UK PM facing another bruising week over Mandelson vetting scandal

The UK prime minister is facing another bruising week as the fallout over the vetting for Peter Mandelson’s appointment as ambassador to Washington continues.

Keir Starmer will seek to shift the focus when he gives a speech on efforts to crack down on shoplifting on Monday.

But he is facing mounting pressure over the revelations about the peer’s vetting process and Starmer’s handling of it, including his decision to sack Foreign Office chief Olly Robbins.

On Tuesday the Foreign Affairs Committee is due to hear from Starmer’s former chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, widely regarded as a protege of Mandelson.

He resigned in February over his part in the peer getting the coveted job.

The committee will also hear from Olly’s predecessor, Philip Barton, and receive written evidence from Foreign Office official Ian Collard, who Robbins said briefed him on the vetting findings that deemed Mandelson a borderline case and leaned towards recommending that clearance be denied.

The prime minister said last week any claims he misled Parliament had been put to bed by Robbins’s evidence.

But the Tories have called for Starmer to face Parliament’s Privileges Committee, the same body that investigated Boris Johnson over the Covid-19 partygate affair, with reports that a vote on whether to refer the prime minister for such a probe could be held on Tuesday.

It is up to Commons Speaker Lindsay Hoyle to decide whether to allow a vote.

Chief Secretary to the prime minister Darren Jones on Sunday accused the Conservatives of ‘using tactics’ ahead of local elections on May 7.

And Labour former Cabinet ministers Alan Johnson and David Blunkett released a joint statement calling the move a ‘nakedly political stunt with no substance’ ahead of the polls.

They said a referral to the watchdog would be a waste of public money and that comparisons with Johnson are ‘absurd’.

‘When Parliament referred that matter to the Privileges Committee, a police investigation had directly disproved his categoric statements that he knew nothing about the breach of lockdown rules including parties in Downing Street, and therefore he had a case to answer for knowingly misleading the House of Commons,’ they said.

By Helen Corbett, Press Association Political Correspondent

Press Association: News

source: PA

Copyright 2026 Alliance News Ltd. All Rights Reserved.