Badenoch accuses Labour MPs of acting like 'sheep' as she opens debate on referring PM to privileges committee

Kemi Badenoch accused Labour MPs of acting like "sheep" as she opened the Commons debate on referring Keir Starmer to the privileges committee over claims he misled the Commons about the Mandelson vetting process.

She said: "The ministerial code is very clear: ministers who mislead the House must correct the record, and I quote 'at the earliest opportunity'. It is very obvious that … what the prime minister said at the dispatch box was not correct. It's clear that full due process was not followed. If Labour MPs allow the whips to force them to block the consequences of these decisions, it will degrade not just them, but this House. The question is, what kind of people are they? Are they people who will live up to the promises they made about standards and the rules mattering, or are they people who abandon their promises to be complicit in a cover-up?"

Badenoch said to describe the debate as a "stunt", as many Labour MPs have been doing, was "disrespecting this House and disrespecting the speaker". She went on: "It's very obvious they've all been told to come here today. Tell everybody it's a stunt, tell everybody it's a stunt. Why are they acting like sheep? Why are they acting like sheep? They should be better than that."

At the foreign affairs committee, Morgan McSweeney, the Prime Minister's chief of staff, was testifying about the Mandelson appointment and the theft of his phone.

McSweeney defended not telling the police call handler he was the PM's chief of staff when he reported the phone theft. He said: "I was a victim of crime. Somebody hopped on to the pavement and took my phone from me. The first thing I did was to try and retrieve it. I tried to chase [them], which was probably a mistake. The next thing I did was I phoned No 10, and I would have done whatever they told me to do. Now, I thought at the time that they would be able to track the phone and that's what would happen given what's actually on that phone. I then called 999. If No 10 had told me, you need to tell the police, tell the call handler what your job is. I would have done so, but … I didn't in any part of my job go around saying, I'm a very serious and senior person."

He said he was surprised the Foreign Office did not get Epstein files material on Mandelson from the US government. He said: "One of the things that subsequently surprised me – I would have assumed that, and maybe they did – but I would assume that our Foreign Office would have been in contact with us counterparts to see what information they held on him."

McSweeney denied putting pressure on officials to lower standards. He said: "I think it's important that we unpack this idea of pressure because there's been a lot of conversation about it. There's pressure in government every day, and most that pressure comes from within. Every civil servant minister, [the staff] I worked with, woke up every morning feeling pressure to make the country better, wanting to move faster - that's where the pressure comes from. And No 10's job in all of this is to make sure that the prime minister's decisions are acted on quickly. But there is a 'real difference' between that, 'asking people to lower standards,' McSweeney said. 'And we never did that.'"

He said he did not try to get Mandelson appointed as a favour, or because he regarded him as a "hero". He said: "In every advice that I gave to the prime minister, hand on heart I thought I was operating in a motive in the national interest. In politics, over decades, you know a lot of people. In 20 years in politics, I've had to fire friends from jobs. I've had to turn people down who were desperate for jobs, who were closer friends of mine than Mandelson, who really wanted jobs in No 10, or people who thought they were going to be ministers, because I've always tried to operate in national interest … This was not some hero I was trying to get a job for. I thought that his skills as EU commissioner would help us to get the trade deal that I think the country needed, because we were very, very exposed after Brexit and getting that trade deal right was very important."

Emily Thornberry intervened to say she had hoped to finish the hearing at 1pm. They will go beyond that, she said. She hopes they will wrap up by 1.20pm, but they will definitely finish by 1.30pm.

The motion before the House states: "That this House (1) notes the Rt hon Member for Holborn and St Pancras's assurances on the floor of the House about 'full due process' being followed in the appointment of Peter Mandelson as Ambassador to the United States of America, in particular (but not limited to) answers given on 10 September 2025, 4 February and 22 April 2026, further notes his assertion on 20 April 2026 that he 'had made it clear that my position was that the position was subject to developed vetting' and his assertions that 'Sir Olly Robbins was absolutely clear that nobody put pressure on him to make this appointment' and that 'No pressure existed whatsoever in relation to this case' on 22 April 2026; and (2) accordingly orders that these matters be referred to the Committee of Privileges to consider whether, in making these and other related statements, the Rt hon Member may have misled the House, and whether such conduct amounts to a contempt of the House, bearing in mind the standards expected of Ministers as set out in the House's own resolution on Ministerial Accountability and the Ministerial Code."