Cabinet minister Darren Jones has stated there is “no case to answer” regarding a potential referral of Sir Keir Starmer to a sleaze inquiry, as the controversy over Lord Peter Mandelson’s vetting continues. The Conservatives have called for the Prime Minister to face the Privileges Committee over allegations he misled Parliament about Lord Mandelson.
Minister defends government position
Mr Jones, the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, said it is for House Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle to decide whether a vote on such a motion proceeds. He accused the Conservatives of “using tactics” ahead of local elections. Speaking on the BBC’s Sunday Morning With Laura Kuenssberg programme, the minister remarked: “You have to remember, what are these privileges committees about? The last time it was used was when Boris Johnson told the House of Commons there were no parties in Downing Street. It was then shown he was at five of them and got a fine from the police. That’s what these processes are in place for, so the Opposition are just using tactics to try to distract from the fact that the Government is doing good work in this pre-election period.”
When asked if an investigation would be appropriate to clarify differing interpretations, Mr Jones added: “As far as I understand the case, there is no case to answer.” Labour’s substantial majority in the Commons makes it highly unlikely that such a vote would succeed, but the situation remains damaging for the Prime Minister.
Conservative demands for investigation
Shadow home secretary Chris Philp called for a Privileges Committee investigation. He told the BBC that documents on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as ambassador to the US are being released “because of a vote that we scheduled in Parliament a few months ago, which forced them out.” Mr Philp added: “Now we need the Privileges Committee to investigate whether Keir Starmer misled Parliament, which he appears to have done. Frankly, Keir Starmer should resign because he appointed Mandelson in the first place, which is a terrible, terrible misjudgment – a man with links to Russia and China and Jeffrey Epstein. If he doesn’t, Labour backbenchers and ministers should develop a backbone and get rid of him.”
Sir Keir has faced mounting pressure over the scandal concerning the peer’s appointment as ambassador to Washington, including his decision to sack Foreign Office chief Sir Olly Robbins. The Prime Minister stated this week that any claims he misled Parliament had been resolved by Sir Olly’s evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee. In an interview with The Sunday Times, he insisted Sir Olly faced only the “everyday pressure of Government” to clear Lord Mandelson for the role.
Process failings acknowledged
Cabinet minister Mr Jones acknowledged there were “serious process failings” in the vetting of Lord Mandelson, despite Civil Service head Cat Little saying due process had been followed. He explained: “I think what my permanent secretary was talking about was that the established process from appointment to security vetting, the fact that in a business-as-usual appointment security recommendations are not given to ministers. But this was a different set of circumstances, this was a political appointment of Peter Mandelson to be the ambassador to the United States.”
Questions over the vetting scandal will continue next week when Sir Keir’s former chief of staff Morgan McSweeney is due to appear before the same committee of MPs. Foreign Office official Ian Collard, who Sir Olly said briefed him on the vetting findings that deemed Lord Mandelson a borderline case and leaned towards recommending denial of clearance, will provide written evidence. Sir Keir has faced calls to resign amid the fallout, and Cabinet divisions are reported to have emerged over his handling of the process, including the sacking of Sir Olly.
