MPs vote against investigation into whether Starmer misled parliament

MPs have rejected an investigation into whether the prime minister misled parliament in his characterisation of Peter Mandelson’s appointment as Washington Ambassador.

In a vote on Tuesday afternoon, MPs opposed referring the PM, after Labour backbenches came together under a party whip to reject it.

The final numbers stood at 223 to and 335 against referring Starmer to the committee, a majority of 112.

In the run-up to the vote, allies of the PM described the motion as a “political stunt”, accusing the Conservatives and opposition parties of seeking to influence the upcoming local elections.

In her remarks ahead of the debate, Tory leader Kemi Badenoch said the motion was about “whether parliament matters more than party.”

She went on to say: “It is about whether Members believe in transparency, accountability, and the rules that underpin our democracy.

Every member voting today must decide what kind of representative they want to be. They can support proper scrutiny and uphold the standards they promised their constituents, or they can choose party over principle.”

Despite the victory, some in Starmer’s party expressed confusion over why the prime minister didn’t refer himself to the committee in the confidence he had done nothing wrong.

When former prime minister Boris Johnson faced a similar vote on misleading parliament over lockdown parties in Downing Street during the Covid pandemic, anger from his own backbenches led him to waive the vote through unopposed by his own MPs.

This investigation would later find he had misled parliament and recommend a ten-week suspension from the House as an MP.

Johnson resigned before a vote could be taken on whether to implement this sanction.

Earlier on Tuesday, two ex-officials gave evidence on Mandelson’s appointment and security vetting to MPs on the Foreign Affairs Select Committee.

The claims Starmer stood accused of misleading MPs over were addressed by both the former permanent under secretary in the Foreign Office, Sir Philip Barton, and Starmer’s ex-chief of staff Morgan McSweeney.

McSweeney denied he had exerted pressure on the Foreign Office to approve Mandelson’s security clearance “at any cost”, and Barton’s testimony supported this, drawing a distinction between pressure to complete the process and pressure to reach a certain decision.

On the latter, Barton denied that had been the case.

On the issue of whether “due process” had been followed, Barton did, however, say it was not normal for the appointment to be announced before completing security vetting, as had been advised by the then cabinet secretary Simon Case.

Parliament will break later this week ahead of May’s local elections.

Further documents relating to Mandelson’s appointment and time in Washington are expected to be released as part of the Conservative Humble Address after these take place.