Image source, House of Commons

Moments before the vote begaun, Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister Darren Jones accused the opposition of a "desperate search for something that will stick" as he argued all due process was followed when it came to appointing Lord Mandelson.

Jones said when the Prime Minister received new information about Mandelson's association with the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, he asked for full facts to be established and then presented them to the House of Commons.

"The prime minister and indeed the whole government recognised the importance of transparency in respect of Peter Mandelson's appointment and dismissal as ambassador," he said.

However, Jones criticised Tory leader Kemi Badenoch's motion proposing the PM facing a parliamentary inquiry over Lord Mandelson's vetting, calling it "politically motivated".

After debating the motion for several hours, MPs in the House of Commons are now voting on whether to refer Prime Minister Keir Starmer to the Privileges Committee.

You can watch live at the top of this page and we should get the result of the vote shortly.

We're now on to the closing remarks of the debate.

Conservative shadow chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Alex Burghart, calls today's motion "simple" and says it forms a process which has "long-existed to resolve issues such as these".

He adds "members of all parties believe that there is reason to believe that the prime minister may have misled this House".

"If the government has nothing to hide, it has nothing to fear," Burghart adds.

Labour has called the vote a political "stunt"

Just over a week from polling day... yet again Westminster is consumed by the Mandelson sagapublished at 17:51 BST

17:51 BST

Chris Mason
Political editor

I send you this report as I overlook Cardiff Bay, having woken this morning in Edinburgh.

My geographical context is the political context – the devolved elections in Scotland and Wales next week, a live TV debate in the Welsh capital tonight, and local elections in many parts of England.

A week and a bit out from polling day and yet again, for hour after hour today, Westminster has been consumed by the Lord Mandelson saga.

Image source, EPA

Another painstaking, slow motion dissection of the prime minister’s most catastrophic decision in office; its innards, its entrails scattered daily across the political and news agenda.

Whether diminishing returns are now evident in the case made around all this by the government’s critics is secondary to the blunt reality for ministers that all this simply won’t go away.

Some of that, yes, is the desire of opposition parties to keep talking about it.

But the arc of this was set before the latest blow up of the last week or two – with Parliament’s earlier demands for so many documents relating to Lord Mandelson’s stint in America.

And there are many more of those documents still to come.

Image source, House of Commons

As the debate draws near its conclusion, we've been hearing from a few more MPs.

• Ellie Chowns, Green Party MP for North Herefordshire, says the situation is "deeply frustrating" and reiterates calls for Starmer to resign. She says the vote today isn't on whether the prime minister "definitively" and deliberately misled the house, but about whether there's a "case to answer". Chowns says it's "absolutely clear" he does

• Sarah Bool, Conservative MP for South Northamptonshire, says "alarm bells should have been ringing" before Mandelson's appointment, given his two previous dismissals, but this was "brushed aside in a rush" for him to become the UK's ambassador to the US. Bool adds the PM has a "duty" to answer questions - and the "perfect mechanism" for this is the Privileges Committee
• Dave Doogan, the SNP's MP for Angus and Perthshire Glens, says the PM's version of events is "inconsistent" with evidence. He adds it is "no defence" that Starmer did not know the full extent of Mandelson's relationship with the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, when it was already public that the relationship existed

Labour should win the vote comfortably... but Badenoch may feel she's gained valuable ammunitionpublished at 17:35 BST

17:35 BST

Iain Watson
Political correspondent

Image source, House of Commons

The prime minister should win tonight’s vote comfortably. However, Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch will have gained what she sees as valuable ammunition - being able to accuse Labour politicians of a "cover up" by refusing to refer Starmer to the Privileges Committee.

Only those on Labour’s left have so far indicated they will vote with the opposition, although we should keep any eye on the number of abstentions as a better gauge of discontent.

One disgruntled MP points out that many of the supportive speeches for Starmer have come from the 2024 intake who owe their seats to the landslide masterminded by Starmer's former chief of staff Morgan McSweeney.

Interestingly, even a senior Conservative politician was privately bemoaning the "draining" effect the Mandelson fallout is having on Westminster, and politics more widely.

