The Prime Minister has a robust case in response to claims that he misled Parliament over the appointment of Peter Mandelson as Britain's ambassador to Washington, according to a detailed assessment of the events. The debate on whether to refer Sir Keir Starmer to the Committee of Privileges, granted by Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle, is seen as an opportunity for the Prime Minister to present his defence, despite the timing ahead of the May elections being politically motivated.
The charge, brought by Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch and others, is that Sir Keir intentionally or recklessly misled Parliament. However, the Prime Minister has acknowledged appointing Lord Mandelson was an error and has apologised. Crucially, he has insisted he was unaware of doubts raised during the Foreign Office's developed vetting process, and no evidence has emerged to contradict this.
Sir Olly Robbins, the former cabinet secretary, told the Foreign Affairs Committee that he refused to inform the Prime Minister about unfavourable recommendations, and did not tell anyone else. Sir Olly had informed Sir Keir that due process had been followed and that Lord Mandelson had cleared vetting, with Sir Olly himself having overruled the security agency's recommendation. This account has been corroborated by serving civil servants and is expected to be supported by predecessors including Sir Philip Barton.
Barry Gardiner, a Labour backbencher, said there may be reasons to want to oust Sir Keir, but the claim that he misled Parliament is not one of them. The analysis concludes that no better credible alternative to the Prime Minister is available within the Labour Party or outside it. While acknowledging mistakes and misjudgements, it points to the Prime Minister's focus on public finances and keeping Britain out of the war in Iran as fundamental achievements, despite ongoing speculation about leadership challenges.
