And back again to the documents released by the government on Mandelson's appointment as UK ambassador to the US.

A letter - dated 14 May 2002 - from sent to then-PM Tony Blair from his private secretary at the time, Matthew Rycroft.

"Jeffrey Epstein is seeing you at 5pm today," it reads, describing the financier as "very rich" and a "friend of Bill Clinton and Peter Mandelson".

It adds: "Close to the Duke of York."

"Peter says that Epstein now travels with Clinton and Clinton wants you to meet him. He thinks you would find worthwhile a conservation with him about a) science and b) international economic and monetary trends," the letter states.

Image source, UK government

Brian Wheeler
Political reporter

We're moving away from the files quickly as we've just had a response to to the release from Ed Davey, the Liberal Democrat leader.

"It’s astonishing Mandelson received a payout even after his longstanding connections to Epstein were discovered," he says.

"These files show beyond doubt the prime minister was made well aware of the risks of his apppointment. What an insult to the women and girls who suffered at Epstein’s hands.

"The disgraced ambassador must donate any severance payment he received in full to charity.

"These are the first documents in Britain’s Epstein files. The government must now release all documents relating to Andrew’s appointment as trade envoy, secured by the Liberal Democrats, by the end of March.”

A letter in the files outlines a meeting on 11 September 2025, chaired by Keir Starmer, during which the decision was made to fire Mandelson

The letter says Starmer referenced his concern "that the answers Mandelson provided to FCDO PUS Olly Robbins regarding the emails did not give him confidence that there were not further revelations to come".

The letter says Starmer was referring to emails from Mandelson to Epstein - shared by news outlet Bloomberg - sent after Epstein had pleaded guilty to soliciting prostitution from a minor in June 2008.

"The emails revealed a depth and extent of a relationship with Epstein which he [Starmer] had not been aware of previously when he made the decision to appoint Mandelson," the letter reads.

"On this basis, he proposed to ask Mandelson to resign". The PM agreed to withdraw Mandelson from the role.

"The prime minister was clear about his strong concern for Epstein's victims", the letter says.

Image source, .

Jennifer McKiernan
Political reporter

Jonathan Powell, Keir Starmer's national security adviser, said he found Mandelson's appointment "weirdly rushed", the files also show.

The PM's lawyer, Mike Ostheimer, writes following a call with Powell that the adviser raised concerns "about the individual and reputation" to chief of staff Morgan McSweeney.

The adviser also believes Starmer may have had a couple of political conversations around this but Powell was not party to them, according to Ostheimer's records.

Powell had "a vague feeling there was some incoming communication from Lord Mandelson to someone but has low confidence in that or what it was".

Jack Fenwick
Political correspondent

If you're just joining us, the government has published an initial tranche of files relating to the appointment of Peter Mandelson as UK ambassador to the US.

We're trawling through the 147-page dossier now. Here's a bit more on what we've found.

The documents show that during a fact-finding conversation with the prime minister’s lawyer, Matthew Doyle said he recalled a “back and forth” with Morgan McSweeney - Starmer's former chief of staff.

It yielded “three specific questions” that No 10 wanted Mandelson to answer about his relationship with Epstein.

BBC News understands these questions related to:

• His continued contact with Epstein after his conviction in 2008 for soliciting prostitution with a minor
• Reports that he had stayed at Epstein's home while the financier was in prison
• His association with a charity founded by Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell

The police asked Downing Street not to include those questions and the responses to them in this first tranche of documents, because of their ongoing investigation in Mandelson.

In the Commons, Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister Darren Jones has just finished his address, and Alex Burghart has responded for the Conservatives.

MPs in the chamber will now take turns to pose their own questions.

We'll continue to monitor what they say and will bring you any more key lines - but our focus now is on digging through the documents themselves.

Before we turn away, though, here's a quick rundown of an exchange we heard between Jones and a Labour MP.

Labour's Justin Madders says that he "really struggles" to understand why a penny was paid to Mandelson when he was sacked as ambassador.

He asks Jones if he will press Mandelson to give money to the victims of abuse.

Jones replies that the government acted on the basis of legal advice during the settlement.

He repeats that the honourable thing to do would be for Mandelson to donate the money to an appropriate charity.

Image source, House of Commons

Burghart now says it's the PM's judgement that is the problem.

"The prime minister knew all he needed to know. It was on him. It's on him now. He let his party down, he let his country down. And I very much doubt that either will trust again," Burghart says.

