MPs have rejected a Conservative bid to refer Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer to the Commons Privileges Committee over allegations he misled Parliament regarding the appointment of Lord Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United States. The motion was defeated by 335 votes to 223 on Tuesday evening, after Labour MPs were instructed to oppose the move.
Background to the Controversy
Tory leader Kemi Badenoch accused Sir Keir of misleading the Commons by claiming that “full due process” had been followed and that “no pressure existed” in Lord Mandelson’s appointment. Some Labour figures dismissed the call for an investigation as a “political stunt,” but a handful of backbenchers broke ranks to criticise the Government’s decision to whip its MPs against the motion, suggesting the Prime Minister should refer himself to the committee to “clear his name.”
Rebellion and Voting
Fifteen Labour MPs rebelled against the whip and supported Mrs Badenoch’s motion, alongside Hull MP Karl Turner, who recently lost the Labour whip over his opposition to plans to limit jury trials. Sir Keir attended the Commons to vote against the motion. Following the vote, a Downing Street spokesman stated that the Government was “delivering for Britain” while the Conservatives had “resorted to this desperate political stunt” ahead of local elections “because they have no answers on the cost of living or the NHS.”
Political Reactions
Mrs Badenoch warned that Labour MPs would “rue the day” they voted against the motion, accusing them of being “complicit” in a “cover-up.” She said: “This is a Government coming apart at the seams. They are more interested in their own survival than the cost-of-living crisis affecting hardworking families.” Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey described Sir Keir’s decision to whip his MPs as “cowardly,” saying he had “ducked scrutiny.”
Denials and Evidence
Sir Keir has consistently denied misleading the House, citing the conclusion of former Cabinet secretary Sir Chris Wormald that “appropriate processes” were followed. However, earlier on Tuesday, former senior Foreign Office mandarin Sir Philip Barton declined to endorse Sir Keir’s assessment, telling the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee it was unusual for the peer’s appointment to be announced before security vetting was completed and suggested there was pressure to expedite Lord Mandelson’s developed vetting (DV).
Sir Keir’s former chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, also testified before the committee, insisting he did not “ask officials to ignore procedures, request that steps should be skipped, or communicate explicitly or implicitly that checks should be cleared at all costs” during the appointment process.
Document Release and Security Concerns
Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) announced on Tuesday that it had completed its review of the Government’s proposed redactions to documents related to Lord Mandelson’s appointment, ahead of their publication. MPs had ordered the Government to release a large tranche of documents in February, but only a handful have been made public so far. The Government has requested redactions for national security reasons or because they pertain to a police investigation into allegations of misconduct in public office against Lord Mandelson, which he denies.
ISC chairman Lord Beamish stated that his committee had reached decisions on all proposed redactions, including some requested within the previous 24 hours. The Government could still challenge these decisions at a private committee hearing after the state opening of Parliament next month. Lord Beamish emphasised that the ISC had “made exceptional efforts to ensure that it is not holding up the publication of documents” and that any delay was “in no way due to the committee’s part in the process.”
A Downing Street spokesman reiterated the Government’s commitment to transparency, saying: “We will continue to engage with the two parliamentary processes that are running on Peter Mandelson’s appointment with full transparency.”
