Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer will not face a parliamentary investigation over claims he misled MPs regarding the appointment of Lord Peter Mandelson as US ambassador. The House of Commons voted 335 to 223 against a Conservative-led motion that sought to trigger an inquiry by the cross-party Privileges Committee.
The motion, tabled by Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch, accused Starmer of misleading Parliament when he said the vetting process for Mandelson followed "full due process" and that "no pressure whatsoever" was applied to Foreign Office officials. The Ministerial Code states that ministers who knowingly mislead Parliament are expected to resign, while inadvertent errors should be corrected promptly.
Despite some Labour MPs arguing the PM should have referred himself to the committee, the majority voted to reject the motion after a concerted effort by No 10 to ensure party unity. Fourteen Labour MPs rebelled, voting in favor of the motion. Among them was South Shields MP Emma Lewell, who said the government's handling "smacks of being out of touch and disconnected from the public mood" and that it "played into the terrible narrative that there is something to hide."
Senior cabinet minister Darren Jones defended Starmer, accusing Badenoch of "ranting incoherence." He argued that Starmer's words should be placed "in the right context," noting he was responding to claims that Mandelson should not be vetted at all.
The appointment has been controversial since Mandelson began the role in February 2025 but was sacked in September after new information emerged about his ties to the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Starmer has faced repeated questions about why Mandelson received security clearance despite concerns from vetting officials.
During a recent Foreign Affairs Committee hearing, senior civil servant Sir Philip Barton said No 10 did not consult him before the decision, revealing he was "presented with a decision" and "told to get on with it." Morgan McSweeney, Starmer's former chief of staff, admitted to making "a serious mistake" in recommending the appointment, though he insisted officials were never asked to "skip steps."
Labour MP Rebecca Long-Bailey suggested there would be a "moment of reckoning after the local elections" on 7 May for Starmer's future. However, several Labour MPs defended the government, with Gurinder Singh Josan calling the call for a committee referral "premature" given ongoing scrutiny of the vetting process.
The Liberal Democrats, SNP, Greens, DUP, Plaid Cymru, Reform UK, and nine independent MPs joined the Tories in supporting the motion. Fifty-three Labour MPs did not record a vote, which can be due to permission to miss the vote or government business.