MPs to vote on whether to hold inquiry into Starmer over Mandelson
Keir Starmer will face a vote on whether to launch a standards investigation into his decision to appoint Peter Mandelson as ambassador to Washington, prompting senior party figures to call for restraint from Labour MPs.The speaker, Lindsay Hoyle, has granted a debate on Tuesday after which MPs could vote to refer the prime minister to the privileges committee over claims he misled parliament over his decision.The vote would be the latest test of Starmer’s authority, which has been damaged by the Guardian’s revelation Mandelson was installed as ambassador despite the advice of vetting officials that he be denied security clearance.Government whips are considering whether to instruct Labour MPs to oppose any attempt to refer the prime minister to the committee – with senior figures accusing the Conservatives of political point scoring.The former prime minister Gordon Brown said: “At challenging times both for our country and the world, the Labour party has always sought to put the needs of the country first.
With conflicts raging around the world with profound consequences for our country, this is the time to do so.“Whatever the parliamentary games at Westminster, what the country expects of everyone in Labour is to focus on the priorities of the British people, which is what Keir Starmer is doing and for which he deserves all our support.”The speaker told the Commons on Monday that “numerous” MPs from different parties – understood to include Labour – had written to him about the issue.“My role is to decide whether an [MP] has made a case which the house itself should be able to consider, not to decide whether someone is likely to have committed a contempt,” he said.“I’ve decided to allow the house to come to a view on whether the committee of privileges should look at the matter.
It is not for me to make any decision or view.”The Tories have accused the prime minister of misleading MPs when he said “full due process” had been followed during the appointment process.Knowingly misleading parliament is considered a resigning offence for ministers, and a privileges committee investigation in 2023 prompted Boris Johnson’s resignation as an MP.No 10 argues that Starmer was commenting on the facts he had available to him at the time.Opposition parties have pointed to a memo from Simon Case, the former cabinet secretary, who appeared to advise Starmer to complete security vetting for Mandelson before announcing an appointment.
The Guardian understands, however, that Case may have been advising him simply to begin the process.The Conservatives have also accused Starmer of misleading MPs by suggesting that there was “no pressure whatsoever” applied on the Foreign Office, when Olly Robbins, the top official sacked over the affair, said last week there was.Downing Street has said the prime minister’s comment about “pressure” referred to the security vetting process, rather than the broader appointment of Mandelson.In an interview with the Guardian last week, David Lammy, the deputy prime minister, admitted there had been “some time pressures” on the Foreign Office last January to confirm Mandelson in post as Donald Trump was re-entering the White House.The foreign affairs committee, chaired by the Labour MP Emily Thornberry, has already begun an inquiry into Mandelson’s appointment.
Downing Street says the evidence it has heard so far, including from senior civil servants, has shown Starmer told the truth.The former cabinet ministers Alan Johnson and David Blunkett released a joint statement calling the Tory move a “nakedly political stunt with no substance”, while Thornberry said she could not see the need for a second inquiry while the one she was leading was still taking place.The government is expected to whip Labour MPs to vote against an investigation – making it unlikely the Conservatives will succeed.However, Tory sources said they wanted to use it to tell voters at the local elections that their Labour MP backed him.Some Labour MPs may side with the opposition, however, giving a sense of the party’s discontent with the prime minister over the issue.
Although such referrals to the privileges committee are rare, Boris Johnson was forced to wave through his own referral in the wake of the Partygate scandal amid anger on the Tory benches.
