Keir Starmer faced anger and ridicule in the Commons today as he tried to blame officials for his disastrous decision to appoint Peter Mandelson.

The Prime Minister was drowned out by mocking laughter as he acknowledged that his own version of events ‘beggars belief’.

Ominously for the PM he faced sustained criticism from his own side as he struggled to explain why he appointed Mandelson before he had been vetted, despite being warned about his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein and business links to China and Russia.

Sir Keir denied misleading MPs over his decision to appoint the disgraced Labour peer as ambassador to the United States.

He admitted it had been a mistake to bring back Mandelson, describing it as ‘wrong’ – and insisted he would ‘take responsibility’ for that.

But he claimed he would never have given the Labour grandee the job if he had known that he failed security vetting.

Instead he angrily blamed the Foreign Office, whose top civil servant Sir Olly Robbins was sacked last week for secretly clearing Mandelson to read secret documents so he could take up the job in Washington the PM had given him.

He said Sir Olly’s failure to tell him was ‘unforgivable’.

During angry scenes in the Commons, Sir Keir faced criticism from all sides.

Kemi Badenoch said the decision was ‘extraordinary and unprecedented’ and warned that the PM’s explanation was becoming ‘murkier and more contradictory’. She accused the PM of throwing Sir Olly ‘under a bus’.

Dame Emily Thornberry, Labour chairman of the Commons foreign affairs committee, said Downing Street’s desire to appoint Mandelson ‘was a priority that overrode everything else’, including national security.

Fellow Labour veteran Diane Abbott noted that Mandelson had been forced to resign from Cabinet twice, telling the PM: ‘Peter Mandelson has a history. What this House wants to know is why, knowing Peter Mandelson’s history, going back 30 years… it’s one thing to say, as he insists on saying, “Nobody told me. Nobody told me anything, nobody told me”. The question is, why didn’t the Prime Minister ask?’

Lib Dem leader Sir Ed Davey called on Sir Keir to resign, saying he appeared to be ‘in office, but not in power’.

The SNP’s Stephen Flynn asked Sir Keir if he was ‘gullible, incompetent or both?’

Reform MP Lee Anderson and former Labour MP Zarah Sultana were both ordered to leave the Commons chamber after branding the PM a liar.

But, to the astonishment of MPs, Sir Keir claimed he did not mislead them – even inadvertently – on the many occasions on which he stated the ‘full due process’ had been followed at all times.

Former shadow chancellor John McDonnell said: ‘This has damaged the party which I have been a member of for 50 years.’ 

In other dramatic developments today:  

• Scottish Secretary Douglas Alexander has acknowledged there are doubts about the premier’s future; 
• The Foreign Affairs Committee has confirmed that Sir Olly will appear before it at 9am tomorrow, in what could be another pivotal moment for Sir Keir;
• Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper has cut short a trip to Japan to return to the UK as the turmoil rages; 
• Critics have pointed to an email from then-Cabinet Secretary Simon Case to Sir Keir in November 2024 suggesting that there should be a ‘plan’ to get security clearance for whomever was chosen as US ambassador;
• The next batch of documents on the Mandelson appointment look unlikely to be released until after the King’s Speech next month. 

Keir Starmer will run the gauntlet of MP fury in the Commons this afternoon as he desperately tries to shift the blame on to another ‘fall guy’

Peter Mandelson takes his dog for a walk outside his home in London today

Sir Keir has ousted Foreign Office chief Olly Robbins (pictured), insisting it was ‘unforgivable’ the civil service did not tell him vetting officials advised against making Mandelson the US ambassador

The latest turmoil has renewed speculation about Sir Keir’s future, with the PM having barely survived a coup attempt in February. 

Addressing the Commons, Sir Keir said: ‘Let me be very clear the recommendation in the Peter Mandelson case could and should have been shared with me before he took up his post.

‘Let me make a second point, if I had known before he took up his post, the UKSV (UK Security Vetting) recommendation was that developed vetting clearance should be denied. I would not have gone ahead with the appointment.’

Sir Keir said former Cabinet Secretary Chris Wormald was not told about UK Security Vetting’s (UKSV) recommendation when he reviewed Mandelson’s appointment process last September.

Sir Keir said: ‘Last week the then cabinet secretary was clear, that when he carried out his review the Foreign Office did not tell him about the UKSV recommendation that developed vetting clearance should be denied to Peter Mandelson. I find that astonishing.

‘I do not accept that I could not have been told about the recommendation before Peter Mandelson took up his post.

‘I absolutely do not accept that the then-cabinet secretary, an official not a politician, when carrying out his review, could not have been told that UKSV recommended that Peter Mandelson should be denied developed vetting clearance. 

‘It was a vital part of the process that I had asked him to review. Clearly he could have been told, and he should have been told.’

Sir Keir was halted by a wave of jeers and laughter as he said: ‘I know many members across the House will find these facts to be incredible.’

When the noise subsided, he continued: ‘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 expects politics, government or accountability to work, and I do not think it’s how most public servants think it should work.’

Sir Keir paid tribute to civil servants in the Foreign Office working on Ukraine, the Middle East and in the wider world.

‘This is not about them,’ he said. ‘Yet it is surely beyond doubt that the recommendations from UKSV that Peter Mandelson should be denied developed vetting clearance was information that could and should have been shared with me on repeated occasions, and therefore should have been available to this House and ultimately to the British people.’

