After a lengthy and politically charged debate, British MPs on Tuesday rejected a motion calling for the prime minister to face a parliamentary inquiry into whether he misled the House of Commons.
In a vote of 335-223, MPs opposed referring Keir Starmer to the Privileges Committee, effectively ending efforts to launch an investigation into his comments over the vetting of Peter Mandelson, whose ties to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein led to an uproar.
Labour's majority ensured the defeat of the Conservative-led motion, which demanded that Starmer be scrutinized over statements he made about Mandelson's appointment as US ambassador.
The proposal followed around five hours of MPs clashing over whether the issue warranted a formal inquiry.
Cabinet ministers dismissed the move as a "political stunt" ahead of elections next week-for local officials in England and national parliaments in Scotland and Wales-arguing that it was motivated more by timing than substance.
Opponents, however, insisted the motion was about transparency and accountability in government.
At the center of the row are allegations that Starmer misled Parliament when he said that "full due process" was followed in the appointment of Mandelson, and again when he insisted that "no pressure existed whatsoever" during the vetting process.
Olly Robbins, a former senior civil servant, told MPs last week that there had been "constant pressure," though he said it did not affect his decision to grant clearance.
Starmer later said there are "different types of pressure," adding: "That is the everyday pressure of government."
Mandelson was appointed ambassador to the US in December 2024 but was dismissed last September after Downing Street said new information had emerged about the extent of his relationship with Epstein, who died in prison in 2019.
Long dubbed a political "spin doctor" and the "Prince of Darkness" for his strategic influence, Mandelson ended his decades-long career with resignations from both the Labour Party and the House of Lords.
