Badenoch urges Labour MPs to do ‘what is right for country’ and not block privileges committee inquiry into Starmer
Kemi Badenoch has revived her call for a privileges committee inquiry into Keir Starmer. And she has challenged Labour MPs not to block the proposal.
Speaking to Sky News, she said:
double quotation mark The prime minister has misled parliament multiple times. When he said the full due process had been followed on a national security issue, it clearly had not. We’ve seen the evidence.And also when he said he did not put pressure whatsoever on civil servants to push the Peter Mandelson appointment through, despite knowing the security risks.
There is still a lot of information that doesn’t add up.
And what I’m seeing is a prime minister who is saying whatever it is he needs to say to save his own skin.
I think it is important that this is looked at. Parliament is the right place to hold Keir Starmer to account.
And Labour MPs need to look in to their consciences and know that what they are doing should be what is right for the country, not just what’s right for the Labour party.
Asked if this would be a good use of parliamentary time and resources, Badenoch said an inquiry would only create work for the handful of MPs sitting on the privileges committee.
Key events
Swinney says SNP will hold Holyrood vote on independence referendum on 1st sitting day if it wins election
John Swinney, the Scottish first minister, has said the SNP will prioritise trying to get a second independence referendum if it wins the Hoyrood election.
As the Press Association reports, a new paper setting out what actions a re-elected SNP government would take in its first 100 days in office promises a vote to approve the development of a section 30 order – which would be needed to transfer powers to hold a referendum from Westminster to Holyrood.
This vote would take place on the first sitting day at Holyrood after the appointment of a new government – with Swinney also vowing a draft referendum bill would be published and that the Scottish government would initiate discussions with Westminster over the transfer of powers to allow such a vote to be held.
In a speech today, Swinney said:
double quotation mark I can confirm today that on the first sitting day after the appointment of the new government, we will bring forward a vote of the Scottish parliament to approve the development of a section 30 to give Scotland the power to hold an independence referendum.The parliament chosen by the people of Scotland, will have the chance to represent the democratic will of the people of Scotland.
Within the first hundred days, we will publish the draft referendum bill.
We propose that the question, as in 2014, is: ‘Should Scotland be an independent country? Yes or No.’
As PA reports, Swinney refused to say what would happen if Westminster refused to hand over the necessary powers for a referendum to the Scottish parliament – as Starmer and other leading Labour figures have already indicated they will do.
What is case for referring Starmer to privileges committee over claims he lied to MPs about Mandelson’s vetting?
After the Guardian revealed that Peter Mandelson was given security vetting by the Foreign Office even though he had failed his vetting interview with UK Security Vetting, Kemi Badenoch said that she was certain that Keir Starmer had lied about this. She said it was “preposterous” to think Starmer had not been told. But Starmer had not been told, and Badenoch has dropped this particular accusation.
Instead, she has raised alternative claims about Starmer being dishonest with MPs about Mandelson’s vetting.
The ministerial code says that “ministers who knowingly mislead parliament will be expected to offer their resignation”. But Badenoch cannot have Starmer investigated for a potential breach of the ministerial code because Starmer himself is the person who ultimately adjudicates on these cases, and so instead she is deploying a tactic used against Boris Johnson after he lied repeatedly to MPs about Partygate. She is calling for an investigation by the Commons privileges committee.
The committee investigates alleged acts deemed in contempt of parliament, and that is defined as “any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either house of parliament in the performance of its functions”. This would cover a minister lying to the Commons.
As Badenoch made clear in her interview this morning (see 12.49am), the Tories are now focusing on two claims by Starmer that are allegedly false.
1) “Due process”
What Starmer said: In September last year Starmer repeatedly said that due process had been followed in relation to the Mandelson appointment.
Why it can be argued this is misleading: Because Mandelson was given security vetting, even though the UK Security Vetting team who interviewed him recommended he should not be cleared. And because Simon Case, the cabinet secretary, had advised Starmer to make sure Mandelson cleared vetting before the appointment was announced. (A related accusation is that, even though Starmer did not know Mandelson failed his vetting interview, he should have told MPs at the first opportunity after being told – PMQs the following day – instead of waiting another five days before making a Commons statement.)
