What Starmer said, and didn’t say, in the Commons about the Mandelson saga

4. We (sort of ) learned who made the decisions and why

double quotation markHe [Robbins] should have provided this information to me, and he could have provided it to me.”

Through much of his statement, Starmer blamed the Foreign Office as an entity and it was not clear who individually he blamed for making the decision over the vetting and the fact this was kept from him.

In fairness, the decision last Thursday to remove Robbins gave a clue, and Starmer later made this explicit. Saying he was limited in what he could set out because Robbins is giving evidence to a Commons committee on Tuesday, the PM said Robbins had told him “that he couldn’t provide this information to me, because he wasn’t allowed to provide information to me”.

5. Starmer believes he did not mislead MPs

double quotation markNo I did not mislead the House of Commons.”

Kemi Badenoch, the Tory leader, was among those who tried to engage Starmer on whether he misled parliament, even inadvertently, in previously assuring MPs that all normal procedures were followed with the Mandelson appointment.

This is potentially very serious – a deliberate misleading of the Commons is seen as grounds for resignation. Starmer can make a case for any wrong information not being his fault, and Downing Street had indicated that this was the case.

But in his initial statement and subsequent answers, the PM was no more explicit than saying that the Commons did not have all the information it should have had.

But in response to a direct question from Tory MP John Lamont, he insisted not – others may disagree.

6. Starmer does not know why vetting was refused

double quotation markThe information that was dealt with in the security vetting process has not been made available to me, nor can that detail be made available to me. It’s the recommendation that should have been made available to me.”

Questioned about whether he knew one particular detail about Mandelson’s business links, Starmer made it clear that this was the sort of detail he not only did not know about the vetting, but never would.

This might sound to outsiders somewhat unlikely – that a prime minister would not know precisely why his choice for an ambassadorship might be seen as a risk – but it does tie in with rules about vetting. The type of vetting carried out on Mandelson is intense, detailed and hugely personal, and knowledge of specifics is kept only to those who need to know.

7. No one in No 10 knew, Starmer says

double quotation markDid Morgan McSweeney or any of your advisers, past or present, know about this issue before last Thursday?”

“No.”

In an exchange with the Conservative MP Louie French, Starmer insisted that his staff were not told about the vetting – a definition that excludes Cat Little, the chief civil servant to the Cabinet Office, and Antonia Romeo, the cabinet secretary, both of whom found out in March.

Such a definitive denial places Starmer at serious risk if something emerges to contradict it.