2.2.4 – The ways in which Parliament interacts with the Executive
Following the revelations that Peter Mandelson had not passed developed vetting, and the suggestions that Keir Starmer had misled the House of Commons, the Prime Minister faced intense scrutiny last week. So, what happened?
Monday
Ministerial Statement (House of Commons)
As promised, Keir Starmer went to the House of Commons on Monday to update the House on the facts relating to the most recent developments in the Mandelson scandal. After a 15-minute statement, he answered questions for a gruelling three hours. In his statement, he said that appointing Mandelson was his mistake. He repeated a previous apology to Jeffrey Epstein’s victims. He confirmed that he had only learned on the 14th of April that Foreign Office officials had overridden vetting advice, and he said that neither he, nor any other Minister, had been told. He said that he had suspended the Foreign Office’s powers over vetting and had ordered a review. In all, he admitted his judgement was wrong on Mandelson, but denied misleading the House, and said the silence of civil servants on the vetting situation was “staggering”.
As Leader of the Opposition, Kemi Badenoch was the first to respond to the statement. In what she called an “unprecedented step”, she had sent her questions to Keir Starmer ahead of schedule. This was clearly designed to force Starmer to give committed answers and avoid a political response.
Kemi Badenoch’s six questions were:
- Did he mislead the House by claiming “full due process was followed”?
- Why didn’t No. 10 deny the vetting failure story when asked?
- Will he repeat his claim that no one in No. 10 knew before Tuesday?
- Why is he furious that the normal vetting process was followed?
- How did he know vetting revealed the Epstein link if he hadn’t seen it?
- Did he know Mandelson was a director of Russian firm Sistema?
However, it was probably not the questions asked by Badenoch that provided the stand-out moment. That belonged to veteran Labour MP Diane Abbott, the Mother of the House. Abbott recounted the chequered past of Peter Mandelson, his questionable relationships, and the fact that he had previously twice been forced to resign under Individual Ministerial Responsibility. Then, in a dramatic moment, she turned to Starmer, sitting just a few seats down from her in the Commons, and asked: “…the Prime Minister insists on saying, ‘Nobody told me; nobody told me anything,’ but what this House wants to know is: why did the Prime Minister not ask?” Abbott is no ally of Keir Starmer, far from it, but the loud cheers from the Conservative benches must have been an unusual experience for her.
Questions to Starmer clustered around:
- His judgement (Diane Abbott, Iain Duncan Smith, Esther McVey, Jeremy Corbyn) – why appoint Mandelson given his known history with Epstein, Russia and China?
- The Simon Case advice (David Davis, Ed Davey, Lisa Smart, Harriett Baldwin, Paul Holmes, Graham Stuart) – why ignore the November 2024 letter from the former Cabinet Secretary telling him to get vetting done before announcing?
- Scapegoating officials (Andrew Mitchell, Oliver Dowden, Shockat Adam) – sacking Robbins and others for his own decision.
- Inconsistent statements (Desmond Swayne, Gregory Stafford, John Lamont) – especially his 4th of February claim about vetting revealing the Epstein link.
- Resignation calls (Ed Davey, Ellie Chowns, Brendan O’Hara, Steve Darling, Dave Doogan) – invoking his own 2022 standards on Boris Johnson.
- National security (Julian Lewis, John Whittingdale, Jeremy Wright, Calum Miller, Jonathan Brash) – what damage did Mandelson do with top-secret access?
- Political motives (John McDonnell, Apsana Begum, Richard Burgon, Chris Hinchliff) – was the appointment a reward for Mandelson’s role in his leadership campaign?
Lords Statement (House of Lords)
As is normal, the Ministerial Statement was repeated in the House of Lords for the benefit of peers in that House. The Prime Minister’s statement was read out by Baroness Smith of Basildon, the Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Lords. Following the statement, Baroness Smith took questions on behalf of the Government. The general themes of the questions were similar to those in the Commons. Other issues raised uniquely in the Lords included:
- Procedural complaints (Lord True) – objecting that the statement wasn’t repeated at prime time and that peers had to respond before Robbins gave evidence.