Why it can be argued that it isn’t: Because ‘due process’ is a vague phrase that basically just means vetting, and Mandelson did ultimately get security vetting approval. Because the Case advice was just advice, and Starmer says when he subsequently checked, he was told it was OK for vetting to take place after the appointment was announced. Starmer does not accept that “due process” was misleading; even if he did, telling MPs the full story six days later, not one day later, would be relatively normal, and consistent with the need to check the facts.
2) “No pressure existed”
What Starmer said: Starmer told MPs at PMQs last week that “no pressure existed whatsoever in relation to this case”.
Why it can be argued this is miseading: Because Starmer was talking about the evidence given by Olly Robbins to the foreign affairs committee the previous day, and Robbins explicitly told the committee that the Foreign Office had been under pressure to deal with the Mandelson vetting process quickly.
Why it can be argued that it isn’t: Because it is clear from the context of what Starmer said that he was talking about Robbins not personally being under pressure to approve the vetting, not pressure on the institution to act quickly (which is routine in government). Given that Robbins had given evidence in public the previous day, it would have made no sense at all for Starmer to lie about what had been said.
Ministers frequently make comments in the Commmons which can arguably be described as misleading. That is because many political statements that appear quite simple (‘crime has fallen’) can be interpreted in different ways, depending on how terms are defined (what types of crime, down since when?)
The Johnson inquiry was unprecedented in modern times because Johnson was found to have lied quite blatantly. The allegations against Starmer are not remotely comparable, and it would be surprising if Lindsay Hoyle and his advisers really think this really merits a privileges committee investigation.
But if the leader of the opposition makes a request of this kind, the speaker is obliged to consider it seriously. And, as the Institute for Government director Hannah White said this morning (see 10.42am), there is a case for saying the Commons as a whole should decided whether an inquiry is needed.
Badenoch urges Labour MPs to do ‘what is right for country’ and not block privileges committee inquiry into Starmer
Kemi Badenoch has revived her call for a privileges committee inquiry into Keir Starmer. And she has challenged Labour MPs not to block the proposal.
Speaking to Sky News, she said:
double quotation mark The prime minister has misled parliament multiple times. When he said the full due process had been followed on a national security issue, it clearly had not. We’ve seen the evidence.And also when he said he did not put pressure whatsoever on civil servants to push the Peter Mandelson appointment through, despite knowing the security risks.
There is still a lot of information that doesn’t add up.
And what I’m seeing is a prime minister who is saying whatever it is he needs to say to save his own skin.
I think it is important that this is looked at. Parliament is the right place to hold Keir Starmer to account.
And Labour MPs need to look in to their consciences and know that what they are doing should be what is right for the country, not just what’s right for the Labour party.
Asked if this would be a good use of parliamentary time and resources, Badenoch said an inquiry would only create work for the handful of MPs sitting on the privileges committee.
Starmer to face PMQs on Wednesday, as government whips drop plan to send MPs home early this week
Keir Starmer will have to face PMQs on Wednesday, it has emerged. Last week it was reported that Labour MPs were hoping to end the current session of parliament by Tuesday night, which would have meant PMQs on Wednesday being cancelled. But it how emerged that the government whips do not think they will be able to get all the remaining parliamentary bills through the ‘ping pong’ process before Tuesday evening, and so now the Commons will be sitting on Wednesday.
No 10 says UK in ‘good position’ to handle supply problems caused by Iran war not being resolved
Downing Street has said that the UK is “in a good position” to handle the global supply problems caused by the Iran war not being resolved.
Speaking at the morning lobby briefing, the PM’s spokesperson said:
double quotation mark We remain focused on a long-term, permanent solution to the crisis. As a result of the forward-planning, the government undertook over the past few months, the UK is in a good position.We’re ramping up planning for all different potential impacts on the UK economy and consumers, and that means focusing on a live monitoring of stock levels and what plans are in place for addressing supply chain disruption.
