PM won't face inquiry over claims he misled MPs on Mandelson vetting
The House of Commons voted against launching a parliamentary inquiry into whether Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer misled MPs regarding the vetting process for Lord Mandelson's appointment as US ambassador. Despite some Labour MPs rebelling and criticism over transparency, the motion, led by Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch, was defeated with government efforts to secure support. Starmer denies misleading Parliament, maintaining that no improper pressure was applied during the appointment process.
- ▪The House of Commons voted 335 to 223 against a motion to refer Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer to the Privileges Committee over claims he misled Parliament.
- ▪Fourteen Labour MPs rebelled in support of the motion, while one cast both a yes and no vote, typically seen as an abstention.
- ▪Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch argued Starmer's statements on the Mandelson vetting process were incorrect and inconsistent with the Ministerial Code.
- ▪Labour MPs were reportedly summoned from campaign duties in Scotland to ensure sufficient numbers to defeat the motion.
- ▪The Lib Dems, SNP, Greens, DUP, Plaid Cymru, Reform and nine independent MPs supported the Conservatives in backing the inquiry motion.
Opening excerpt (first ~120 words) tap to expand
PM won't face inquiry over claims he misled MPs on Mandelson vetting13 hours agoShareSaveAdd as preferred on GoogleRichard WheelerPolitical reporterAFP via Getty ImagesSir Keir Starmer (left) and Lord Peter MandelsonSir Keir Starmer will not face a parliamentary investigation over claims he misled MPs about the process to appoint Lord Mandelson as US ambassador.The House of Commons voted 335 to 223 against a Conservative-led motion which sought to trigger the inquiry.Some Labour MPs on the left of the party said the PM should have referred himself to the Privileges Committee, but the majority voted to reject the motion after a concerted operation by No 10 to ensure they were on side.Sir Keir has denied accusations he misled MPs over whether vetting for the role of US ambassador followed…
Excerpt limited to ~120 words for fair-use compliance. The full article is at BBC News.
Discussion
0 commentsMore from BBC News
