandelson is apparently stung by Epstein’s criticism and tells him in a reply “how much I appreciate your support,” adding “during your trials and tribulations I never left your side, I was always there with advice and moral support, and I never turned away”.

Image source, Jonathan Brady/PA Wire

We've just spotted Prime Minister Keir Starmer leave Downing Street, as he heads to the House of Commons for PMQs.

He's expected to face further questions about Lord Mandelson and his appointment as UK ambassador to the US despite his close relationship with convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein.

We'll be bringing you live updates here, and you can also watch live at the top of the page.

Why isn't Lord Mandelson being investigated for insider dealing or financial market abuse?published at 11:36 GMT 4 February

11:36 GMT 4 February

Simon Jack
Business editor

Image source, Jeff Overs/BBC

On the face of it, messaging a friend about impending bailouts and asset sales looks dodgy.

But the criminal and civil law around these things is very specific and limited.

For a criminal offence under the Criminal Justice Act 1983, insider dealing is narrowly defined as passing on information that you think will be used for the purpose of trading in a particular listed security - like an individual share or bond.

In the case of Mandelson, one expert has told the BBC that he did not think there would be "the slightest prospect" of identifying a particular security.

The potential civil offence comes under the Financial services and Markets Act and the test is pretty much the same.

Under financial laws, it might be an offence for a director to pass on something sensitive around the board room table - but not for a minister around the cabinet table.

This is why so far, authorities have decided this is a dead end and instead are looking at offences of misconduct in a public office.

• As a reminder, 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

In the coming hours, the government is expected to confirm that it is willing to publish information relating to its decision to appoint Lord Mandelson as the UK's ambassador to the US.

What we know:

Health Secretary Wes Streeting earlier told the BBC the documents would be published with "maximum transparency".

At the same time, the Conservatives plan to put forward a motion in Parliament demanding the government release all documents relating to his appointment - including electronic communications between Mandelson and ministers, officials and advisers while he was ambassador.

There will be a lot of interest in messages with key figures, such as Sir Keir Starmer's chief of staff Morgan McSweeney.

What we don't know:

When the documents will be published.

We also don't know how much will be held back for national security reasons.

Streeting has told the BBC there would be an exception in the case of information which is either "sensitive in relation to national security, or sensitive in relation to our diplomatic relations with other countries."

Dominic Casciani
Home and legal correspondent

Image source, PA Media

Last September, Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper and the department’s top official told MPs that Lord Mandelson was vetted after his selection as US ambassador was announced, external.

They said that was completed before he began work in Washington, and was carried out to the "usual standard".

The British government, like others, has a system to vet who takes on a public post - and anyone who becomes ambassador to the US is subject to the highest form of scrutiny, known as "developed vetting" (DV).

This means they can have frequent and uncontrolled access to top-secret material, including information as sensitive as the UK’s nuclear arsenal or specific threats to the nation.

DV is designed to be intrusive.

A trained investigator interviews the individual and takes a deep look into their lives, including their finances.

They will also look for anything in a person’s life that may compromise them - such as hidden debts, secret relationships or undeclared drug or gambling habits. They might ask to interview other family members too.

The point of all this is simple. Investigators are not judging the behaviour itself - but whether a hidden behaviour or issue in someone’s life could be used to corrupt or influence them if they want to keep it secret.

As we've been reporting, Lord Mandelson is now under investigation over allegations he shared market-sensitive government information with Jeffrey Epstein while serving in government more than a decade ago.

Keir Starmer is also under pressure over the vetting process behind Mandelson's appointment as UK ambassador to the US. Let's have a look at how we got here:

• December 2024: Mandelson is appointed ambassador to the US
• 9 September 2025: US lawmakers publish more of Epstein's correspondence, including 2008 emails showing Mandelson express his support after the financier was convicted for soliciting prostitution from a minor. Mandelson told Epstein "I think the world of you", the day before he began his prison sentence
• 11 September 2025: Starmer sacks Mandelson as UK ambassador to Washington over his links to Epstein
• 11 January 2026: In an interview with the BBC's Laura Kuenssberg, Mandelson says he never saw girls at Epstein's properties, and declines to apologise for maintaining his friendship with the disgraced financier
• 30 January 2026: More Epstein files are released. They suggest Mandelson passed on internal government information to Epstein during his time as business secretary in 2009. They also suggest Epstein made payments to Mandelson, which Mandelson says he cannot recall
• 3 February 2026: Mandelson stands down from the House of Lords and efforts begin to remove his peerage. Police launch a criminal investigation

Mandelson didn't respond 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.

Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor should both testify before the House Oversight Committee, Democrat Congressman and committee member Suhas Subramanyam has told the Today programme.

"Mandelson should come before our committee, so should Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, and anyone who has knowledge of Jeffrey Epstein and his crimes," Subramanyam says.

They want to know if Epstein "was manipulating people and how he was interacting with people with power and prestige," he says.

But the committee - the main investigative body of the US House of Representatives - does not have the power to compel them to appear, Subramanyam says.

Referring to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, he says "you would think he would want to clear his name and this is the opportunity to do that."

• For context: There have been multiple unsuccessful approaches from the US authorities for Andrew to help with Epstein inquiries

"It is disappointing that he hasn't come forward with more information, but we would like to hear from him," Subramanyam adds.

As a reminder, Mountbatten-Windsor has consistently and strenuously always denied any wrongdoing.

Image source, Reuters

Yesterday, US President Donald Trump was asked for his reaction to Peter Mandelson having to resign from the House of Lords due to his links with Jeffrey Epstein.

In response, Trump said: "I didn't know about it, but I really don't know too much about it. I know who he is... It's too bad, yeah it's too bad."

Mandelson's appointment as the UK's ambassador to Washington raised some eyebrows in 2024, with a top campaign adviser to Donald Trump's presidential bid calling Mandelson "an absolute moron".

The former minister had also been vocal in the past about his views of Trump and, in an interview with an Italian journalist in 2019, he described Trump as "reckless and a danger to the world".

Following his appointment, though, he was welcomed into the Oval Office after a UK-US trade deal was signed.

Rianna Croxford
Investigations correspondent

In another email exchange on 29 November 2009, while Peter Mandelson was business secretary, Epstein advises him on how to manage relations with Gordon Brown following months of mounting pressure for him to resign as then-prime minister.

“What does tony [sic] say?” Epstein emails, in what appears to be a reference to Tony Blair, the previous prime minister.

“Talking to him tonight but he has said I sd [should] facilitate not initiate,” Mandelson writes back.

Epstein responds, “tell gb [Gordon Brown] you see the winds blowing and you are loyal, first second and third […] I don’t suggest you tell him to step down…tell him you are his friend and am frustrated as much as he”.

“He will immed[iately] push panic button,” replies Mandelson.

“He would be stressed not knowing what you really think,” Epstein responds, before emailing a bawdy joke about Mandelson’s judgement.

“Are you sure the backpressure from you[sic] lack of sex is not turning your brain into fois gras,” Epstein writes.

“It’s certainly a serious problem,” Mandelson seems to joke back. “Cure coming to London from S’hai [Shanghai] next weekend.”

Simon Jack
Business editor

Peter Mandelson lobbied President Obama's chief economic adviser Larry Summers to water down proposed restrictions on US bank trading activities, according to an email exchange from March 2010.

Epstein emailed Lord Mandelson – then UK business secretary in Gordon Brown’s government – asking him to meet JP Morgan executive Jes Staley and a colleague, as he was worried that Summers was coming under pressure to tighten up rules on bank trading.

Epstein wrote to Mandelson on 28 March, 2010: "I would like you to ask Larry Summers if he would meet directly with Jes and another JPM person re the proposed Volcker rule.”

The Volcker rule was proposed in the wake of the financial crisis to prevent banks conducting risky trading with their own money (proprietary trading).

Jes Staley wrote to Mandelson on 30 March 2010, suggesting some arguments against such restrictions to be used in conversation with Larry Summers.

A later memo from a meeting between Mandelson and Summers indicated that the UK business secretary had brought up a talking point suggested by Epstein during the discussion.

Ultimately the Volcker rule was imposed and US banks’ proprietary trading was severely curtailed.

But the memos appear to show that Lord Mandelson was directly asked by Epstein on behalf of a top US banking executive to use a meeting with the US president's top economic adviser to lobby for lighter regulation.

As Dan Neidle for Tax Policy Associates has told the BBC: “The theme running through this and other revelations is that it seems Lord Mandelson's loyalty appeared to lie with Mr Epstein and his powerful banking friends."

Image source, PA Media

Ahead of a big day in the House of Commons, Tory leader Kemi Badenoch has been rallying MPs from all political parties.

"Today MPs have a choice: support our efforts to reveal the truth about how and why Mandelson was appointed ambassador despite his links to paedophile Epstein; or they can help Starmer and Morgan McSweeney dodge scrutiny over this sordid affair," Badenoch posted on social media.

"This cover up has gone on too long."

• For context: Morgan McSweeney is a the prime minister's chief of staff and is viewed as a close ally and pivotal in the rise of Starmer in recent years