Badenoch and Davey join forces to demand Starmer face privileges committee over Mandelson vetting claims

Kemi Badenoch and Ed Davey have joined forces in the Commons to pile fresh pressure on Keir Starmer as the Tory leader spearheaded a motion aimed at forcing him to face a parliamentary probe over his claims about the vetting of Peter Mandelson. The Tory leader chided those on the government's frontbench for forcing backbench Labour MPs to turn out to oppose the motion, which identifies three possible areas where Starmer was accused of having misled parliament. "They are being whipped today to exonerate him before the facts have even been tested," Badenoch said of Labour MPs. Moments earlier, Ed Davey had drawn laughs when he said that he was as "not a fan of Boris Johnson" but at least the Conservative party had not whipped its MPs when Johnson had faced a similar motion in the past. Badenoch said the prime minister had appointed Mandelson before security vetting was complete in contravention of advice given to him in November by the then cabinet secretary, while his own national security adviser, Jonathan Powell, had described the appointment as "weirdly rushed". "We also know that this latest information about the problems with the security vetting did not come from the humble address it came from a leak to the Guardian vetting," Badenoch added, citing the Guardian's revelation that Mandelson had not passed his vetting interviews. "So why should we wait for a never never process that is clearly not happening," she added, in response to Labour MPs who accused her of mounting a stunt rather than waiting for the release of documents under the humble address process initiated to reveal records about the appointment. Forcing Labour MPs to oppose the Tory motion aimed at sparking a probe into Keir Starmer will play into the "terrible narrative" that they are complicit in a cover-up, one of the prime minister's own backbenchers has said. Emma Lewell, a leftwing backbencher who spoke immediately after Kemi Badenoch opened the debate, said she shared a feeling with the public of being "let down, disappointed and angry". She said: "I feel the way that today's vote has been handled by the government smacks once again of being out of touch and disconnected from the public mood. The fact that MPs like me are being whipped into voting against this motion is in my view wrong. It has played into the terrible narrative that there is something to hide and good decent colleagues will be accused of being complicit in a cover-up. Recent weeks have seen such abuse intensify and ongoing abuse and threats to me and my staff's safety continues. Tryst has gone and it has been replaced by anger. The already fragile fabric of our democracy is eroding further every day this continues." Labour's Nadia Whittome said she thought Starmer may have misled MPs, and she would vote for the inquiry. She said: "I've listened to the prime minister's arguments, and unfortunately, I am yet to be convinced that he has definitively not misled the House, even if inadvertently, because I'm concerned that pressure was put on the Foreign Office regarding managers and appointments given Sir Olly Robbins's evidence." She said she thought Starmer should refer himself to the privileges committee. Morgan McSweeney, Starmer's former chief of staff, told the foreign affairs committee that learning the full extent of Peter Mandelson's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein in September 2025 was like "having a knife through my soul". He said there was "no way" that Peter Mandelson would have been appointed ambassador to the US if the government had known the information about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein that came out in the Epstein files. McSweeney also revealed that his phone, which was stolen in October 2024, contained messages relating to the Mandelson appointment, and that he used disappearing message features for communications with most people, including probably with Mandelson.