Starmer avoids parliamentary probe over Mandelson vetting scandal

MANCHESTER, England (CN) — Members of Parliament voted Tuesday to block an investigation into Prime Minister Keir Starmer over claims he misled Parliament about the vetting of former British ambassador to Washington Peter Mandelson.

Lawmakers rejected the motion 223 to 335 after a five-hour debate in the House of Commons, the lower chamber of the U.K. Parliament.

The proposal, led by the opposition Conservative Party, sought to refer Starmer to the Privileges Committee, a parliamentary body that investigates whether lawmakers have misled the House.

Labour’s large majority ensured the motion failed. But 15 Labour lawmakers broke ranks and voted with the opposition, despite the government imposing a whip to enforce party discipline.

They could now face suspension from the party.

A Downing Street spokesperson said after the vote, the Conservatives had “resorted to this desperate political stunt the week before the May elections because they have no answers on the cost of living or the [National Health Service].”

An investigation would have triggered a formal inquiry into whether Starmer misled lawmakers, a serious offense in Britain’s parliamentary system that can lead to suspension.

The push to investigate Starmer drew comparisons to the downfall of former Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who was investigated by the same committee over misleading Parliament about Covid-19 lockdown parties, which contributed to his political collapse and resignation.

A five-hour affair

Opening the debate, Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch argued it was “very obvious” the prime minister had made statements to Parliament that were “not correct.”

She had urged Labour lawmakers to consider whether they wanted to defend Starmer, telling them each would “need to examine their conscience.”

Badenoch sharpened her attack by linking the issue to Mandelson’s past associations, asking whether Labour lawmakers wanted to side with figures, including child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Mandelson is known to have had contact with Epstein after his earlier conviction, including meetings in the 2000s. He was briefly arrested on suspicion of sharing sensitive government information with Epstein — the same charge facing former Prince Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor.

He remains under police investigation and has consistently denied any wrongdoing.

Some Labour ministers dismissed the motion as political theater.

Several party lawmakers who opposed the inquiry said it risked undermining the Privileges Committee, which functions as a quasi-judicial body policing standards in Parliament.

Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davey rejected Labour’s claim that the vote was a stunt.

He questioned Starmer’s central defense that he would have halted Mandelson’s appointment had he known the outcome of security checks, calling it not credible.

“Honesty, integrity and truth matter,” Davey said.

Despite the party whip ordering Labour lawmakers to vote down the motion, some spoke out against the government line.

Nadia Whittome, a Labour lawmaker, said she was “yet to be convinced” the prime minister had not misled the House, even inadvertently.

Emma Lewell said she felt “let down” and criticized both Mandelson’s appointment and the handling of the vote, warning it fed a perception of a cover-up.

Others defended Starmer.

Sam Rushworth, Labour, called the motion “politically motivated” and said existing evidence supported the prime minister’s account, while Brian Leishman, Labour, said the effort was designed to embarrass him.

Stephen Flynn, Scottish National Party leader in Westminster, said Labour’s refusal to back an inquiry showed “profound weakness,” arguing a confident government would have allowed the investigation to proceed.

Earlier scrutiny for Starmer allies

The Commons clash came hours after Morgan McSweeney, Starmer’s former chief of staff, faced questioning by the Foreign Affairs Committee, one of Parliament’s oversight panels.

McSweeney, who resigned after days of pressure following his involvement in appointing Mandelson, told lawmakers the appointment was a “serious error in judgment” and admitted: “The prime minister relied on my advice, and I got it wrong.”

He denied interfering in the formal vetting process or pressuring officials to clear concerns.

McSweeney also admitted: “I don’t think the prime minister would have chosen Mandelson if Kamala Harris had been elected president.” As the prime minister’s priority was a trade deal with the U.S., McSweeney felt Mandelson was the strongest candidate given his experience as EU trade commissioner from 2004 to 2008.

Former Foreign Office chief Philip Barton also told the committee he had been “worried” Mandelson’s links to Epstein “could be a problem” and said he was not consulted before the appointment, describing Number 10 as “uninterested” in the vetting process.

Election pressure builds

With local elections scheduled across England, Scotland and Wales next week, the Mandelson vetting scandal is bleeding into a broader test of the prime minister’s authority.

Polling suggests Labour is likely to face huge losses to the right-wing, anti-immigration Reform UK party as well as a late surge from the populist, left-wing Green Party.

If those projections hold, the results will not just dent the Labour Party but sharpen questions about Starmer’s survival as prime minister.

Courthouse News reporter James Francis Whitehead is based in England.

Follow @jayfranklinlive