Privilege
223
Ayes
—
335
Noes
Defeated · Government won
96 did not vote
Analysis
Commons
Commons
Parliament voted on 28 April 2026 on whether to refer Prime Minister Keir Starmer to the Committee of Privileges over allegations that he misled the House about the appointment of Peter Mandelson as Ambassador to the United States. The motion was defeated by 335 votes to 223. Every Conservative, Liberal Democrat, Scottish National Party, Reform UK, Democratic Unionist Party, Green, and Plaid Cymru MP who voted supported the referral, while Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs voted overwhelmingly against it. The vote matters because the Committee of Privileges is the body Parliament uses to investigate whether a Member, including a Prime Minister, has committed contempt by making false or misleading statements to the House. A successful referral would have triggered a formal inquiry into whether Starmer's repeated assurances that "full due process" was followed in Mandelson's appointment were accurate, given evidence that security vetting had not been completed before the appointment was made. Blocking the referral means no independent parliamentary investigation will proceed on this basis, leaving the matter to the Foreign Affairs Committee, the Intelligence and Security Committee, and a Humble Address process already agreed by the House in February 2026. The politics divided almost entirely along government-versus-opposition lines. Labour imposed a three-line whip, and only 16 Labour MPs voted for the referral. The Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch drew a pointed comparison to the Boris Johnson partygate referral, when the Conservative side was not whipped and the Privileges Committee was chaired by a former Labour acting leader. The Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davey raised the same point directly in the chamber. Local elections were held the following week, and Labour MPs who intervened cited the timing as evidence the motion was politically motivated rather than a genuine accountability measure.
Voting Aye meant
Support referring the Prime Minister to the Privileges Committee to investigate whether he misled Parliament over the Mandelson appointment, arguing accountability requires independent scrutiny of potentially false statements to the House
Voting No meant
Oppose the referral, arguing the motion is a political stunt that pre-empts an ongoing Humble Address process already agreed by the House, and that the Prime Minister's statements to Parliament were accurate
558 voting MPs. Each dot is one vote; left-to-right by party. Grey dots in the centre are the 96 who did not vote.
Aye
No
Absent
Labour PartyWhipped No
15
299
47
Conservative and Unionist PartyWhipped Aye
102
0
14
Liberal DemocratsWhipped Aye
56
0
16
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped No
0
36
6
Independent
9
1
3
Scottish National PartyWhipped Aye
9
0
—
Reform UKWhipped Aye
6
0
2
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist PartyWhipped Aye
5
0
—
Green Party of England and WalesWhipped Aye
5
0
—
Plaid CymruWhipped Aye
4
0
—
Social Democratic and Labour Party
2
0
—
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
1
0
—
Restore Britain
1
0
—
Speaker
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
1
0
—
Ulster Unionist Party
1
0
—
Your Party
1
0
—
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