- Missing documents (Lord Beamish, ISC Chair) – revealing that the Cabinet Office had told the ISC that vetting documents “did not exist” until The Guardian reported otherwise.
- Fair dismissal of Robbins (Lord Vaux) – a pointed question on whether the Government followed the employment procedures it champions in legislation when sacking him by phone.
- First-hand vetting experience (Lord Roe, Lord Harris) – both described going through DV themselves, asking why ambassadors seemed to be treated differently from others who fail.
Tuesday
Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs Select Committee (House of Commons)
On Tuesday, Sir Olly Robbins appeared before the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs Select Committee. It is not unusual for a senior civil servant to appear before a select committee. However, it was unusual given that Robbins had been sacked a few days earlier by Keir Starmer. Onlookers hoping that Robbins would produce the smoking gun showing that Starmer knew Mandelson had failed developed vetting were left disappointed. Robbins confirmed that he had not told the Prime Minister or anyone at Number 10. However, this does not mean that the session was not damaging for the Prime Minister. During the session, Robbins said that he had been under consistent pressure from Number 10 to get the Mandelson appointment through, and that Number 10 appeared to take a “dismissive” approach to the vetting itself. In addition, Sir Olly Robbins said that Number 10 had asked for an ambassadorial post for Matthew Doyle, the Director of Communications. Doyle has since been appointed a Labour Lord but has had the whip withdrawn due to his association with a now-convicted paedophile. Robbins’ testimony was, therefore, very damaging to Starmer.
Emergency Debate (House of Commons)
In the House of Commons, an MP can apply to the Speaker for an Emergency Debate on an issue. This is done under Standing Order 24 and is often called a “Standing Order 24 Debate”. Whether an Emergency Debate should be granted is entirely at the discretion of the Speaker. In this case, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the current Speaker, granted the debate. This was the second time the Speaker has granted a debate relating to the Mandelson scandal. The debate continued on the themes of many of the interventions on the Ministerial Statement from Monday. Keir Starmer did not attend the debate. Much of the debate focused on Sir Olly Robbins’ testimony and the revelations about Matthew Doyle. A new detail also emerged: it appeared that Donald Trump had personally called Starmer asking that the previous US Ambassador, Karen Pierce, be allowed to remain in post. What was noticeable in the debate on Tuesday was the further dissent shown by Labour backbenchers. Some, such as Jon Trickett, Ian Byrne and Richard Burgon, called for an investigation into the Labour Together organisation, framing the issue as a wider factional problem within the Labour movement.
Wednesday
Prime Minister’s Questions (House of Commons)
As usual, on Wednesday the Prime Minister was required to answer questions in the House of Commons Chamber. Using her six questions, Badenoch pushed further on the claim Starmer had made in February “that full process was followed” in the appointment of Peter Mandelson. This was the first time Starmer had been in the Chamber since the evidence Sir Olly Robbins gave to the Select Committee. He said that Robbins’ testimony “put to bed” all the allegations that he had misled Parliament. Badenoch did not let Starmer off the hook, focusing on the fact that Starmer had announced Mandelson before vetting, against the advice of the then Cabinet Secretary.
Thursday
Foreign Affairs Select Committee
On Thursday, Starmer had an easier day in the House of Commons. Cat Little, the Permanent Secretary in the Cabinet Office, appeared before the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. Unlike Robbins, who had been sacked, she is a serving senior civil servant. In her evidence she confirmed her view that “full due process” had been followed. She said she had seen no documentary evidence of Number 10 putting pressure on Sir Olly Robbins. She did, however, say that there was no formal record of the decision Starmer took to appoint Mandelson, and she noted that “it is normal to keep a record of those sorts of decisions”.
In the Media
Notably, on Thursday Starmer was asked whether the Cabinet was split over his handling of the saga. He did not answer the question. Any Prime Minister entirely confident that his Cabinet was united behind him would answer in the affirmative.
Overall, last week was one of intense spotlight and scrutiny on the decisions taken by the Prime Minister over the Mandelson saga. Yet it is a useful example of the interrogation that Parliament is capable of when given the opportunity. That scrutiny will continue into next week and beyond, as more documents are released through the disclosure required under the Humble Address motion. This issue is far from over for Starmer.