Evidence from The Independent left the prime minister facing serious questions over what he knew about Peter Mandelson failing security checks before his appointment to become ambassador to the US.
Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch and a number of MPs asked the prime minister why he did not take action when The Independent contacted his then director of communications, Tim Allan, about Lord Mandelson failing his vetting and then ran a front-page story.
In a grim outing in the Commons for Sir Keir, the prime minister insisted he, all his ministers and Downing Street only found out that UK Security Vetting had advised Lord Mandelson should be denied clearance on Tuesday evening last week, describing the situation as “incredible” and saying it “beggars belief”.
Turning the screw on the Foreign Office, he said it was “unforgivable” that the full information about the appointment of Lord Mandelson last year had not been disclosed. He added this was not an oversight, but that “a deliberate decision was taken to withhold that material from me”.
The prime minister and Labour MPs now nervously wait for Sir Olly Robbins – the man sacked as permanent secretary to the Foreign Office last week after being blamed for the saga – to give evidence on Tuesday to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee.
Friends of Sir Olly have already claimed he was “thrown under a bus”, and he is expected to claim Sir Keir pressured the Foreign Office into approving Lord Mandelson’s appointment, according to The Times. Despite supportive comments from many Labour MPs, questions remain over what the prime minister knew and when.
Ms Badenoch had already last week praised The Independent’s reporting over the issue and called for documents linked to Downing Street’s response – that “vetting was done by FCDO in the normal way” – to its questions to be released.
In a torrid session over more than two hours in the Commons on Monday, Ms Badenoch piled further pressure on Sir Keir, asking six questions which she had provided to him before the statement was made.
She asked: “On 11 September last year, a journalist asked his director of communications if it was true that Mandelson had failed security 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, with the prime minister attempting to deflect blame on Foreign Office officials.
Sir Keir said: “In relation to reports in the media, No 10 was repeatedly asked about the outcome of the security clearance and was assured that the entire process was followed.”
The PM also said he would not have appointed Lord Mandelson if he had known the peer had failed the checks, and insisted there was no pressure from No 10 to push through the high-profile appointment.
Also on Tuesday, there will be an emergency debate for MPs to scrutinise the government’s accountability after an application by Ms Badenoch, who said the issue was “a matter of national security because the prime minister has admitted appointing a known serious security risk to our most sensitive diplomatic post”.
Earlier, he claimed he asked former cabinet secretary Sir Chris Wormald, who has also been forced out over the Mandelson scandal, to hold a review of the process in September, claiming Sir Chris was also not informed of the vetting failure.
Ms Badenoch warned that the issue had become “murky” and told Sir Keir that “the whole country is watching”, as she warned that his integrity was at stake.
She said: “I will remind him that, under the ministerial code, he has a duty to correct the record at the earliest opportunity.
“The prime minister says he only found out on Tuesday that Peter Mandelson failed the security vetting. The earliest opportunity to correct the record was Prime Minister’s Questions on Wednesday, almost a week ago. This is a breach of the ministerial code.”
Responding, Sir Keir said: “When I found out what had happened on Tuesday evening last, I wanted to have answers to the question: who made the decision to recommend to give clearance on developed vetting, contrary to the advice, why that was done and who knew about it, so I could provide the information to the House.
“That is the exercise that’s been conducted since Tuesday evening and today, so that I could come here today to give the full account to the House, which I’ve just set out.”
Earlier, Sir Keir, with sullen Labour MPs sitting largely silently behind him, had said: “I know many members across the House will find these facts to be incredible, and to that I can only say that they are right.
“It beggars belief that throughout the whole timeline of events, officials in the Foreign Office saw fit to withhold this information from the most senior ministers in our system of government.
“That is not how the vast majority of people in this country expect politics, government or accountability to work, and I do not think it’s how most public servants think it should work.”
But while he received some support from his backbenchers, other senior Labour figures joined opposition MPs in criticising him for not asking questions about Lord Mandelson and vetting, especially when the story had been published in September.
Veteran Labour MP Diane Abbott said: “Given everything we know about Peter Mandelson’s history … it’s not enough for the prime minister to say nobody told me … why didn’t he ask anyone?”
A bad-tempered series of exchanges saw Reform MP Lee Anderson thrown out of the chamber for calling Sir Keir a “liar”. Later, Your Party MP Zara Sultana was suspended for making the same accusation.
A number of MPs asked why advice from another former cabinet secretary, Lord Simon Case, that Mandelson should have been given vetting before being appointed was ignored.
Sir Keir claimed that he “understood the process was subject to vetting taking place” and insisted that it was not unusual for an appointment to be made before vetting was continued.
Also on Monday, Reform UK leader Nigel Farage raised The Independent’s front page in September as evidence that the PM may have been lying. He said: “Last September, David Maddox of The Independent came out very strongly to say he’d been told from sources inside that Mandelson had failed vetting.
“If you were prime minister, and there were news reports last September that your ambassadorial choice had failed vetting, you would have thought, perhaps, you might have had some curiosity to try to find out whether this had really happened or not. I just find the whole thing totally incredible. There is no way the prime minister couldn’t have known.”
Senior politicians and former civil servants have described WhatsApp messages between The Independent and Mr Allan as “the smoking gun” – not least because Sir Keir gave a statement to MPs in February about the vetting process being passed.
On Monday night, on BBC Newsnight, The Independent’s front page last year was raised with Cabinet Office Minister Nick Thomas-Symonds by Victoria Derbyshire, who asked if Sir Keir had questioned whether Lord Mandelson had failed vetting. Mr Thomas-Symonds failed to answer the specific question, but said “Number 10 has been asking those questions”.