Members of Parliament are set to vote on whether the Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, should be referred to the Commons Privileges Committee over claims he misled Parliament in relation to the vetting of Peter Mandelson.
The move follows a decision by the Speaker of the House of Commons, Lindsay Hoyle, to allow a debate and subsequent vote on the issue.
MPs will decide whether the committee, which examines potential breaches of parliamentary conduct, should open a formal inquiry.
The controversy centres on statements made by the Prime Minister in Parliament, where he said that “full due process” had been followed in the vetting of Lord Mandelson for a diplomatic role. Sir Keir has also stated that “no pressure whatsoever” was placed on officials during the process. Critics have challenged both claims.
The Privileges Committee has the authority to investigate whether ministers have misled the House. Under the Ministerial Code, knowingly misleading Parliament is considered a resigning matter. The committee previously investigated Boris Johnson over the Partygate scandal, concluding he had misled MPs, a finding that contributed to his departure from Parliament in 2023.
The scheduled vote is expected to take place on Tuesday, coinciding with evidence sessions before the Foreign Affairs Committee involving senior figures, including former officials linked to the Mandelson appointment.
Political pressure on the Prime Minister has intensified in recent days. He has already faced criticism over his decision to dismiss a senior civil servant following the row, and reports of divisions within government ranks.
Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has been among those calling for further scrutiny. In a public statement, she said:
“Keir Starmer misled Parliament, sacked officials for his own failures, and risked national security with Mandelson’s appointment. MPs will now vote on referring him to the Privileges Committee. The Prime Minister should be held to the same standards he held others.”
Sir Keir has denied misleading Parliament and has sought to clarify his earlier remarks, arguing there are “different types of pressure” in government decision making, including routine urgency to complete appointments.
Government ministers have defended the Prime Minister’s position. Emma Reynolds said it had been “categorically proven” that he did not lie to Parliament, maintaining that due process had been followed, though she acknowledged flaws in the system itself.
Meanwhile, Labour MP Emily Thornberry suggested that launching a separate inquiry at this stage could be premature, noting her committee is already examining the circumstances around the appointment. She indicated that some calls for a vote may be politically motivated ahead of upcoming local elections.
With the government holding a Commons majority, the outcome of the vote may depend on whether Labour MPs support or abstain on the motion. If approved, an inquiry could have significant political consequences and prolong scrutiny of the Prime Minister’s handling of the issue.
