Will Starmer face a sleaze inquiry over Lord Mandelson vetting claims?

Sir Keir Starmer is facing calls for a sleaze inquiry over his claims about the appointment of Peter Mandelson as US ambassador.

Opposition parties have said the prime minister should be referred to the powerful privileges committee over whether he misled parliament in his statements about what he knew about the vetting of Lord Mandelson, who was sacked after seven months in the job over his links to paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein.

Politics latest: Starmer under more pressure over vetting scandal

On Tuesday afternoon, MPs will vote on whether to refer the PM to the committee to face an investigation.

Boris Johnson was investigated by the committee over claims he misled parliament about what he knew about the COVID "partygate" allegations, and after they found he had, he resigned.

We look into whether Sir Keir could face an investigation and how that could take place:

What does the privileges committee do?

The committee, made up of seven cross-party MPs, conducts inquiries into whether an MP has breached parliamentary privilege.

A contempt of privilege is any act, or failure to act, that "may prevent or hinder the work of either House of Parliament".

An MP misleads the House by either deliberately providing false information or failing to correct the record after inadvertently giving inaccurate information to parliament.

How can an MP be referred to the privileges committee?

Any MP can refer another MP to the committee by writing a letter to the Speaker complaining about a breach of privilege or a contempt. The letter must not be made public.

After receiving a letter, or letters, about Sir Keir, the Speaker, currently Sir Lindsay Hoyle, has decided the issue should be treated as a matter of privilege, and therefore MPs will get to vote on whether the PM should face an investigation.

Read more:
Defiant PM stands by sacking Sir Olly Robbins
Starmer faces pressure as Labour leadership chatter grows

What happens during an investigation?

The committee will request written evidence from relevant parties, which can include documents, emails and reports.

Witnesses will also be called to give oral evidence before the committee analyses the evidence to see if any misleading statements were reckless or intentional rather than accidental.

A report outlining its findings and recommending sanctions, such as suspension or reprimand, will then be published.

The House of Commons then holds a vote to decide whether to accept the report's findings and if the proposed sanctions should be implemented.

Mr Johnson resigned after receiving a draft report, before it could go to a vote, as the report found he had deliberately misled the Commons and the committee, and was complicit in a campaign of abuse and attempted intimidation of the committee.

Where are we in the process for Sir Keir, and what is he accused of?

The Conservatives, Lib Dems, the SNP and at least one former Labour MP, Karl Turner, have complained about Sir Keir's comments to the House over his knowledge of the vetting of Lord Mandelson.

Their complaints are based around Sir Keir telling Prime Minister's Questions last Wednesday that "no pressure existed whatsoever" for the Foreign Office to approve the security vetting of Lord Mandelson.

Sir Olly Robbins, who was sacked over his decision not to tell Sir Keir the former Labour peer had failed security checks ahead of his appointment as ambassador to Washington in December 2024, told MPs the day before that "constant pressure" was applied.

The opposition parties have said they believe Sir Olly's statement is a direct contradiction of what the PM said, and they believe it shows he has misled parliament.

They are also questioning Sir Keir's repeated insistence that "due process" was followed after it emerged that then-Cabinet Secretary Simon Case advised security vetting should be carried out before a political appointee was given the job.

This was not done, with royal assent and access to classified material granted to Lord Mandelson before vetting was carried out.

Number 10, and other ministers, have denied Sir Keir lied to parliament, with Environment Secretary Emma Reynolds telling Sky News the Tories were playing "silly political games".

What happens next?

Labour MPs may be whipped to vote against the motion, and, because of their large majority, the issue would go no further.

There have been grumblings among Labour MPs, so if they do get a free vote, Sir Keir could be facing an investigation.

Sir Ed Davey, leader of the Lib Dems, has called on the PM to give his MPs a free vote and to "not force them into being accomplices to a cover up".

"Even Boris Johnson didn't block his MPs from voting for scrutiny," he added.

In Mr Johnson's case, he allowed his MPs a free vote due to anger on the backbenches. Sir Keir led the opposition charge in getting him referred.

If MPs do vote for the matter to go to the privileges committee, then Sir Keir will face an investigation into whether his comments were knowingly misleading or if he failed to correct the record for inadvertently giving inaccurate information.

(c) Sky News 2026: Will Starmer face a sleaze inquiry over Lord Mandelson vetting claims?