It is also dragging opposition politicians away from campaigning in May’s elections. For them, the prorogation - the end of this parliamentary session - can’t come quickly enough.

It's just been the turns of Conservative MP John Lamont, Labour's Phil Brickell and the Alliance Party's Sorcha Eastwood to share their views in Parliament.

• John Lamont, Conservative MP for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk, suggests Starmer is giving the impression "of someone afraid of scrutiny". "If his position does not change then it is now on Labour backbenchers to show what they stand for"
• Phil Brickell, Labour MP for Bolton West,says he believes the documents and evidence released publicly show that "proper process was followed". He adds that members of the opposition "would be right to" take objection to the process, but says the process set out at the time of the appointment was followed
• Sorcha Eastwood, Alliance Party MP for Lagan Valley, says there are no elections in Northern Ireland next week but adds everything that should have been a cause of concern about Mandelson was "out there" already and "open-source material. She calls for MPs to do the "right thing"

Image source, House of Commons

Labour whips taking no chances on tonight's votepublished at 16:46 BST

16:46 BST

Iain Watson
Political correspondent

While there is no sense the prime minister will lose tonight’s vote, the Whips are clearly still taking no chances.

Crucial elections for the Scottish Parliament are little more than a week away but some Scottish Labour MPs are literally flying down for the vote, with some flying back late tonight.

Whips were spotted circling the tea rooms to ensure the wider Labour flock are herded for the vote at the appropriate time.

Image source, House of Commons

We've just been hearing from MPs Richard Tice, David Pinto-Duschinsky and Andrew Levin in the Commons. Here's what they've had to say:

• Richard Tice, Reform UK MP for Boston and Skegness, says Starmer "chose to avoid due process" when appointing Mandelson before vetting. He says security and vetting authorities should have been allowed whatever time was "deemed necessary" to make their judgement.
• Earlier today, the PM's former chief of staff Morgan McSweeney admitted No 10 wanted Lord Mandelson in post "quickly" but insisted officials were never asked to "skip steps".
• David Pinto-Duschinsky, Labour MP for Hendon, echoes previous calls that the motion is "political game-playing of the lowest order". He says it's "standard" for job offers to be made before vetting, and an investigation into Starmer would be "long, costly and wholly unnecessary"
• Andrew Lewin, Labour MP for Welwyn Hatfield, says "one more committee" is not the answer, as he believes the prime minister and government are not hiding but "putting everything in the sunlight". With two committees already in progress, Lewin says the motion today is not about "whether scrutiny should happen", but a "conveniently timed motion" from the opposition

Image source, House of Commons

MPs in the House of Commons are continuing to debate a motion on whether to refer the prime minister to the Privileges Committee over the appointment of Lord Mandelson as the UK's ambassador to the US.

You can watch live at the top of this page but here are some of the latest comments we've heard:

• Ann Davies, Plaid Cymru MP for Caerfyrddin, says it's "an insult to us all" that Labour is attempting to "swat away" the motion as a "stunt". She asks why Labour has "forced their MPs to vote against the motion" if they believe everything is in order
• Roger Gale, Conservative MPfor Herne Bay and Sandwich, says this motion is about the "truth" and the "integrity" of the House. He says he is "horrified" that business in the Commons is being whipped and adds "it should not be"

• Chris Kane, Labour MP for Stirling and Strathallan, calls the decision to bring the debate forward to a week before the local elections "political". He says "it's part of the system we operate in but we should be clear about it"

No indication the government's in jeopardy over the vote... but that could changepublished at 15:50 BST

15:50 BST

Harry Farley
Political correspondent

A handful of Labour MPs have indicated they will either vote in favour of the prime minister facing an inquiry, or they will abstain.

But so far - and I should stress this could change - there is not an indication the government is in jeopardy. Partly because the numbers of dissenters are small and partly because they all come from the left of the party, not from where the majority of Labour MPs sit.

I'm reminded of the debate in February that kicked much of this process off. That was on publishing the documents relating to Peter Mandelson's appointment as the UK's ambassador to the US.