The petrol stations in the UK are well stocked and we have a diverse and resilient supply. Fuel production and inputs are continuing across the UK as usual with no issues being reported and a very low amount of petrol, diesel and crude oil is imported to the UK from the Middle East, which is why we’ve not experience supply issues. And in 2025 UK refinery production of petrol from crude oil exceeded demand.
Ed Davey says Labour MPs must get free vote if Commons debates holding privileges committee inquiry into Starmer
Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, has said that, if there is a vote tomorrow on whether or not to hold a privileges committee inquiry into Keir Starmer, Labour MPs must get a free vote. In a statement, he said:
double quotation mark Even Boris Johnson didn’t block his MPs voting for scrutiny. Labour MPs must be given a free vote on any motion to refer Starmer to the privileges committee, not forced into being accomplices to a cover-up.If Keir Starmer has misled the House and the public, he must be held to the same standard that we should expect of any prime minister.
Lisa O’Carroll
Lisa O’Carroll is a senior Guardian correspondent.
HM Revenue and Customs’ botched crackdown on alleged child benefit fraud is to be the subject of a full investigation by parliament’s public accounts committee, it has been announced.
The Treasury committee demanded answers of HMRC last year after an investigation by the Guardian and Belfast investigative site, the Detail, found almost 25,000 parents were stripped of payments because of the tax authorities use of Home Office travel data which purportedly showed parents travelling abroad and never returning.
The flawed approach first emerged in Belfast when it emerged that Home Office travel data showed parents flying out of the contry but not returning because they used Dublin Airport.
But it then transpired that parents across the country had been wrongly identified as fraudsters with over 70% of initial cases having their payments reinstated.
The public accounts committee is asking anyone with evidence in relation to this controversy to submit it by 3 July.
Starmer says there must be no return to ‘status quo’ after Iran war crisis, because working people would ‘pay the price’
There was not a lot of headline news in Keir Starmer’s speech to the Usdaw conference this morning. (Some – but not much. See 10.11am and 11.02am.) But, nevertheless, it was quite a substantial speech, in that he covered a lot of ground, and Starmer sounded more leftwing than usual. Partly that was because he was addressing a trade union, but in part it might be a response to the Iran war, and how that has affected his thinking. He was more explict than usual about describing Tony Blair’s decision to join the US was against Iraq as a mistake (see 11.02am), he said the economic consequences of the Iran war would last “for some time” (Darren Jones said yesterday that, even when the strait of Hormuz is fully open, the economic harm would still go on for another eight months), and he implied this was firming up his view that the “status quo” must change.
Here are some of his main points.
-
Starmer highlighted the way the Employment Rights Act will help working people. Opening with an anecdote about a letter from a shopworker verbally abused at work who could not take time off because of the old statutory sick pay rules, he summed up the changes like this.
double quotation mark Now, the law of the land, for you and for every single person in this country, to finally enjoy the protections you deserve at work: sick pay from day one; paternity leave from day one; fire and rehire – scrapped; protection for whistleblowers; no more gagging orders on sexual harassment; no more exploitative zero-hours contracts; stronger collective consultation rights, and I know how important that is for shop workers.And underpinning all of that, a proper living wage, the embodiment of the simple demand that has always guided the labour movement – a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work. That is what we’ve delivered together.
double quotation mark I’ll always work fight for working people because I know exactly whose side I’m on.Let me tell you about another worker, a carer, works long hours on low pay, year after year after year. She was a care worker during the pandemic, 14-hour shifts, often overnight. And in the pandemic some care workers didn’t have sick pay. So if they were sick, they had to stay at home and simply not get paid at all. In the pandemic, as we were all clapping them, recognising what they were doing for our country.
