MPs reject bid to investigate claim PM misled Commons over Mandelson appointment

Sir Keir Starmer will not face a parliamentary investigation into claims he misled Parliament over the appointment of Lord Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the US.

MPs rejected a bid by the Conservatives to refer the Prime Minister to the Commons Privileges Committee on Tuesday by 335 to 223 after Labour MPs were ordered to oppose the move.

Tory leader Kemi Badenoch had accused the Prime Minister of misleading the Commons by claiming “full due process” had been followed and “no pressure existed” in Lord Mandelson’s appointment.

Some Labour figures have branded Mrs Badenoch’s call for an investigation a “political stunt”.

But a handful of backbenchers broke ranks on Tuesday to criticise the Government for whipping its MPs to oppose the motion, and suggested the Prime Minister should refer himself to the Privileges Committee to “clear his name”.

Some 15 Labour MPs rebelled against the whip and backed Mrs Badenoch’s motion, along with Hull MP Karl Turner who recently lost the Labour whip over his opposition to plans to limit jury trials.

Sir Keir himself attended the Commons on Tuesday evening to vote against the motion.

Following the vote, a Downing Street spokesman said 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 said Sir Keir had “ducked scrutiny” by whipping his MPs to oppose the Tory motion, describing the move as “cowardly”.

Sir Keir has consistently denied misleading the House, leaning on the conclusion of former Cabinet secretary Sir Chris Wormald that “appropriate processes” were followed.

But earlier on Tuesday, former senior Foreign Office mandarin Sir Philip Barton declined to endorse Sir Keir’s assessment, saying it was for MPs to form their own view.

Sir Philip told the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee 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 of Lord Mandelson.

Meanwhile, Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) said on Tuesday it had finished reviewing the Government’s proposed redactions to documents relating to Lord Mandelson’s appointment ahead of publication.

MPs ordered the Government to publish a huge tranche of documents connected to the appointment in February, but so far only a handful have been released.

The Government has asked to redact some of the documents requested 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.

Redactions.

In a statement on Tuesday, ISC chairman Lord Beamish said his committee had reached decisions on all the 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 said the ISC had “made exceptional efforts to ensure that it is not holding up the publication of documents” and any delay in publication of the documents was “in no way due to the committee’s part in the process”.

The Downing Street spokesman said: “We will continue to engage with the two parliamentary processes that are running on Peter Mandelson’s appointment with full transparency.”