Starmer grilled over Independent front page on Mandelson vetting failure amid desperate fight for survival

Evidence Independent The Prime Minister has faced serious questions about what he knew about Peter Mandelson failing security checks before his appointment as US ambassador.

Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch and some MPs asked the prime minister why he had not taken action. Independent He contacted then communications director Tim Allan about Lord Mandelson’s failure to review and subsequently published a front-page story.

In a sombre tour of the Commons for Sir Keir, the prime minister insisted that he, all his ministers and Downing Street had only learned that the UK Security Review had recommended Lord Mandelson be denied entry on Tuesday evening last week, describing the situation as “incredible” and saying it was “a beggar of faith”.

Turning the issue to the Foreign Office, he said it was “inexcusable” that full information about Lord Mandelson’s appointment was not disclosed last year. He added that this was not an act of carelessness, but “a deliberate decision was made to withhold this material from me.”

The Prime Minister and Labor MPs are now anxiously awaiting Sir Olly Robbins, who was sacked as permanent secretary of the Foreign Office last week after being blamed for the saga, to give evidence to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee on Tuesday.

Sir Olly’s friends have already claimed he was “thrown under the bus” and he is reportedly seeking legal advice on dismissal. Despite supportive comments from many Labor MPs, questions remain about what Sir Keir knew and when.

Miss Badenoch had already praised last week Independent‘s reporting on the matter and called for the release of documents linked to Downing Street’s response to questions that “the review was carried out by the FCDO in the normal way”.

In a heated session in the House of Commons that lasted more than two hours on Monday, Ms Badenoch turned up the pressure by asking Sir Keir six questions he had presented to her before the statement was made.

He asked: “On September 11 last year, a journalist asked the communications manager if it was true that Mandelson had failed his vetting. These allegations were on the front page of a national newspaper and yet No 10 did not deny the story. Why?”

Similar questions were put to Sir Keir by several MPs, while the prime minister tried to shift the blame to Foreign Office officials.

Sir Keir said: “Regarding media reports, No 10 was repeatedly asked about the outcome of the security investigation and was given assurances that the full process was being followed.”

The Prime Minister also said he would not have appointed Lord Mandelson had he known he had failed checks and insisted there was no pressure from No 10 to make the high-profile appointment.

Also on Tuesday, an urgent debate will be held for MPs to examine the government’s accountability, following Ms Badenoch’s application, which said Ms Badenoch “recognised that the issue was a matter of national security because the prime minister had appointed a known serious security risk to our most sensitive diplomatic post”.

He has previously claimed he asked former cabinet secretary Sir Chris Wormald, who was also sacked over the Mandelson scandal, to review the process in September and that Sir Chris was also not informed of the review failure.

Ms Badenoch warned the issue had become “murky” and told Sir Keir the “whole country was watching” as she warned his integrity was at risk.

He said: “I will remind him that under ministerial law he has a duty to correct the records at the earliest opportunity.

“The Prime Minister says he only learned on Tuesday that Peter Mandelson had failed his security clearance. The first opportunity to set the record straight was at Prime Minister’s Questions on Wednesday, almost a week ago. This is a breach of ministerial rules.”

In response, Sir Keir said: “When I found out what happened last Tuesday evening, I wanted to get answers to the question: who made the decision to recommend that enhanced scrutiny be allowed, contrary to the recommendation, why this was done and who knew it, so that I could provide information to the House.

“This is a practice that has been carried out since Tuesday evening and today, so that I can come here today and give the full account to the House that I have just announced.”

Earlier, Sir Keir, with sullen Labor MPs sitting largely silent behind him, said: “I know many members of the House will find these facts incredible and I can only say that they are right.

“It is beyond belief that, throughout the entire timeline of events, Foreign Office officials saw fit to withhold this information from the most senior ministers in our system of government.

“The vast majority of people in this country don’t expect politics, government, or accountability to work that way, and I don’t think most public officials think they should work that way either.”

But while he received some support from the backbenchers, other senior Labor figures, along with opposition MPs, criticized him for not asking questions about Lord Mandelson and, in particular, for investigating the story when it was published in September.

Senior Labor MP Diane Abbott said: “Given everything we know about Peter Mandelson’s past… it’s not enough for the prime minister to tell me no one has… why hasn’t he asked anyone?”

In a series of testy exchanges, Reform MP Lee Anderson was kicked out of parliament for calling Sir Keir a “liar”. Later, your Party’s Deputy Zara Sultana was also suspended for making the same accusation.

Some MPs asked why advice from Lord Simon Case, another former cabinet secretary, that Mandelson should be vetted before his appointment was ignored.

Sir Keir claimed he “understood that the process was subject to review” and insisted it was not unusual for an appointment to be made before the review could proceed.

Also on Monday, Reform UK leader Nigel Farage said: IndependentIts front page from September as evidence that the Prime Minister may have lied. He said: “Last September David Maddox Independent He stated very strongly that he had been told by inside sources that Mandelson had failed the review.

“If you were Prime Minister and news broke last September that your choice of ambassador had failed scrutiny, you’d think you might have some curiosity to find out whether that actually happened. I find the whole thing completely incredible. There’s no way the Prime Minister didn’t know.”

WhatsApp messages between senior politicians and former civil servants revealed Independent and see Mr Allan as a “smoking gun” – especially since Sir Keir made a statement in February about the review process being passed to MPs.