MPs will be asked to vote on whether or not Keir Starmer should be referred to Parliament's Privileges Committee on Tuesday on a charge of misleading the House of Commons.

Starmer and his allies furiously reject the allegation. On Monday, Environment Secretary Emma Reynolds – in a desperate last-minute attempt to head off a vote – claimed repeatedly on national television that it had been 'categorically proven' the Prime Minister had not lied to or misled anyone.

This statement was itself a lie. Keir Starmer has not been exonerated by anyone.

In reality, he has deliberately misled the House, misled the country and breached the Ministerial Code on no fewer than seven separate occasions over the Peter Mandelson affair.

Offence 1: On September 10, 2025, Starmer told the House that 'full due process was followed during (Mandelson's) appointment, as it is with all ambassadors'. 

But we have since learned the normal ambassadorial appointment process was specifically set aside because Mandelson was a political appointee.

Starmer ignored the specific advice of his Cabinet Secretary not to confirm Mandelson until he'd obtained security clearance. Mandelson was given access to sensitive intelligence before the proper vetting had even started.

When doubts were raised over his appointment, the Prime Minister despatched two of Mandelson's personal friends – rather than a civil servant – to interview him over the issue. 

Attempts were subsequently made to grant one of these friends a foreign posting, behind the back of the Foreign Secretary.

Offence 2: Last Wednesday, at Prime Minister's Questions, Starmer was asked by Kemi Badenoch if pressure had been leveraged on civil servants responsible for Mandelson's vetting, and other aspects of his appointment. He replied: 'No pressure existed whatsoever in relation to this case.'

Twenty-four hours earlier, ex-Foreign Office permanent secretary Olly Robbins had told the foreign affairs select committee: 'I was getting, as I arrived in post, what I felt was a generally dismissive attitude to his vetting clearance. 

The focus was on getting Mandelson out to Washington quickly. Despite this atmosphere, an atmosphere of pressure, the department completed developed vetting to the normal high standard.'

Offence 3: In the same session, Starmer claimed 'Sir Olly Robbins could not have been clearer in his evidence yesterday'. He then read out a series of quotes that were selective, and deliberately tailored to giving the false impression that Robbins had denied pressure had been brought to bear.

In one instance, Starmer directly misquoted Robbins, claiming he had said: 'I have complete confidence that recommendations to me and the discussion we had and the decision we made were rigorously independent of any pressure.'

In fact, Robbins had said: 'They will have been very aware of the pressure. I also have complete confidence that their recommendations to me and the discussion we had and the decision we made were rigorously independent of that pressure' – confirming that he had indeed been leant on by No 10.

Offence 4: In an interview published in The Sunday Times, the Prime Minister again claimed Robbins had insisted no pressure was brought to bear over Mandelson's vetting.

In fact, Robbins had said the complete opposite. Asked directly whether the officers conducting Mandelson's vetting had been aware of pressure being brought to bear, he said: 'That is an extremely good question and I am very confident in answering. They are clever people. They will have been very aware of the pressure.'

Offence 5: On Sunday, it was reported that Starmer had breached the Ministerial Code by attending a meeting with Mandelson, then ambassador, with one of Mandelson's former clients, the defence contractor Palantir.

When presented with the story, Downing Street and Cabinet Office minister Darren Jones insisted the event had not been a 'meeting'. But when asked about the issue last Monday, Starmer told the House: 'That was a routine meeting in the course of a visit I was on in the US.'

Offence 6: Last month, it was reported that Morgan McSweeney, Starmer's former chief of staff, had his mobile phone stolen on which were messages relating to Mandelson's appointment.

In response, Starmer told the country the theft could not have been staged because 'the idea that somehow everybody could have seen that, some time in the future, there'd be a request over the phone is, to my mind, a little bit far-fetched'.

It later emerged, however, that Downing Street had held a series of meetings in the weeks leading up to the 'theft' to discuss the political implications of McSweeney's phone messages being requested by Parliament.

Offence 7: In February, Starmer gave a statement in which he pointedly blamed failings by security for Mandelson's appointment. 'Clearly, both the due diligence and the security vetting need to be looked at again,' he said. 'I've already strengthened the due process, I think we need to look at the security vetting.'

As we now know, the reality is that Downing Street pushed for Mandelson to be appointed without proper vetting at all. He was given access to sensitive security information without the vetting process even having begun. And No 10 was actually 'dismissive' of efforts by civil servants to protect Britain's most vital secrets.

Keir Starmer intends to dip Labour MPs hands in blood on Tuesday, and force them to become accessories to the fact over the Mandelson scandal. The evidence above shows they should resist.