Jones responds. He explains that Mandelson was employed as a civil servant, not a minister, and could therefore make a severance claim.

"The government wouldn't have wanted to pay £1 to Peter Mandelson," Jones says, but the award of £75,000 was less than the cost of employment tribunal fees, which led the government to "reluctantly agree".

He says the payment was approved "in line with Treasury business rules, albeit reluctantly".

Image source, House of Commons

Alex Burghart, the shadow secretary for Northern Ireland, begins his response for the Conservatives.

It's "very convenient" the files were published after PMQs at midday today, he notes.

He also says many constituents "will be disgusted" that Mandelson received a £75,000 settlement after he was sacked.

"It is very clear that these victims were not in the prime minister's mind when he appointed Peter Mandelson," he adds.

He questions how people are meant to believe that the prime minister, who was once the director of public prosecutions, could not see through "this nonsense".

Image source, House of Commons

Staying with the action in the Commons, Jones now points to the sum of money requested by Peter Mandelson once he was sacked as the UK's ambassador to the US.

As we reported earlier, one document shows Mandelson began negotiations by requesting £547,201.

His "unacceptable" severance payment request was "substantially larger" than the final payment, Jones says. Another email in the files shows the Treasury agreed to a £75,000 settlement.

He also says the documents reveal that the due diligence process used in the appointment of Mandelson "fell short" and that steps have been taken to address weaknesses in the system.

We're returning once again to the Commons, where the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister is delivering a statement to MPs on the release of the files relating to Peter Mandelson.

Jones says that the prime minister has acknowledged the mistake of making Mandelson the ambassador to the US and has apologised.

He says that there are specific documents the government wants to disclose but the Met Police has asked them not to to do so yet in order to avoid prejudicing its ongoing criminal investigation into Mandelson.

He adds that the committee has agreed to a limited redaction requested by the government in relation to one document released today.

The documents specifically relate to the decision to appoint Mandelson as ambassador, he adds.

Mandelson has repeatedly let it be known that he believes he has not acted criminally, did not act for personal gain and is cooperating with the police.

Let's peel away from the Commons very briefly to delve back into the documents published regarding Mandelson's appointment as British ambassador to the US.

Inlcuded is an email is sent by Peter Mandelson on 7 May 2002 to Jonathan Powell, who was the chief of staff to Tony Blair during his tenure as PM.

In the email, Mandelson writes that "when Clinton saw TB he said he wanted to introduce his travelling friend, Jeffrey Epstein".

Mandelson adds: "I mentioned to TB that Jeffrey is in London next week and he said he would like to meet him" and asks Powell to let Mandelson know if Tony Blair will be available to meet.

The BBC confirmed in 2025 that the meeting did take place, read more here

Image source, .

Image source, House of Commons

Jones begins by saying that the initial batch of documents has been released, with more to come.

He references the "disgust and horror" felt at the nature and extent of the relationship Peter Mandelson maintained with Jeffrey Epstein despite being convicted in 2008 for soliciting prostitution from a minor.

Jones adds that Epstein's victims will be the government's "first priority" as he apologies over them having to "relive the horrors" with "still too little justice being served".

Mandelson's behaviour was "an insult to them", he says.

Meanwhile, in the Commons, Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister Darren Jones has just got to his feet to deliver an accompanying statement on the first tranche of Mandelson files, which have just been released.

We will bring you the key lines from the statement here - tap watch live to follow - along with anything we find in the files themselves.

One email in the files shows that Mandelson opened negotiations after he was sacked as ambassador to the US by asking the Treasury for a pay out of £547,201.

Another email in the files show that the Treasury agreed a settlement of £75,000 with Mandelson.

An email says that the settlement was made up of a payment in lieu of notice element of £40,329.50.

It adds that he was paid a special severance payment of £34,670.50.

Jack Fenwick
Political correspondent

Keir Starmer was advised that Peter Mandelson's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein posed a "general reputational risk" ahead of his confirmation as US ambassador.

In an advisory note sent to the prime minister on 11 December 2024, nine days before he was confirmed as ambassador, Starmer was told that the JP Morgan bank commissioned a report in 2019 that found Mandelson had maintained "a particularly close relationship" after the financier's conviction for soliciting prostitution with a minor.

The advice also said: "The Cabinet Office holds official records that are likely to be released by the National Archives early next year [2025], which relate to a Tony Blair meeting with Epstein that was facilitated by Mandelson."

