Starmer Fends Off Tory Inquiry Attempt on Mandelson Appointment
Keir Starmer has successfully resisted an opposition effort to refer him to a standards committee concerning Peter Mandelson’s appointment, following significant intervention from Downing Street to secure Labour MPs' support for the prime minister.
Despite the victory, Starmer faced criticism from some Labour backbenchers who claimed his actions risked creating a perception of a "cover-up" among the public.
Vote Details and Party Positions
The vote, initiated by the Conservative leader, was to determine whether the privileges committee should investigate if the prime minister misled the Commons regarding Mandelson’s appointment as British ambassador to the US.
The motion united opposition parties, including the Liberal Democrats, Scottish National Party, Reform UK, and others. However, the government was relieved that key Labour figures, such as Angela Rayner, chose not to support the motion. The government won by 335 votes to 223, a majority of 112.
Fifteen Labour backbenchers, primarily from the party's left wing and known for rebellious voting patterns, supported the motion. These included John McDonnell, Richard Burgon, Nadia Whittome, Andy McDonald, and Cat Smith.
Concerns remain as 53 Labour MPs did not participate in the vote. Some absences were due to government duties, such as Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper, while others were granted leave by party whips.
Labour Rebels Voice Concerns
Among the rebels was Emma Lewell, Labour MP for South Shields, who expressed that the government's approach to the privileges motion suggested to the public that there was something to conceal. She questioned why Starmer would not consent to the inquiry.
"The fact that MPs like me are being whipped into voting against this motion is, in my view, wrong. It has played into the terrible narrative that there is something to hide, and good, decent colleagues will be accused of being complicit in a cover-up."
Lewell added,
"I will not be voting against this motion. I can’t understand why the prime minister doesn’t refer himself to the committee with a clear statement that he is doing so to clear his name. One quick session of the committee could surely see this matter concluded."
Government and Opposition Arguments
During the debate, Kemi Badenoch accused Starmer of compelling his MPs to vote in his favor to evade scrutiny.
"They are being whipped today to exonerate him before the facts have even been tested,"
Badenoch cited facts such as the prime minister appointing Mandelson before security vetting was complete, contrary to advice given in November. She referenced Jonathan Powell, Starmer’s national security advisor, who described the appointment as "weirdly rushed." She also noted that the new information about vetting issues emerged not from the humble address mechanism but from a leak to , which revealed the Foreign Office had overruled a decision to deny security clearance.
The Liberal Democrat leader, Ed Davey, compared Starmer’s dismissal of the motion to Boris Johnson’s response to a similar vote four years ago regarding alleged lockdown breaches.
"The prime minister called this motion a stunt, that is not why I put my name to it. But it’s funny though, because ‘stunt’ is exactly the same word Boris Johnson used about the motion the prime minister and I tabled four years ago, referring Boris Johnson to the privileges committee,"Davey said.
Government Defense and Further Criticism
Closing the debate for the government, Darren Jones, chief secretary to the prime minister, addressed accusations of dishonesty against Starmer. He noted that claims suggesting Foreign Office officials would have granted Mandelson clearance against vetting agency recommendations, without the prime minister’s knowledge, had been disproven.
Jones referenced testimony to a Commons committee by Olly Robbins, former Foreign Office permanent secretary, who was dismissed by Starmer after overturning a UK Security Vetting (UKSV) recommendation to deny Mandelson clearance.
The prime minister also faced sharp criticism from Sorcha Eastwood, Alliance MP for Lagan Valley, who rejected Labour’s characterization of the motion as a stunt.
"I have had two car bombs at the edges of my constituency in the last five weeks, so believe me, there are much bigger things that I would prefer to be talking about at this time,"Eastwood stated.
