Starmer should face Commons inquiry over Mandelson vetting, says Ed Davey | Keir Starmer
A powerful House of Commons committee should investigate whether Keir Starmer misled parliament over the appointment of Peter Mandelson as ambassador to Washington, Ed Davey said.
The Liberal Democrat leader called for an investigation by the privileges committee to determine whether the prime minister was in contempt of parliament, an offense that could lead to the resignation of ministers.
The prime minister is under increasing pressure to reveal what he knows about the pre-appointment process after the Guardian revealed security officials suggested his former Labor colleague be refused a security clearance, but the suggestion was rejected.
On Thursday night, Starmer sacked the Foreign Office’s most senior civil servant, Olly Robbins. On Friday morning the prime minister’s chief secretary, Darren Jones, described the row as a “failure of the state”.
Davey said on Friday: “We need to fully understand when Keir Starmer knew and whether he deliberately misled parliament about this terrible scandal. The public deserve the truth, not a cover-up.”
“If it turns out that Starmer was aware at the time that Mandelson’s security clearance had been rejected, this would constitute a gross abuse of power and a betrayal of the national interest.
“Boris Johnson eventually resigned after misleading parliament. If Starmer did the same, he should be held to the same standard.”
Liberal Democrats will press the House of Commons on Monday to debate a motion to open a privileges committee inquiry. Johnson resigned as an MP in 2023 after the committee found that he deliberately misled parliament.
Downing Street said the prime minister did not know that Mandelson had failed his security clearance until this week. Starmer will appear before parliament on Monday to explain his perspective on events.
Jones said on Friday: “The Prime Minister is as angry as anyone because he would have expected to be told that the UK security inquiry did not recommend the appointment of Peter Mandelson.
“He is angry at the state. So, this is the weakness of the state. It is a security weakness.
Jones added that officers were suspending their ability to override the recommendations of reviewing officers.
Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch said on Friday she did not believe the prime minister’s denials.
“It is completely unreasonable for us to believe that public officials would exonerate a political figure who has failed a vetting,” he told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.
“We wouldn’t have found out if it wasn’t for the Guardian. So I’m afraid the story doesn’t hold up. The Prime Minister is making fools of us.”
Badenoch, along with other opposition MPs, called for Starmer to resign immediately.
Green Party MP Siân Berry said: “Keir Starmer lied and lied again about his decision to appoint Peter Mandelson and he needs to resign. Starmer told parliament ‘due process’ was followed. This report makes clear that is not true.”
Reform UK leader Nigel Farage Published on X: “Keir Starmer said in February that the security services had given Mandelson ‘clearance for duty’. Now we realize he was blatantly lying, the prime minister must resign.”
Emily Thornberry, the Labor chair of the foreign affairs select committee, said before Robbins was sacked that her committee would call him out on his previous evidence to establish whether he had misled MPs.
“My committee has asked several times whether red flags were raised during the Peter Mandelson review process. It appears there were,” he said. “Who ignored these concerns? Why have we been left in the dark? People need to stop messing with us and tell us the truth.”
Downing Street said Starmer was informed of the review override on Tuesday night and ordered an investigation. However, the prime minister also faced questions about why he did not disclose the development to MPs on Wednesday.
Many Labor MPs have privately warned that Starmer’s future will depend on new evidence emerging about whether the Foreign Office made the decision unilaterally.
“[It’s] “It’s hard to see how this wouldn’t be a deadly thing if the Prime Minister knew,” said one backbencher.
Another said: “No 10 tells everyone they don’t know. It’s not credible and no one will believe them unless they show receipts and fire Olly Robbins.”
A third said the idea that Starmer was unaware “extends beyond naivety”.