Well, delegates, that care worker is my sister. And every day I ask myself, does Britain work for her? Does Britain work for people like my late brother? I had a life touched by opportunity. I grew up working class and I’ve been lucky. But Nick, my brother, he had difficulties learning and spent his entire adult life going from one job to the next. Does Britain work for people like him?
double quotation mark Just like Iraq years ago, there is a deeper lesson here, one that British politics has continually refused to learn.Because what Iran shows is that, once again, events happening miles away from Britain have the capacity to hurt our living standards, our future and our security. And so our response will define, not just this government, but arguably this generation.
And so this time it must be different. We cannot respond to this moment by thinking that we just need to get back to the status quo. That is the mistake that was made after the 2008 financial crash with austerity. It was made in Brexit, Covid and the Ukraine war.
And we cannot add Iran to that list because the status quo manifestly failed working people. It kept your wages low, the economy is stagnant and your public services decimated.
In other words, the status quo made working people like you pay the price. I would not go back to that, even if I could.
Starmer said that what he meant by not returning to the status quo was taking measures to beef up the UK’s economic security, its energy security and its defence security.
Starmer says he will chair Cobra meeting on Iran war economic fallout tomorrow
If there is a Commons debate tomorrow on allegations that Keir Starmer lied to MPs about Peter Mandelson’s vetting for his appointment as ambassador to the US, it may coincide with Keir Starmer chairing a meeting of the government’s Cobra emergency committee to discuss the economic consequences of the Iran war. A scheduling clash like that would allow No 10 to make the argument that Starmer is focusing on important issues that matter to voters while the opposition is obsessed with Westminster procedure (although Downing Street would prefer the privileges inquiry debate not to go ahead in the first place).
Starmer announced the Cobra meeting in his speech to the Usdaw conference.
He got perhaps his loudest applause during the speech when he confirmed that the UK will not be joining the US war against Iran. He said:
double quotation mark Whatever happens in the Middle East, we’ve cut your energy bills, and we have capped them until July.Delegates, that’s another thing that I will always stand firm on. I will never let this country be dragged into a war that is not in our interests. Never.
As the applause died away, Starmer went on:
double quotation mark That is a lesson British politics should have learned a long time ago with Iraq.And yet, when the rush to war began on Iran, I was heavily criticised by others who had no thought for the consequences for our country, for your family.
But that is not how I operate, because I have working people in my mind’s eye for every decision.
And yet, delegates, I have to level with you about Iran because the truth is the economic consequences could still be with us for some time. You don’t have to be a politician to know that. You can see it on every petrol forecourt across the country …
We are monitoring this daily. So, delegates, for example, tomorrow I’m chairing a meeting in Cobra on the impact, bringing in people from the Bank of England, so you can be sure we will stand by working people in this crisis.
On the Today programme this morning Hannah White, director of the Institute for Government thinktank, was asked if she thought it would be a good thing for the Commons privileges committee to investigate the allegations that Keir Starmer lied to MPs about Peter Mandelson’s vetting. She said she thought “the important thing is that the House of Commons gets to make a decision [on whether or not an inquiry should go ahead] on this for itself”.
Lindsay Hoyle, the speaker, is expected to announce at 2.30pm whether or not he will allow a vote on a motion for a referral to the privileges committee. If he agrees, MPs will debate that tomorrow.
Keir Starmer is speaking at the Usdaw conference at the Winter Gardens in Blackpool. Usdaw is the shopworkers’ union, and that is why he is talking about shoplifting. (See 10.11am.)
Joanne Thomas, the Usdaw general secretary, has issued a statement welcoming government measures on shoplifting. She said:
double quotation mark We have campaigned along with many retail employers for substantial legislative measures to combat this growing problem and we are pleased that the government’s crime and policing bill has almost completed its passage through parliament. This government immediately set about tackling the issue and we are now starting to see the results of their investment in policing and funding for more uniformed officer patrols in shopping areas.