No 10 publishes previously confidential memo to refute claim that Starmer misled MPs over Mandelson appointment – as it happened
Lindsay Hoyle, the Commons speaker, is telling MPs about the privileges committee debate.He says he received letters from various MPs, including the opposition leader.He says issues like this should be taken to the privileges committee sparingly.He is a gatekeeper, he says. He says he is there to stop frivolous complaints being taken forward
MPs to vote on whether to hold inquiry into Starmer over Mandelson
Keir Starmer will face a vote on whether to launch a standards investigation into his decision to appoint Peter Mandelson as ambassador to Washington, prompting senior party figures to call for restraint from Labour MPs.The speaker, Lindsay Hoyle, has granted a debate on Tuesday after which MPs could vote to refer the prime minister to the privileges committee over claims he misled parliament over his decision.The vote would be the latest test of Starmer’s authority, which has been damaged by the Guardian’s revelation Mandelson was installed as ambassador despite the advice of vetting officials that he be denied security clearance.Government whips are considering whether to instruct Labour MPs to oppose any attempt to refer the prime minister to the committee – with senior figures accusing the Conservatives of political point scoring.The former prime minister Gordon Brown said: “At challenging times both for our country and the world, the Labour party has always sought to put the needs of the country first
Support Starmer and move on from Mandelson vetting row | Letters
Regarding Gaby Hinsliff’s article (Two men made mistakes over Mandelson – only one has lost his job. That should haunt Starmer, 24 April), most would concur that the prime minister has the most important job in the country. It is also one of the most demanding jobs, if it is to be done well. So would it not be better to help Keir Starmer instead of trying to hound him out of office for an error made in December 2024 that has been corrected?Would it not be better to support him in the job we elected him to do instead of him having to spend time and energy defending himself against his implacable adversaries? Would that not be preferable to replacing him with someone chosen by a small contingent of the elected party? Can we not learn from the chaos caused by the last government in switching prime ministers?Michael GoodhartGrantchester, Cambridge “An atmosphere of pressure”, Sir Olly Robbins (Report, 21 April)? Isn’t that what you’re paid to work in? All you had to do was go to your boss, the cabinet secretary, and get him to go to the prime minister to call them off. Tell a police officer, an A&E nurse or a children’s social worker about your “atmosphere of pressure”
Match the children’s game to the profession | Brief letters
I was interested to read that Peter Mandelson was seen going to the park to walk his dog “like a weekending solicitor on his way to an egg and spoon race” (Walking the dog and braving the paps, 25 April). Are there other professions known for their love of children’s games? Maybe a retired GP going to play musical chairs, or a pair of award-winning architects en route to a three-legged race?Lesley WarnerIlford, London Re Graham Head’s point about Nigel Farage (Letters, 23 April), if the job of the US ambassador is to be an obsequious boot-licker at the court of King Donald, Farage was eminently qualified. If he’d been appointed, he wouldn’t be where he is now. And we wouldn’t be where we are now either.James WilkinsonShrewsbury, Shropshire Regarding EV charging, how many households with no off-street parking can guarantee a parking spot outside their door (Shake-up will help UK motorists without driveways to charge EVs, 21 April)? Very few
What the parties promise Welsh voters on the NHS, schools, childcare and tax
The parties most likely to win the Senedd election next month offer radically different futures for Wales, but all six are facing criticism for not being “upfront” in their manifestos about the fiscal challenges the next Welsh government will face.Labour, Plaid Cymru, Reform UK, the Green party, the Conservative party, and the Liberal Democrats are standing for the Senedd, which is expanding from 60 to 96 seats under a more proportional voting system.Polls suggest Plaid Cymru or Reform will be the biggest party, with Welsh Labour, which has led the country for nearly 30 years, in a distant third. Coalition mathematics means Plaid is the only party likely to be able to form a government, possibly in coalition with the Greens or Labour.This week, the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) thinktank said that its analysis of the party manifestos showed “virtually no detail” on spending commitments; big public investment plans are beyond Wales’s current budgets, and will require expensive upfront private funding, or increased borrowing powers
Police assess evidence on £40,000 donation to Robert Jenrick’s campaign
Police are assessing evidence about donations to Robert Jenrick’s campaign to become Conservative leader in 2024 after a referral from the elections watchdog, the Guardian can reveal.The information was passed on by the Electoral Commission, which the Guardian understands has been investigating allegations that almost £40,000 of donations to Jenrick’s leadership campaign before he defected to Reform UK, were from a foreign source in breach of electoral rules.The Met said: “On Tuesday, 6 January we received a referral from the Electoral Commission concerning donations connected to a leadership campaign. This referral is under review and until it has been completed, we’re not in a position to comment further.”The Electoral Commission confirmed that it had sent evidence about a leadership campaign to the Met after conducting its own investigation, with its inquiries now paused while the police review the material
What’s going on with Spirit Airlines and could the White House bail them out?
G7 central banks poised to hold borrowing costs amid concerns over prolonged Iran war
HSBC ‘reviewing’ private school perk for bankers in Hong Kong
Nationwide could have first customer on board for nearly 25 years
Gina Rinehart calls for immigrants’ social media to be screened in Anzac memorial speech
Children’s shoe retailers say closure of specialist shops is harming foot health