Opposition parties push for inquiry as Starmer denies misleading MPs over vetting row

A fresh political storm has engulfed Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, with opposition parties moving to trigger a formal parliamentary inquiry into claims he misled MPs over a controversial ambassadorial appointment.

Senior figures from the Conservative Party, the Scottish National Party, and the Liberal Democrats have formally approached Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle, urging him to refer the prime minister to the Privileges Committee. The move centres on allegations that Sir Keir gave inaccurate assurances to Parliament regarding the vetting process for Lord Peter Mandelson’s appointment as UK ambassador to the United States.

At the heart of the dispute lies Sir Keir’s insistence that “due process” had been followed. Speaking during Prime Minister’s Questions, he pointed to confirmation from senior civil servant Sir Olly Robbins, arguing that the vetting recommendation had not been shared with him. According to the prime minister, this clarification “puts to bed all the allegations” of dishonesty made by his critics.

Yet the pressure has not eased. Instead, it has intensified across Westminster, with critics questioning whether the prime minister’s account fully reflects what officials knew—and when. The Privileges Committee, which previously found former prime minister Boris Johnson guilty of misleading Parliament over the partygate scandal, would be responsible for determining whether Sir Keir breached parliamentary standards. Any referral would ultimately require a vote by MPs.

The controversy shows no sign of fading. On Thursday, scrutiny is set to deepen as Cabinet Office permanent secretary Cat Little prepares to give evidence before the Foreign Affairs Committee. Her testimony is expected to focus on the vetting procedures surrounding Lord Mandelson’s appointment, a process now under intense examination.

Within Sir Keir’s own party, unease has begun to surface. Labour MP Dan Carden has publicly criticised the prime minister’s handling of the situation, adding to the growing chorus of concern. His intervention marks a notable shift, as internal dissent begins to mirror the attacks coming from opposition benches.

Complicating matters further, questions continue to swirl around what Downing Street knew about the vetting outcome and when that information became available. Reports indicate that concerns about Lord Mandelson’s security clearance had been raised months earlier, casting doubt on the government’s timeline of events.

The issue has also drawn attention to the role of senior advisers. Morgan McSweeney, Sir Keir’s former chief of staff, has been summoned to appear before MPs next week. Widely regarded as instrumental in Lord Mandelson’s appointment, his testimony could prove pivotal in clarifying how the decision was made and whether proper procedures were followed.

Meanwhile, the dismissal of Sir Olly Robbins has added another layer of controversy. The former Foreign Office chief was removed from his post after stating that he had not informed the prime minister about the details of the vetting decision. Allies of Sir Olly have suggested he was sacked before he had the opportunity to fully defend his position, fuelling further debate about transparency within government.

As the row deepens, the political stakes continue to rise. The Privileges Committee referral, if approved, could trigger a high-profile investigation with significant consequences for Sir Keir’s leadership. For now, the prime minister remains defiant, maintaining that he acted in good faith and followed established procedures.

However, with multiple inquiries looming and pressure mounting both inside and outside his party, the controversy shows little sign of dissipating. Westminster now braces for what could become one of the most consequential political confrontations of Sir Keir Starmer’s premiership.