Losing McSweeney would be significant moment for Downing Street
Nick Eardley
Political correspondent
You are going to hear a lot about Morgan McSweeney in the next few hours and days.
McSweeney has been central to the Starmer project - and he's currently chief of staff in Number Ten.
He has also been very close to Lord Mandelson.
McSweeney is often referred to as Mandelson's protege. Although it's never been officially confirmed, it's widely thought he lobbied for Mandelson to become US ambassador - despite controversies around his relationship with Epstein.
A number of Labour MPs have wanted McSweeney out for some time. They think he is too factional - and dismissive of the left of the Parliamentary Labour Party.
But the anger is now focussed on his relationship with Mandelson. Senior Labour figures speculate that he could be sacrificed as part of this scandal.
But it's hard to over-emphasise how central McSweeney has been to the prime minister. Losing him would be a significant moment for Starmer's Downing Street.
And of course, there are plenty who would point to the old maxim that “advisors advise and ministers decide”.
And ultimately it is the prime minister who would have signed off on Mandelson's appointment.
A recap of a dramatic day in Westminster
Rachel Flynn
Live reporter
Ministers pledge to release Mandelson appointment documents - but with caveats
On Wednesday, the Conservatives put forward a motion in Parliament demanding the government release all documents relating to Mandelson's appointment as US ambassador.
Health Secretary Wes Streeting told the BBC the documents would be published with "maximum transparency", but with exemptions for anything which could damage national security or diplomatic relations.
Gasps as Badenoch and Starmer spar at PMQs
Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch pushed the prime minister on whether he was aware Mandelson had continued his friendship with Epstein after his conviction, and whether it came up during vetting.
"Yes, it did," Starmer said to audible gasps in the Commons. Watch the moment:
The government's position unravels
Later, a dramatic debate in the Commons ended with MPs backing proposals to release the Mandelson documents without a vote.
Some MPs were furious that some documents might be withheld on national security grounds, with former deputy prime minister Angela Rayner one of several Labour MPs who intervened.
In a last-minute concession, the government agreed that any sensitive documents deemed a risk to national security should be referred to Parliament's cross-party Intelligence and Security Committee.
As our chief political correspondent Henry Zeffman writes, the mood among Labour MPs is "very dark".
The three questions Starmer asked Mandelson during vetting process
Brian Wheeler
Political reporter
Keir Starmer says Peter Mandelson lied to him about the extent of his friendship with convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein.
Back in September, the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg revealed that Mandelson had been asked by the prime minister about why he had continued his friendship with Epstein after his conviction for soliciting sex with a minor.
As part of the vetting process for Mandelson’s appointment, Sir Keir asked Mandelson to address three specific questions, which were sent to him via email by the PM’s chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney.
The three questions were:
Why has he continued contact with Epstein after he was convicted?
Why was he reported to have stayed in one of Epstein's homes while the financier was in prison?
And was he associated with a charity founded by Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell that the financier had backed?
The answers Mandelson gave to these questions are now likely to be published by the government, and ministers believe they will show that Mandelson lied.
Housing Secretary Steve Reed told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that Mandelson made out that his relationship with Epstein "was over, and barely ever existed".
He added: "We need to look at the documents that will show the extent to which Peter Mandelson was lying."
The BBC understands Mandelson’s view is that he answered questions about his relationship with Epstein in the vetting process accurately.
Review of sensitive documents 'shouldn't take very long', says former ISC chair
The former chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) - where sensitive material from the Mandelson vetting process is being referred - says the committee should be able to deal with the documents "within a couple of weeks".
"The government isn't being unreasonable if it considers that there are some documents that are highly classified and would prejudice our international relations," Dominic Grieve says, calling its referral to the ISC a "sensible development".
He says the ISC has never historically had the power to determine whether certain documents should be released or not, which is usually the government's decision.
Usually they review documents and offer recommendations in reports, he explains.
Minister pressed on why Mandelson vetting didn't include 'better questions'
Reed is asked why the vetting around Mandelson's appointment wasn't better.
The problem is that Mandelson "lied profoundly" about his relationship with Epstein - but when further information came to light last year, the prime minister "sacked him on the spot", Reed says.
