MPs have rejected a Conservative bid to refer Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer to the Commons Privileges Committee over allegations that 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, after Labour MPs were instructed to oppose the move. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch had accused Sir Keir of misleading the Commons by asserting that “full due process” had been followed and that “no pressure existed” in Lord Mandelson’s appointment.
Some Labour figures dismissed Mrs Badenoch’s call for an investigation as a “political stunt.” However, a number of backbenchers broke ranks, criticising the Government for whipping its MPs to oppose the motion and suggesting that the Prime Minister should refer himself to the Privileges Committee to “clear his name.”
Fifteen Labour MPs rebelled against the whip and supported Mrs Badenoch’s motion, alongside Hull MP Karl Turner, who recently lost the Labour whip due to his opposition to plans to limit jury trials. Sir Keir attended the Commons on Tuesday evening to vote against the motion.
Following the vote, a Downing Street spokesperson 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.”
Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey accused Sir Keir of having “ducked scrutiny” by whipping his MPs to oppose the Tory motion, describing the move as “cowardly.”
Sir Keir has consistently denied misleading the House, relying on 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, stating that it was for MPs to form their own view.
Sir Philip told the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee that it was unusual for the peer’s appointment to be announced before security vetting had been completed and suggested there was pressure to “get on with” approving Lord Mandelson’s developed vetting (DV).
The committee also heard from Sir Keir’s former chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, who insisted 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.
Meanwhile, Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) announced on Tuesday that it had finished reviewing the Government’s proposed redactions to documents relating to Lord Mandelson’s appointment ahead of publication. MPs had ordered the Government to release a large tranche of documents connected to the appointment in February, but only a handful have been published so far.
The Government has requested redactions to some documents for national security reasons or because they relate to a police investigation into allegations against Lord Mandelson of misconduct in public office, which the peer denies. In a statement, ISC chairman Lord Beamish said his committee had reached decisions on all proposed redactions, including some requested within the previous 24 hours.
The Government could still challenge those decisions at a private committee hearing, which would take place 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.”
The Downing Street spokesperson added: “We will continue to engage with the two parliamentary processes that are running on Peter Mandelson’s appointment with full transparency.”