The government began that day telling its MPs to vote against the Conservatives' motion. But that unravelled, prompted largely by an intervention by former Deputy PM Angela Rayner in the House of Commons, and Labour whips had to rapidly change their position.

The government will be breathing a sigh of relief that - for now - there has not been an equivalent 'Rayner moment' that suggests the dissent extends more widely than a small number of regular rebels.

Image source, House of Commons

Let's go back now to the House of Commons - which, as a reminder, you can watch at the top of the page.

• Sam Rushworth, Labour MP for Bishop Auckland, calls today's motion "politically motivated" and says it risks "making a mockery of the Privileges Committee" and its process. He says evidence from the Foreign Affairs Committee - which is also looking into the Mandelson appointment - supports Keir Starmer
• Rushworth adds that No 10 "clearly" felt time pressure to appoint someone as ambassador - but distinguishes between pressure to deliver quickly, and pressure to change the vetting decision
• Brian Leishman, MP for Alloa and Grangemouth, says the motion does not "come from anything noble" but is "designed to embarrass the prime minister"
• Leishman, who has previously criticised Starmer and temporarily lost the whip, says it's not the first time Starmer's actions have put Labour MPs in an "awkward position". He says the PM should have referred himself to the Privileges Committee - and that he will back today's motion

Harry Farley
Political correspondent

Image source, House of Commons/UK Parliament

Let's return now to an earlier hearing in Parliament - Morgan McSweeney, the prime minister's former chief of staff, giving evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee (there's a recap here - or see our clips at the top of the page).

McSweeney was asked why he - as a friend - was the person to ask questions of Mandelson about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.

This refers to an email McSweeney sent to Mandelson in the wake of concerns raised by an initial due diligence check.

McSweeney said in hindsight it would have been "much better" for the Cabinet Office’s propriety and ethics team (PET) to ask those questions.

"When I look back on it, I certainly think it would have been much, much better if I’d asked PET to ask those follow-up questions."

But he insisted the key issue was Mandelson's truthfulness in response about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.

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

Image source, UK Parliament

The SNP's Westminster leader Stephen Flynn is next. He says Keir Starmer should have gone when he told the Commons he knew Peter Mandelson had maintained a relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, before appointing him ambassador.

"That should have been curtains for him [Keir Starmer]," Flynn says, adding that Starmer "was not fit because his judgment was flawed, and it was wrong".

Flynn accuses Labour MPs of choosing at the time to "proactively ignore that and to defend him".

The SNP politician says Labour MPs "cannot outrun Peter Mandelson, they cannot outrun their own prime minister and his record".

"A confident Labour Party, a confident government would believe their prime minister, would have courage in their conviction and go to that [Privileges] committee post-haste to clear his name," Flynn adds - but Labour MPs won't do that because "they're acting from a position of profound weakness".

Image source, House of Commons

Some more now from some of the Labour MPs who have been speaking in the Commons, where a vote is set to be held as to whether Starmer should be referred to the Privileges Committee.

• Nadia Whittome, the Labour MP for Nottingham East, suggests she will vote for the motion - telling the House she is "disappointed" that Labour MPs are being whipped to oppose it. She explains she is "yet to be convinced" the prime minister has definitively not misled the House "even if inadvertently"
• Tim Roca, the Labour MP for Macclesfield, alternatively criticises the motion and its timing shortly before the upcoming elections. He argues that there are mechanisms "already in train" - citing the humble address and the Foreign Affairs Select Committee inquiry. The motion today "speaks the language of contempt", he says, but it reveals the "contempt" the opposition hold for the British public

Labour MP Gurinder Singh Josan says the motion calling for Starmer to be referred to the Privileges Committee is "premature".

He says allegations and concerns should be addressed, but "that's why we have the humble address, why we've got ongoing inquiries by the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, and even an ongoing police investigation".

"While that is all ongoing, I would suggest this privilege motion is premature," Josan adds.

The Privileges Committee is a cross-party board of MPs that investigates matters which may prevent or hinder the work of Parliament - including cases where MPs are accused of breaking rules - find out more in our earlier post.

Image source, House of Commons

We've also been hearing from former Labour MP Karl Turner, who now sits as an independent in the Commons. Turner says he does not believe the prime minister "deliberately" misled the House of Commons.

