Lindsay Hoyle, the Speaker of the House of Commons, has thrown a political curveball by granting a debate on whether to refer Prime Minister Keir Starmer to the privileges committee. The decision, announced on Monday, has left Starmer's team scrambling and opposition parties gleeful. The debate centers on allegations that Starmer misled Parliament regarding the appointment of Peter Mandelson as US ambassador.
Background of the Controversy
The row began when it emerged that Mandelson had initially failed UK Security Vetting but was still approved by Olly Robbins, then permanent secretary at the Foreign Office. Starmer told the Commons that due process had been followed, a claim opposition leader Kemi Badenoch challenged as misleading. Badenoch sought a debate to refer Starmer to the privileges committee, arguing that MPs had been misled.
Hoyle's Reasoning
In his statement, Hoyle noted that such debates are granted only sparingly and as a measure of last resort. However, he argued that the application was not frivolous, comparing it to the case of Boris Johnson, who was found to have misled Parliament over Partygate. Hoyle said the similarities between the two cases were striking, despite Starmer not having broken any law or been investigated by police.
Political Fallout
The decision has been seen as a major win for the opposition. The Liberal Democrats and Conservatives were quick to celebrate, with Tories viewing it as an opportunity to embarrass the government. Labour MPs, meanwhile, are unlikely to vote en masse to refer their own leader, but the debate itself is damaging. Critics argue that Hoyle's move is premature, as the Foreign Affairs Select Committee is still investigating the matter and has yet to hear from key witnesses.
Starmer's Headache
For Starmer, the debate comes at a particularly awkward time, just days before local elections. The prime minister had hoped to avoid such distractions, but Hoyle's intervention has forced the issue onto the agenda. The opposition is expected to use the debate to paint Starmer as untrustworthy, even if the referral ultimately fails.
Conclusion
Hoyle's decision has been met with surprise and criticism. Many observers note that he effectively made the case for not granting the debate by acknowledging that the allegations are similar to Johnson's but less serious. Nevertheless, the debate will go ahead, adding to the political drama in Westminster.
