Karl Turner, a former Labour MP who lost the party whip last month after criticizing Prime Minister Keir Starmer and No 10, has added his voice to opposition calls for Starmer to face a Commons committee. The committee would examine whether the prime minister misled parliament amid the ongoing controversy over Peter Mandelson's appointment as ambassador to Washington.
Letter to the Speaker
Turner, who now sits as an independent MP for East Hull, wrote to the Speaker of the House of Commons urging him to refer Starmer to the privileges committee. This is the same body that previously found Boris Johnson had lied to the Commons over the lockdown parties scandal. In a letter posted on X, later deleted, Turner stated he was raising a “matter of serious concern regarding the conduct” of Starmer during Prime Minister's Questions on Wednesday.
Turner wrote that it was “clear that the prime minister’s characterisation of that evidence is, at best, inaccurate and, at worst, misleading to the House.” In an accompanying post, he clarified, “Let me be clear, I’m not accusing the PM of deliberately misleading the House of Commons. However, there are evident inconsistencies between statements made during PMQs, and the evidence given by Oliver Robbins.”
Turner later explained that posting the letter publicly was an “administrative error” and that he had apologized to the Speaker. MPs are required to raise allegations of contempt of parliament privately with the Speaker.
PMQs Controversy
During PMQs, Starmer stated that no pressure had been placed on the Foreign Office to approve Mandelson's vetting, citing quotes from Olly Robbins, the former Foreign Office permanent secretary. However, Robbins, who was sacked by Starmer last week after the Guardian revealed he had overturned a UK Security Vetting recommendation to deny Mandelson clearance, told MPs on the foreign affairs committee on Tuesday that “constant pressure” had been applied.
This contradiction has fueled demands for a privileges committee investigation. The Conservatives, supported by the Liberal Democrats and the SNP, are pushing for a Johnson-style motion allowing all MPs to vote on whether the committee should explore if Starmer was in contempt of parliament.
Political Reactions
Shadow Chancellor Mel Stride said on Thursday that the privileges committee should examine whether Starmer had misled parliament, arguing that Robbins' testimony “directly contradicts” the prime minister's assurances. “Our belief is that the prime minister has misled parliament, because what he’s said in parliament is that pressure was not applied, and he’s been contradicted by Olly Robbins,” Stride told GB News.
During Cabinet Office questions, Shadow Cabinet Office Minister Alex Burghart repeated the claim that Starmer had misquoted Robbins' evidence. Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davey also called for clarity, stating, “We need to get to the bottom of exactly what Keir Starmer knew when, and whether he intentionally misled parliament over this appalling scandal. The public deserves the truth, not another cover-up.”
Government Response
The prime minister's spokesperson denied that Starmer had misled the House, asserting that he was “being very specific in terms of talking about the allegation that there was pressure around taking up the role regardless of the vetting outcome.” The spokesperson added, “We’ve been very clear that wasn’t the case.”
Divisions have also emerged within the cabinet over Starmer's decision to sack Robbins, with some Labour figures feeling the prime minister acted too hastily.
