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, after Labour MPs were instructed to oppose the move. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch had accused Sir Keir of misleading the Commons by stating that "full due process" had been followed and that "no pressure existed" in Lord Mandelson's appointment.
Political Stunt or Genuine Concern?
Some Labour figures dismissed Mrs Badenoch's call for an investigation as a "political stunt." However, a small number of Labour backbenchers broke ranks to criticise the Government for whipping its MPs against the motion, suggesting the Prime Minister should refer himself to the Privileges Committee to "clear his name."
Starmer's Defence
Sir Keir has consistently denied misleading the House, citing the conclusion of former Cabinet secretary Sir Chris Wormald that "appropriate processes" were followed. But earlier on Tuesday, former senior Foreign Office official Sir Philip Barton declined to endorse Sir Keir's assessment, stating 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).
Testimony from Former Chief of Staff
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.