Minister refuses to say if Labour MPs would be whipped to vote against privileges committee inquiry into Starmer
Emma Reynolds, the environment secretary, was on interview duty on behalf of the government this morning. Speaking on Sky News, she accused the Tories of playing “silly political games” with their call for a privileges committee inquiry into Keir Starmer.
double quotation mark Ten days ago we had Kemi Badenoch and other members of the opposition saying that the prime minister deliberately misled parliament.He didn’t, and that was categorically proven last week, and they’ve accepted that. He has not lied to parliament.
So I do think that the opposition – guess what, 10 days out from local elections and important elections in Scotland and Wales – are playing silly political games when we should be talking about the big issues at stake in the country here.
Reynolds refused to say whether the government would whip its MPs to vote against a motion calling for a privileges committee inquiry if a vote on this proposal goes ahead.
Labour has a working majority of 165 and, if it does whip against the motion, it should be able to block it very easily.
But privileges committee motions like this are normally considered ‘house’ matters appropriate for a free vote, and Keir Starmer may decide not to whip the vote. In those circumstances, most Labour MPs would probably vote against an inquiry anyway – on the grounds that the Tory lying allegations against Starmer are spurious. The Tories would then accuse them of a cover-up.
Starmer claims tide ‘could be turning’ in battle against shoplifting
Keir Starmer will claim this morning that the tide “could be turning” in the battle against shoplifting. He is due to speak at an event outside London and, according to the No 10 overnight briefing, he will say:
double quotation mark Working people, grafters – go to work, do the right thing, keep our high streets thriving, and yet too often they are abused or assaulted by people who think they can get away with it and just cheat the system. It’s disgraceful.We are currently reforming the police across the country so we can free up their time and their money to focus more on street policing, neighbourhood policing, and cracking down on anti‑social behaviour. We’ve already got an extra 3,000 neighbourhood officers on the streets, and there’s more to come.
We’ve scrapped the ridiculous regulation where thieves stealing goods worth less than £200 would not be properly held to account. That was a shoplifters’ charter, and we’ve ended it. We’ve toughened up punishment too. We’re giving police stronger powers, making the abuse and assault of retail workers a specific crime and giving you the same protections as emergency workers.
I’m not blind to how big a challenge this is. But the number of people charged has gone up by 17% in the latest stats. Shop theft is down – only slightly – but the tide could be turning. We are taking action. We are calling time on the free‑for‑all, standing firm, together, against the disgraceful crime of shop theft.
Simon Goodley has more on this story here.
Labour grandees dismiss Tory call for inquiry into claims Starmer lied to MPs about Mandelson as ‘absurd’ political stunt
Good morning. Kemi Badenoch is trying to get Lindsay Hoyle, the speaker, to give MPs a vote on a proposal to get the Commons privileges committee to investigate allegations that Keir Starmer lied to MPs in statements he made to them about the vetting of Peter Mandelson. Other opposition parties may be backing her, but we don’t know for sure because the process is relatively secret; MPs have to write a private letter to the speaker, who then decides whether this is a serious request that should be decided by the Commons as a whole, or a frivolous complaint that should be ignored. (We do know that Karl Turner has written to the speaker about this too, but only because he was daft enough to post his letter on social media last week.) Today we are likely to find out whether or not Hoyle is agreeing to a Commons vote.
Boris Johnson was referred to the privileges committee over allegations that he lied to MPs about Partygate (allegations the committee concluded were justified). Badenoch wants to make the case that Starmer is just as dishonest as Johnson. He isn’t, by any stretch, and the claims that Starmer lied to MPs about Mandelson are spurious; they relate to contest intepretations of political language of the kind that are commonplace in parliamentary debate. But the fact that this has even become a live consideration for the speaker is a big win for the Tories.
If Hoyle does allow a debate, which would probably take place tomorrow, Badenoch will count that as a success whether the referral motion passes or not. If Labour MPs vote against an inquiry, she will be able to accuse them of a cover-up. If MPs approve an inquiry (because Labour decides not to use its majority to block the motion), then Starmer faces the ignominy of being in the same category as Johnson (at least unless or until an inquiry eventually clears him).
