Question Author
Ironic indeed.
But the more he faces questions about his actions and movements at that time, the appointment of a peer despite Security Service advice(that he refused to publish) combined with wealthy Russian donors making large contributions to his party for tennis matches and meeting up with a former KGB chief looks rather iffy to say the least, hence he was questioned by a PSC about it and exacerbated the situation as he gave vague, forgetful answers.
People have been forced to resign in disgrace for far less.
Take a look at his character and demeanour that I listed on the previous page, then attempt to reason why it looks decidedly dodgy to anyone of an inquisitive nature.
Do try to understand why evasion over meeting up with said persons and intrigue surrounding such events goes against all parliamentary procedures and guidelines at that time, then ask yourself why one journalist deemed it his ‘defining scandal’, it’s all in the links for you.