However, Turner adds, there was a "significant difference" between what Starmer said about the vetting process and the evidence Olly Robbins gave to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee in relation to suggestions of pressure from Downing Street to appoint Peter Mandelson.

Turner, who has been a frequent critic of Starmer's government and was suspended from the parliamentary party in March, says Starmer should have referred himself to the Privileges Committee. He adds it would have saved "us all this messing around".

Image source, House of Commons

Liberal Democrats leader Ed Davey has just been speaking in the Commons.

He rejects accusations that today's motion is a "stunt", as Labour has described it.

Davey asks if the prime minister "really expects us to believe that" he would have cancelled Mandelson's appointment if former senior official Olly Robbins had informed him about the result of the vetting assessment.

After "ignoring everything we already knew" about Mandelson, and announcing his appointment before vetting had been done, Davey says it isn't credible.

That claim is Starmer's "only defence", Davey says, adding that it "just doesn't stand up". He also says "honesty, integrity and truth matter" in politics - quoting Starmer's former Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner.

Emma Lewell, Labour MP for South Shields, is up in the Commons now.

She says she has watched this "whole sorry saga" play out for weeks now, like the public" - and that she feels "let down, disappointed and I am angry".

Lewell goes on:

"Peter Mandelson should never have been appointed, this was a fundamental failure of judgment. Matthew Doyle should never have been given a peerage, this was also a failure of judgment. I feel the way that today’s vote has been handled by the Government smacks, once again, of being out of touch and disconnected from the public mood.

"The fact that MPs like me are being whipped into voting against this motion is, in my view, wrong. It has played into the terrible narrative that there is something to hide and good, decent colleagues will be accused of being complicit in a cover up."

Lewell adds that she won't be voting against the motion - and says she "can’t understand why the prime minister doesn’t refer himself to the committee with a clear statement that he is doing so to clear his name".

Elliot Burrin
Live reporter

Image source, UK Parliament

It's been a busy morning at the Foreign Affairs Committee, with two key political figures giving evidence about the appointment of Lord Mandelson as the UK's ambassador to the US.

We've been hearing from the prime minister's former chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, and a former top civil servant at the Foreign Office, Sir Philip Barton.

Philip Barton

• First up, ex-Foreign Office chief Barton told MPs he was “worried” that Mandelson’s links to the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein“could be a problem” - but said No 10 was “uninterested” in his concerns
• Barton said he wasn’t consulted on the appointment
• And he said he found it “odd and insufficient” that the Cabinet Office initially suggested not vetting the former US ambassador - more from Barton here

Morgan McSweeney

• The PM's former top aide McSweeney said he made a "serious mistake" in advising the PM to appoint Mandelson, that he did not request steps to be skipped in vetting, or that he be cleared "at all costs"
• Discovering the extent of Mandelson's relationship with Epstein was "like a knife through my soul", McSweeney told the committee
• Mandelson's experience as EU trade commissioner was the key reason he was selected as the lead candidate over George Osborne, he said - but McSweeney now believes Mandelson "wasn't open enough" before the appointment
• McSweeney stopped short of taking full responsibility, saying the final decision was Starmer's, our political correspondent Harry Farley writes

Meanwhile, in the Commons

• MPs are currently debating on whether to launch an inquiry into whether Starmer has misled Parliament - we'll continue to bring you all the latest on that

Badenoch ends her statement by asking Labour MPs if they'd like to be on the side of Peter Mandelson, Jeffrey Epstein, Morgan McSweeney, Matthew Doyle and Keir Starmer.

Every MP voting on today's motion "will need to examine their conscience", the Tory leader says, as she tells Labour MPs they're being asked to defend a man who "has let the country down, has let Parliament down, and let's be honest he has the Labour Party down".

The Tory leader concludes by telling Labour MPs this is an opportunity for them to show the public that "Parliament matters".

• For context: Starmer denies misleading Parliament and says that when he told MPs due process in appointing Mandelson had been followed, he believed that was the case. He and the government are arguing that today’s debate in the Commons is a political stunt from the Conservatives.