Keir Starmer has previously said that Mandelson "portrayed Epstein as someone he barely knew" and said that he sacked Mandelson when he learnt that wasn't true.

Today's release of documents does not include a series of follow-up questions that Number 10 sent Mandelson about his relationship with Epstein.

Starmer has previously claimed that Mandelson "lied" about his relationship with Epstein during the vetting process. It's understood that Mandelson believes he answered questions about his relationship with Epstein accurately during the vetting process.

One document included in this drop, dated to 11 December 2024, is labelled "Advice to the Prime Minister", titled "HMA Washington" and marked "official sensitive".

It appears to show some of the steps around Mandelson's appointment as British ambassador to the US. It does not say who wrote the note.

It's said in the note that Keir Starmer says he expressed a preference for a political appointment, and his now former chief of staff Morgan McSweeney discussed candidates with him - the "lead candidate being Peter Mandelson."

McSweeney "has discussed Peter's relationship with Jeffery Epstein which we will go through with you", the note says.

It also notes that the that the director of communications at the time "is satisfied with his responses to questions about contact".

"Due diligence has also been sought on an alternative political candidate."

The BBC understands that Lord Mandelson's view is he answered questions about his relationship with Epstein in the vetting process accurately.

Image source, .

What we may - or may not - see in the filespublished at 13:57 GMT

13:57 GMT

Damian Grammaticas
Political correspondent

A word of caution about what we are getting today.

These documents won’t paint the full, final picture of the saga of Lord Mandelson’ appointment as US ambassador, his actions, and those of the prime minister too.

We should get messages, emails and other documents from when Peter Mandelson was being considered for the post and offered it, including those produced as part of his vetting process.

But we won’t get ones from the time after that, when he was in Washington. They’ll come later.

There’s a lot to collect and prepare. A parliamentary committee is approving what can be redacted or withheld, for reasons of government or diplomatic security. That all takes time.

And the Metropolitan Police have asked that some things are not published, as a precaution, while they conduct their own investigation. We know that includes correspondence between Downing Street and Lord Mandelson during his vetting, with follow-up questions for him and his answers, which won’t be coming today.

Those will only be made public when the police give the go-ahead.

Those documents may prove key when it comes to making final evaluations about the actions of Sir Keir and Lord Mandelson. Who knew what, when, matters.

As a reminder - the documents just landed. We're beginning to go through them now, so stay with us.

The first batch of the files relating to Peter Mandelson's appointment as British ambassador to the US have been released by the government.

We're trawling through them now, and will bring you the key lines shortly.

What is happening to fuel duty?published at 13:38 GMT

13:38 GMT

Image source, EPA

By Gerry Georgieva

Earlier at PMQs, Kemi Badenoch called for the prime minister not to increase fuel duty. Keir Starmer responded that the tax on petrol will “remain frozen until September and we will keep the situation under review”.

Earlier, Chancellor Rachel Reeves told MPs that ”it is much too early” to decide what to do about fuel duty “when those changes are not due to come into effect until September”.

Fuel duty rates are scheduled to rise by 1p per litre in September, another 2p in December and 2p in March next year.

That would reverse the 5p per litre cut that was introduced in 2022.

But governments tend to make last-minute changes to fuel duty plans. The official stated policy, external is that it should rise annually, but no such uprating has taken place since 2011 as successive governments have effectively cancelled every planned rise for the past 15 years.

And these changes were sometimes done, external on very short notice. An August 2012 rise was delayed at the end of June and rises planned for April 2016, 2020 and 2021 were all cancelled in March of those years.

Shadow energy secretary calls on government increase on petrol duty in autumnpublished at 13:24 GMT

13:24 GMT

Vicky Young
Deputy political editor

Just when the government was starting to talk about positive signs in the economy, the war in Iran is having an immediate impact on the cost of living in the UK.

The politics of that dominated today’s PMQs exchanges between Keir Starmer and Kemi Badenoch.

Speaking to me on Politics Live, Claire Coutinho, the Conservatives' shadow energy secretary, echoed her leader’s call for the government to cancel the planned increase in petrol duty this autumn.

Defence minister Luke Pollard accused the Conservative leader of fearmongering but refused to be drawn on what, if any, support for motorists the government might provide in the coming months.

As the US action continues, it’s clear the impact on UK households is growing as a political issue.

Image source, EPA