Kemi Badenoch shot back that Sir Keir had thrown another aide ‘under the bus’ after failing to ask questions and establish the facts for himself

The Labour chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Emily Thornberry, swiped that it seemed for some members of the PM’s team ‘getting Peter Mandelson the job was a priority that overrode everything else’

Mrs Badenoch said it was ‘finally time for the truth’.

‘I will remind him that, under the ministerial code, he has a duty to correct the record at the earliest opportunity,’ she said.

‘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.’

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.’

Dame Emily Thornberry said: ‘Somebody, probably Peter Mandelson himself, leaked to the press his appointment as US ambassador, effectively bouncing the Government into confirming it.

‘But then when the confirmation did come forward about his appointment, it did not make clear that it was subject to vetting in either the offer letter to Peter Mandelson or in the Government’s press release.

‘I am afraid to say, doesn’t this look like for certain members of the Prime Minister’s team, getting Peter Mandelson the job was a priority that overrode everything else, and that security considerations were very much second order?’

Sir Keir dodged a direct response, instead saying: ‘A deliberate decision was taken to withhold that material. This was not a lack of asking. This wasn’t an oversight. It was a decision… taken not to share that information on repeated occasions.’

 When asked by the Conservatives’ John Lamont whether he accepted he ‘inadvertently misled the House of Commons’ with his past statements about Mandelson’s appointment, Sir Keir declared: ‘No I did not mislead the House of Commons.

‘I accept that information that I should have had, and information that the House should have had, should have been before the House.

‘But I did not mislead the House, and that’s why I’ve set out the account in full.’

Asked on Sky News this morning whether Sir Keir will lead Labour into the next election, due in 2029, Mr Alexander said: ‘I expect so, yes… I think he will.’

He added: ‘There are no certainties but but of course I think he will lead and I think he should because, frankly, on the biggest call in this parliament he’s exercised the right judgment, which is to keep us out of someone else’s war.’

Mr Alexander said ‘rightfully and reasonably’ there were ‘important questions that need to be answered today’.

‘Keir Starmer is going to set out all the facts, the right place for those questions to be answered are at the despatch box of the House of Commons,’ he said.

Labour’s leader in Scotland, Anas Sarwar, has already declared he has no confidence in Sir Keir and would rather he was replaced. 

Mandelson was sacked last year, just nine months into the Washington DC posting, after further details of his ties to paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein emerged. 

It is not clear why vetting officials advised against his appointment, and allies insisted he was not aware of the recommendation until last week. 

Despite the advice, he is believed to have been granted the highest ‘Strap 3’ level of security clearance. 

In a message to Sir Keir in November 2024, Mr Case set out what would happen if he went for a political candidate.

‘If this is the route that you wish to take you should give us the name of the person you would like to appoint and we will develop a plan for them to acquire the necessary security clearances and do due diligence on any potential Conflicts of Interest or other issues of which you should be aware before confirming your choice,’ he wrote. 

‘A letter is then needed from the Foreign Secretary to the PUS to FCDO formalising the decision to make a political appointment.’ 

In a significant escalation last night, the Government released what appeared to be internal legal advice suggesting there was no barrier to Sir Olly flagging the vetting conclusions. 

Downing Street stressed that external appointments to the civil service were normally made ‘subject to obtaining security clearance’. 

A statement issued by No10 last night said that although civil servants rather than ministers make decisions on vetting and clearance, there was nothing in the law to prevent ministers being told.

‘There is nothing in the guidance which prevented information being shared in this scenario, in a proportionate and necessary way and subject to the appropriate procedural steps,’ the statement on the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act said.

While there are ‘legal obligations’ under data protection rules, ‘no law prevents civil servants – while continuing to protect such sensitive personal information – from sensibly flagging UK Security Vetting recommendations or high level risks and mitigations’.

UKSV’s privacy notice sets out there are ‘limited circumstances in which relevant vetting information can be shared’ if ‘a security risk has been identified’.

Sir Keir told the Mirror he would make it ‘crystal clear’ to MPs that he had been kept in the dark and it was ‘unforgivable’ that the Foreign Office failed to tell him after he had offered public assurances that proper process had been followed.

The PM said: ‘The fact that I wasn’t told that Peter Mandelson had failed his security vetting when he was appointed is astonishing. The fact that I wasn’t told when I said to Parliament that due process had been followed is unforgivable, and that’s why I intend to set out in Parliament on Monday the facts behind that, so there’s full transparency in relation to it.

‘But am I furious that I wasn’t told? Yes, I am. Am I furious that other ministers weren’t told? Yes, I am. I should have been told, and I wasn’t told.’

But Tory leader Mrs Badenoch has said Sir Keir is ‘either lying or he’s incompetent’.

She said: ‘This has been a tawdry and shaming affair for you and your party, and for this country.

‘Not only have you damaged our relationship with the United States and insulted the victims of the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, but you have also undermined our national security by giving the highest diplomatic post to an individual that the security services found to be of “high concern”.’

Critics have pointed to an email from then-Cabinet Secretary Simon Case to Sir Keir in November 2024 suggesting that there should be a ‘plan’ to get security clearance for whomever was chosen as US ambassador