As a reminder, Mandelson hasn't responded to requests for comment but the BBC understands his position is that he hasn't acted in any way criminally nor was he motivated by financial gain.
Pushed again on why government vetting didn't involve asking "better questions", Reed says the fault is with "a long-established process" which "pre-dates the arrival of this government".
The government can only make decisions "on the basis of the information available at the time", and Mandelson made out that his relationship with Epstein "was over, and barely ever existed", Reed says.
Mandelson was 'taken at his word' on Epstein friendship, Reed says
Housing Secretary Steve Reed is now speaking to Radio 4's Today programme.
He says the government shares the public's outrage about Mandelson's lies to get the job as UK ambassador to the US.
Reed repeats what he said earlier about Mandelson downplaying his relationship with Epstein, and says he was "taken at his word".
Radio 4's Amol Rajan asks Reed why there wasn't a better vetting process and whether Starmer's defence is "completely inadequate". Reed says the process wasn't good enough because Mandelson lied throughout it.
Everyone will see what information Starmer had when he took the decision, Reed continues, and says the issue isn't the vetting process but what to do when you find out someone has lied.
"No no no no no," Rajan says. "Yes, yes, yes, yes yes," Reed replies.
Rajan pushes on why the process wasn't good enough. "Well maybe we need to look at the vetting process in the light of all of this," the housing secretary says, but calls it an "established process".
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
Head of intelligence committee demands 'maximum transparency' on Mandelson files
The chair of Parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) tells the BBC he wants "maximum transparency" from the government when it hands over documents about the appointment of Lord Mandelson.
Lord Beamish says the ISC is the “best vehicle” for reviewing the documents in case some could not be released publicly on national security grounds.
"When we take decision not to release information in our reports we always take a view in terms of its effect on national security whether or not releasing documents for example would help one of our adversaries,” he says.
Downing Street had wanted to control the release of the material - but changed plans because of growing anger among Labour MPs.
'The problem here is that Mandelson lied,' Reed says as he defends government
The BBC's Charlie Stayt brings up how it was publicly known that Mandelson stayed in Epstein's house while he was in prison.
He asks Reed why that wasn't enough to stop Mandelson's appointment.
Reed says Mandelson was asked about that during his vetting, and made out his relationship with Epstein was "almost nothing" and that they "barely knew each other".
"The problem here is that Peter Mandelson lied," he continues, adding that: "We all felt like we'd been punched in the stomach," when their true relationship was revealed.
Mandelson hasn't responded to request for comment. The BBC understands his position is that he hasn't acted in any way criminally and that he wasn't motivated by financial gain
Stayt then asks if there's an acceptable level of an ongoing relationship with a convicted paedophile for a senior government official.
The housing secretary repeats how Mandelson made out they barely knew each other, and says the moment Starmer found out that wasn't true he woke Mandelson up at 05:00 to sack him.
He says the public will see the documentation that shows the extent of Mandelson's lies and deception through the vetting process.
'Has the prime minister's authority been undermined?'
Reed is now asked whether the prime minister's authority has been undermined by the decision to hand control of the release of the Mandelson vetting files to the Intelligence and Security Committee.
What happened is that a debate took place and, over the course of that debate, it was decided that the ISC would go through the files and control the release, he says.
Some of the files will be held back where disclosure would threaten national security, he adds.
Reed says that the government "listens to debates in the House of Commons" and that he personally thinks "it was a very sensible idea".
Labour MP 'disappointed' and 'sickened' by Starmer's Commons admission
Labour MP Paula Barker tells BBC Radio 4's Today programme she was "disappointed" and "sickened" to hear Starmer admit that he was aware of Mandelson's ongoing friendship with the late Jeffrey Epstein when he appointed him last year.
"Quite frankly I think the country deserves better," the Liverpool Wavertree MP says.
She says she is "very glad" about the decision to hand control of the document release to the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC), adding that she was "absolutely furious" and "deeply ashamed" that the government's first position was not with the committee.
For context: The government had initially sought to stay in charge of the release but MPs last night voted to have the ISC, a cross-party panel of MPs and members of the House of Lords, oversee it
Asked whether Starmer has the confidence of MPs, Barker says he has shown that "his judgement is questionable", but adds there is no other candidate she would be "prepared to back at this stage".