So the best option for No 10 is for Hoyle to not allow a vote in the first place. And that perhaps explains why some Labour grandees have been out condeming the call for an inquiry in the first place.
Alan Johnson and David Blunkett, who are both former home secretaries, have given a joint statement to the Times describing the proposals for a privileges committee inquiry as a “nakedly political stunt”. They say:
double quotation mark The fact that Kemi Badenoch has changed the accusations she is levelling against the PM on an almost daily basis as her claims have failed to stand up to scrutiny shows what this is really about. This is a nakedly political stunt with no substance ahead of the May elections.Any comparison with Boris Johnson is absurd. When parliament referred that matter to the privileges committee, a police investigation had directly disproved his categoric statements that he knew nothing about the breach of lockdown rules.
And, on the Today programme this morning, Emily Thornberry, the Labour chair of the foreign affairs committee, also dismissed the proposal. Asked if there was a need for an inquiry like this, she pointed out that her own committee is already looking at this, and she stressed that the government is about to publish more documents about the Mandelson appointment. She said:
double quotation mark I suppose our constituents might ask [if a privileges committee goes ahead], have we got the balance right between holding the government to account and seemingly squabbling amongst ourselves when there is so much else going on that perhaps parliament ought to be focusing on as well?
Asked if she was saying ‘not yet’ in relation to a privileges committee inquiry, Thornberry replied:
double quotation mark I have to say, a really truthful position is, why the rush at the moment? Has it got anything to do with local elections?It may be that at some stage in the future, some of the questions haven’t been answered, and it is decided that they are of sufficient importance that the privileges committee should be involved, but I don’t really see why we’re doing it at the moment, apart from, potentially people trying to score points in advance of the local elections.
I’m sorry to say that, and I’m not supposed to be partisan on this, but it is as plain as the nose on my face what’s going on here.
Here is the agenda for the day.
9am: Reform UK is organising what it is calling a “national fuel protest” in Whitehall calling for action to cut petrol prices. (There don’t seem to be any plans to protest outside the US embassy.)
10.30am: John Swinney, the SNP leader and Scottish first minister, speaks about the SNP’s first 100 days priorities if they win the Holyrood election. At a separate event, Anas Sarwar, the Scottish Labour leader, is launching his party’s manifesto for women.
Morning: Keir Starmer is in the north-west of England where he is giving a speech on shoplifting.
Morning: Kemi Badenoch is on a visit in Essex.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.
Lunchtime: Zack Polanski, the Green party leader, is highlighting Green plans to bring bus services under public control.
2.30pm: If Lindsay Hoyle, the Commons speaker, does decide to allow a vote on referring Keir Starmer to the privileges committee, he is likely to tell MPs as Commons business starts.
2.30pm: Pat McFadden, the work and pensions secretary, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3pm: Peers debate the crime and policing bill, and the children’s wellbeing and schools bill, as the parliamentary ‘ping pong’ process continues.
After 3.30pm: And MPs debate the English devolotion and community empowerment bill and the pension schemes bill as part of the ‘ping pong process’. Later they may vote on Lords amendments to the crime bill and the children’s wellbeing bill.
Afternoon: MPs vote to carry over into the next session two bills: the Northern Ireland Troubles bill, and the public office (accountability) bill (aka, the Hillsborough bill).
If you want to contact me, please post a message below the line when comments are open (between 10am and 3pm), or message me on social media. I can’t read all the messages BTL, but if you put “Andrew” in a message aimed at me, I am more likely to see it because I search for posts containing that word.
If you want to flag something up urgently, it is best to use social media. You can reach me on Bluesky at @andrewsparrowgdn.bsky.social. The Guardian has given up posting from its official accounts on X, but individual Guardian journalists are there, I still have my account, and if you message me there at @AndrewSparrow, I will see it and respond if necessary.
I find it very helpful when readers point out mistakes, even minor typos. No error is too small to correct. And I find your questions very interesting too. I can’t promise to reply to them all, but I will try to reply to as many as I can, either BTL or sometimes in the blog.
About the Author
