Senior Labour Figures Dismiss New Inquiry into Prime Minister's Mandelson Appointment Claims

Calls for a fresh parliamentary investigation into the Prime Minister's honesty regarding the vetting process for Lord Mandelson's appointment as the UK's ambassador to the US have been criticised by senior Labour figures.

Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch asserted that Sir Keir Starmer had misled Parliament "multiple times" on the matter. She urged Labour MPs to support a new inquiry by the Privileges Committee.

Conversely, Dame Emily Thornberry, a Labour MP chairing the Foreign Affairs Committee which is currently scrutinising the appointment, stated there was no "rush" for another inquiry. She suggested some MPs were "trying to score points ahead of the local elections". Separately, former Labour ministers Lord Blunkett and Alan Johnson labelled an inquiry a "waste of money".

Potential Vote and Precedent

The Commons Speaker, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, must permit a debate on the issue, after which MPs would vote on launching an investigation. Should a vote proceed, it could occur as early as Tuesday.

Given the government's majority in the House of Commons, a substantial number of Labour MPs would need to vote for an inquiry or abstain for it to be initiated. The Privileges Committee investigates breaches of parliamentary rules, having previously ruled that former Prime Minister Boris Johnson misled MPs over Downing Street gatherings during the Covid pandemic. The Ministerial Code stipulates that ministers who knowingly mislead Parliament are expected to resign.

Lord Mandelson was removed from the Washington DC post seven months after his appointment due to his association with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Sir Keir has apologised for the appointment but faces continued scrutiny over the thoroughness of the vetting process.

Contradictory Accounts

Speaking on Monday, Kemi Badenoch maintained that "a lot of information that doesn't add up" remains. She criticised the Prime Minister, suggesting he was "saying whatever he needs to to save his own skin", and accused him of misleading Parliament by claiming "full due process" was followed and that "no pressure existed whatsoever" on the Civil Service to approve Lord Mandelson.

However, Sir Olly Robbins, a senior civil servant in the Foreign Office until his removal by the Prime Minister, told the Foreign Affairs Committee last week that there was "constant pressure", though he clarified this did not influence his decision to grant Lord Mandelson security clearance. Sir Keir later attempted to clarify his parliamentary statements to The Sunday Times, distinguishing between "different types of pressure", including routine governmental pressure to complete tasks quickly.

Environment Secretary Emma Reynolds defended the Prime Minister, asserting, "It was categorically proven last week that the PM did not lie to Parliament. The prime minister had said that due process was followed and due process was followed, unfortunately the process was fundamentally flawed."

A potential vote on a Privileges Committee inquiry is scheduled for Tuesday, coinciding with evidence from senior former government figures, including the Prime Minister's former chief of staff Morgan McSweeney and former senior civil servant at the Foreign Office Sir Philip Barton, to the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey insisted Labour MPs must have a free vote on any motion to refer Sir Keir to the Privileges Committee. Reform UK's economic spokesman Robert Jenrick, while critical of the Prime Minister, suggested Parliament should prioritise the British public's concerns over the Mandelson affair.

In a joint statement to The Times, former Labour ministers Johnson and Lord Blunkett dismissed Conservative demands for a Privileges Committee inquiry as a "nakedly political stunt", drawing a distinction from the Boris Johnson case where a police investigation had directly contradicted his statements.

Dame Emily Thornberry reiterated that her committee was already investigating the appointment, expressing concern that a Privileges Committee inquiry would unnecessarily duplicate their work. She added, "I don't really see why we're doing it at the moment, apart from, potentially people trying to score points in advance of the local elections."