Privilege
223Ayes
335Noes
Defeated · majority 112 · Government won96 did not vote
654 Members · Aye 223 · No 335 · DNV 96 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
Parliament voted on 28 April 2026 on whether to refer Prime Minister Keir Starmer to the Privileges Committee over allegations that he misled the House about the appointment of Peter Mandelson as US Ambassador, specifically whether proper security vetting procedures were followed. The motion was defeated by 335 votes to 223. The government, which imposed a three-line whip on Labour MPs to vote against, saw the motion fail comfortably. The vote concerned whether Parliament's independent Privileges Committee should examine Starmer's repeated assurances to the House that "full due process" had been followed in Mandelson's appointment. Supporters of referral argued that documents, including material leaked to The Guardian, suggested the vetting process was not completed as the Prime Minister had described. A referral would not itself have found Starmer guilty of any contempt; it would have asked the Committee to investigate and report back to the House with any recommendations. The Conservatives brought the motion and it drew support across several smaller parties, with Liberal Democrats, the SNP, the Greens, the DUP, Plaid Cymru, and Reform UK all voting in favour. Fifteen Labour MPs also voted for referral, a notable break from the party line. The government's defence rested on the argument that the House had already agreed on 4 February 2026 to a Humble Address process requiring the release of relevant documents, and that the motion pre-empted that ongoing process.
Voting Aye meant
Support referring Starmer to the Privileges Committee to investigate whether he misled Parliament over the Mandelson appointment process, including claims about security vetting and ministerial pressure
Voting No meant
Oppose the referral, arguing the motion is premature given an ongoing Humble Address process to release relevant documents, and that the opposition is making a political attack rather than waiting for evidence
Each row is one party. The stacked bar gives the within-party split of Aye / No / Absent; the columns on the right give the raw counts. The party-line column is inferred from how cohesively each party voted, not a published whip: a clear one-way majority of a party’s voters reads as a line, a close division reads as “Split”.
Party
Party line
Aye / No / Abs
Aye
No
Abs
Labour Party
Voted No
15
299
47
Conservative and Unionist Party
Voted Aye
102
0
14
Liberal Democrats
Voted Aye
56
0
15
Labour and Co-operative Party
Voted No
0
36
6
Independent
—
9
1
3
Scottish National Party
Voted Aye
9
0
0
Reform UK
Voted Aye
6
0
2
Sinn Féin
—
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
Voted Aye
5
0
0
Green Party of England and Wales
Voted Aye
5
0
0
Plaid Cymru
Voted Aye
4
0
0
Social Democratic and Labour Party
—
2
0
0
Your Party
—
1
0
1
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
—
1
0
0
Restore Britain
—
1
0
0
Speaker
—
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
—
1
0
0
Ulster Unionist Party
—
1
0
0
Source · Hansard · UK Parliament Votes API · party line inferred from voting cohesion, not a published whip; “Split” = a close within-party division
The Prime Minister made misleading statements about due process and pressure on the Foreign Office; the Privileges Committee must investigate whether he misled the House and failed to correct the record as required by the Ministerial Code.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (5,714 words) →
Honesty, integrity and truth matter in Parliament above all; the motion defends the same principles he and the Prime Minister defended four years ago against Boris Johnson, and the Privileges Committee is the proper body to investigate.Liberal Democrat · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,374 words) →
There is plainly a case for referral based on three categories of contradiction: claims of no pressure when evidence shows constant pressure, incompatible statements about when he saw the vetting file, and assertions that due process was followed when it clearly was not.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (2,701 words) →
Though loyal to the Government and believing the Prime Minister is honourable, she will not vote against the motion because the whipping of a privileges motion plays into public perception of a cover-up and damages trust in Parliament; the Prime Minister should refer himself to clear his name.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (726 words) →
Though he does not believe the Prime Minister deliberately misled the House, there is a prima facie case for investigation because the Prime Minister's statement about Olly Robbins' evidence contradicts the actual evidence; voting against referral will lead to accusations that Labour blocked an inquiry.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,321 words) →
The motion is premature while the Humble Address, Foreign Affairs Committee and police investigations are ongoing; referring to the Privileges Committee now risks setting an unhealthy precedent and is an attempt to bypass existing proper processes.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (943 words) →
He believes the Prime Minister is honourable but reasonable people have legitimate questions; a Privileges Committee inquiry would provide catharsis and restore public trust by settling the matter impartially, as happened with Boris Johnson's partygate scandal.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (985 words) →
The vote is not on whether the Prime Minister misled Parliament but whether the Privileges Committee should investigate; constituents deserve the truth, and the Committee should settle the matter once and for all to allow the Government to focus on real achievements.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (833 words) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0