Badenoch Calls on Labour MPs to Support Privileges Committee Inquiry into Starmer

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. She has challenged Labour MPs not to block the proposal.

Speaking to Sky News, she said: “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.

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 Holyrood election. 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: “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.’”

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, 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 misleading: 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, there is a case for saying the Commons as a whole should decided whether an inquiry is needed.

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: “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: “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.”

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'

Keir Starmer’s speech to the Usdaw conference covered a lot of ground, with Starmer sounding more leftwing than usual, partly because he was addressing a trade union and partly as a response to the Iran war and its effect on his thinking. He was more explicit than usual about describing Tony Blair’s decision to join the US in Iraq as a mistake, and said the economic consequences of the Iran war would last “for some time”. He implied this was firming up his view that the “status quo” must change.

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: “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.”

He stressed that he would always be on the side of working people. He said: “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,