She adds that Starmer's chief of staff Morgan McSweeney "has questions to answer" over his role in Mandelson's appointment.
Dark mood among Labour MPs, with many signs Starmer has lost control
Henry Zeffman
Chief political correspondent
The mood is very dark among Labour MPs right now - darker than I’ve known it under Keir Starmer’s premiership.
There is a fair case that yesterday was his worst day as prime minister. Today he needs to find a way to draw a line.
But that’s hard when there are so many signs that he has lost control.
He has lost control of the process for releasing documents relating to Peter Mandelson and his appointment as US ambassador. Instead they will be vetted by the Intelligence and Security Committee, a cross-party panel of MPs and members of the House of Lords.
And the Met Police are stopping Downing Street from releasing documents relating to Mandelson’s vetting which Starmer believes will demonstrate that Mandelson lied to him. The police fear their release could prejudice their investigation into Mandelson.
There is an argument that Starmer has lost control of the parliamentary Labour Party. Yesterday, Labour MPs would not even vote to support their own government making decisions on what documents could and could not be released on national security grounds.
And he has lost control of the ability a prime minister has to set the narrative. Starmer is giving a big speech later today on pride in place, announcing £800 million more to improve neighbourhoods around Britain.
But we already know what many of the questions afterwards will be about.
The mood in Labour is darkening - the PM can ill afford more days like these
Chris Mason
Political editor
The prime minister is furious, and more furious with Lord Mandelson than he has been with anyone else for years and years and years, I'm told.
The mood among many Labour MPs is darkening, even blackening.
There is a recurring sense from many of being on the wrong end of indefensible positions far, far too often, of which this row about Lord Mandelson is just the latest case study.
The prime minister weathered arguably his most difficult day in office yet on Wednesday, with plenty on his own side privately pondering how sustainable it is for things to carry on as they are, the government seemingly incapable of getting on the front foot.
Bluntly, Keir Starmer can ill afford any more days like these.
What have Labour MPs said?
Several Labour MPs have weighed in on the government's handling of Mandelson's appointment as UK ambassador to the US.
Speaking to BBC's Newsnight, Labour MP Barry Gardiner said the prime minister tried to "duck... and hide behind process" during Wednesday's Commons session, and instead should have swiftly admitted appointing Mandelson was a mistake.
"We were squirming... The backbenchers on the Labour benches were just going, oh for God's sake, get on with it," he said.
When asked if Starmer should step down, he said: "I think he needs to think very hard about what is in the country's best interest."
Rebecca Long-Bailey, who challenged Starmer in the 2020 Labour leadership race, told ITV's Peston that appointing Mandelson was a "catastrophic misjudgement", adding there are "huge questions to be answered" by the prime minister.
Backbench Labour MP Clive Efford says Starmer has been "badly advised" and some of his advisers need to change.
Government to release Mandelson documents after Commons vote
Adam Goldsmith
Live reporter
The government will release documents relating to Peter Mandelson's appointment as US ambassador, after a day of political wrangling in the House of Commons.
The government had intended to restrict the release of some documents around the 2024 appointment citing national security and international relations exemptions, with a senior civil servant set to make the decision on what would be withheld.
But with the Conservatives looking to force a vote on the issue, and under pressure from backbench Labour MPs, including Keir Starmer's former deputy Angela Rayner, the government conceded that sensitive documents will instead be referred to Parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee.
As our political correspondent reports, the sense of fury is wide and deep across the Labour Party tonight, after many disagreed with the government's initial stance in relation to how the documents would be released.
It follows Starmer's confirmation at PMQ's that he knew Mandelson had continued his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein after the late sex offender's conviction for soliciting prostitution from a minor - though the PM accused Mandelson of "lying repeatedly" about the pair's association, and said he had "betrayed our country".
The government has now committed to release the papers "as quickly as possible", but it's unclear exactly when we might see them.
The Metropolitan Police asked the the government to avoid releasing certain documents to avoid interference with its criminal investigation into Mandelson.
We're ending our live coverage here, but for more on the fall-out from the Epstein files:
There's this news article on how an email appears to confirm a photo of Andrew and Virginia Giuffre is real
And our news story has all the detail on the political wrangling over the release of files about Mandelson's appointment as ambassador
