A former Labour parliamentarian has aligned with opposition groups in demanding that Prime Minister Keir Starmer appear before a House of Commons committee. The move aims to determine if he provided inaccurate information to lawmakers amid ongoing controversy over Peter Mandelson’s selection as ambassador to the United States. Karl Turner, who was stripped of the Labour whip last month following criticisms of Starmer and Downing Street, sent a letter to the Commons speaker requesting a referral to the privileges committee. This is the same group that previously ruled Boris Johnson had deceived parliament regarding lockdown gatherings. In the now-deleted letter shared on X, Turner highlighted a significant issue with Starmer’s behavior during prime minister’s questions on Wednesday. Now an independent MP, Turner argued that Starmer’s description of the evidence was imprecise at best and potentially deceptive to the chamber. In an accompanying post on X, Turner clarified he was not claiming the prime minister intentionally misled the Commons, but pointed out discrepancies between Starmer’s remarks during questions and testimony from Oliver Robbins. At the session, Starmer asserted that no influence was exerted on the Foreign Office to endorse Mandelson’s security clearance, citing comments from Olly Robbins, the ex-Foreign Office permanent secretary. Robbins, dismissed by Starmer last week after reports revealed he had reversed a denial of clearance for Mandelson by UK Security Vetting, informed the foreign affairs committee on Tuesday that persistent influence had been applied. This development occurs as splits appear within the cabinet regarding Starmer’s choice to remove Robbins, with some Labour members believing the dismissal was hasty. The Conservatives, backed by the Liberal Democrats and the SNP, are advocating for the privileges committee’s involvement. They are considering a motion similar to one used against Johnson, allowing all MPs to decide if the committee should assess whether Starmer committed contempt of parliament. Shadow Chancellor Mel Stride stated on Thursday that the committee should review if Starmer misled lawmakers, noting that Robbins’ account directly opposes the prime minister’s statements in the chamber. Stride told GB News that they believe the prime minister misled parliament by claiming no pressure was applied, which Robbins contradicted. During questions on Cabinet Office matters, shadow minister Alex Burghart echoed the accusation that Starmer had misrepresented Robbins’ testimony. Burghart told Chief Secretary Darren Jones that the prime minister claimed Robbins was explicit that no one pressured him on the appointment, but this differed from what Robbins said to the committee. Last week, Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davey remarked that clarity is needed on Starmer’s knowledge and timing, and if he deliberately misled parliament in this troubling matter, emphasizing the need for transparency over concealment. A spokesperson for the prime minister maintained that Starmer did not mislead the chamber and was precise in addressing claims of pressure to proceed with the role irrespective of vetting results. They reiterated that such pressure did not occur.
