SHADOW Chancellor Mel Stride has said that the Prime Minister’s explanation of the process behind the appointment of Lord Mandelson “beggars credulity”.

Speaking ahead of a debate on the issue in the Commons today, he told GB News: “What we saw was the Prime Minister stand up at Prime Minister’s Questions and say that he had confidence in Peter Mandelson.

“But what we also know is that a large amount of information was provided to, first the Foreign Office and then Number 10, a day before the Prime Minister stood up and gave Peter Mandelson that clean bill of health.

“The questions that we have are around, what did the Prime Minister know about that additional information that came to light through Bloomberg? We know that Mandelson himself was out on the airways before Prime Minister’s Questions, saying that there was more information to come.

“Our suspicion is that, surely the Prime Minister would have asked the right questions at that point to find out broadly what was going on, what information was in those emails, because Number 10 knew about it.

MEL STRIDE GB News 16:9.jpeg

“His chief of staff would have known about it before he stood up and decided to try and brazen it out and suggest that there was nothing untoward about Peter Mandelson serving as our ambassador.

“So we are asking questions about – show us the information, show us the correspondence, and let a select committee of the House of Commons or others examine that.”

Asked about Starmer blaming his team for letting him down, Stride said: “Sorry, I just don’t buy that. I’m afraid he will have been close enough and understanding enough of the sensitivities here.

“He would have known that he was going into a Prime Minister’s Questions, where he was going to get asked all about this. Prime Ministers prep very thoroughly for PMQs. It’s one of the big things they do during their week.

“The idea that he would not have been asking questions about what was in those emails, ‘what do I need to be worried about’, I think, beggars credulity and so that’s why we’re having this debate.

“We want this information out there so it could be properly examined, and we can get the answers.”