Starmer sees off Tory calls for inquiry into Mandelson role after No 10 flexes muscle | Keir Starmer

Keir Starmer has thwarted an opposition attempt to refer him to the standards committee over Peter Mandelson’s appointment after Downing Street threw its weight around to force Labor MPs to back the prime minister.

But the Labor leader bore the brunt of the anger from some backbenchers who accused him of creating a situation in which they would be perceived as complicit in the “cover-up”.

The vote, tabled by Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch, was about whether the privileges committee should consider whether the prime minister misled the House of Commons in relation to his disgraced counterpart taking on the role of Britain’s ambassador to the US.

It will be a relief for the government that Labor figures such as Angela Rayner choose to keep their powder dry, while the Liberal Democrats unite opposition parties including the Scottish National Party, Reform and others. The government won the vote by 335 votes to 223, with a majority of 112.

Fifteen Labor supporters, mostly from the left of the party and with rebel backgrounds, backed the motion, including John McDonnell, Richard Burgon, Nadia Whittome, Andy McDonald and Cat Smith.

However, there will be concerns that 53 Labor MPs did not vote, although some, such as Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper, were absent on government business and others had permission through the whip to be absent.

Among the rioters was South Shields Labor MP Emma Lewell, who said the government’s handling of the concession motion was something to hide from the public and said she could not understand why Starmer would not accept it.

“It is wrong, in my view, that MPs like me are being forced to vote against this motion. It has reinforced the terrible narrative that there is something to hide and that good, decent colleagues will be accused of being complicit in a cover-up.”

Lewell said he “will not vote against this motion”, adding: “I cannot understand why the Prime Minister has not approached the committee with a clear statement that he is doing this to clear his name. A short sitting of the committee can see that this matter has certainly been settled.”

Badenoch opened the debate by accusing Starmer of forcing MPs to help him “to avoid scrutiny”.

“They are being whipped today to exonerate him before the facts have yet been tested,” he added.

Badenoch said the motion was based on “facts”, including that the prime minister appointed Mandelson before his vetting was completed, against advice given to him in November, and that his own national security adviser Jonathan Powell described the appointment as “grotesquely rushed”.

“We also know that this latest information about security review issues did not come from the humble address. [the mechanism used by her party to force the release of relevant documents]. “This stemmed from a leak to the Guardian,” Badenoch said, referring to the Guardian’s statement that the Foreign Office had given permission for Mandelson to take on the role of ambassador, despite being advised by the UK Security Review (UKSV) that it should be rejected.

Ed Davey, leader of the Liberal Democrats, likened Starmer’s reaction to the motion to that of Boris Johnson, who faced a similar vote that paved the way for an investigation into whether the then Conservative MP misled parliament about alleged breaches of lockdown rules when he was prime minister.

“The Prime Minister called this motion a stunt, which is not why I put my name in. But it’s still funny because ‘stunt’ is exactly the word Boris Johnson used about the motion the prime minister and I tabled four years ago to refer to Boris Johnson’s privileges committee,” Davey said.

The prime minister’s chief secretary, Darren Jones, who closed the debate on behalf of the government, said: “In recent weeks some have accused the prime minister of dishonesty and said it was impossible for Foreign Office officials to give Peter Mandelson a pass against the advice of the investigating agency, let alone without meeting the prime minister himself.”

But he insisted those accusations had been “disproved” by the Guardian’s testimony to a House of Commons committee from former Foreign Office permanent secretary Olly Robbins, who was sacked by Starmer after the civil servant revealed he had overturned UKSV advice denying Mandelson leave.

There was also harsh criticism of the prime minister from figures including Alliance Lagan Valley MP Sorcha Eastwood, who disputed Labour’s claims that supporters of the motion were staging a demonstration. “I’ve had two car bombs on the fringes of my constituency in the last five weeks, so believe me, there are much bigger things I’d rather talk about right now,” he said.