Hoyle confirms MPs will get to debate Tory call for privileges committee inquiry into Starmer tomorrow<\/p>\n
Lindsay Hoyle, the Commons speaker, is telling MPs about the privileges committee debate.<\/p>\n
He says he received letters from various MPs, including the opposition leader.<\/p>\n
He says issues like this should be taken to the privileges committee sparingly.<\/p>\n
He is a gatekeeper, he says. He says he is there to stop frivolous complaints being taken forward.<\/p>\n
He says his job is to consider if the Commons should take a view.<\/p>\n
Having taken advice, he has decided to let MPs take this decision.<\/p>\n
He says Kemi Badenoch<\/a> will be able to table a motion for debate tomorrow. The debate will be held after any statements and urgent questions.<\/p>\n Share<\/a><\/p>\n Key events<\/p>\n Show key events only<\/p>\n Please turn on JavaScript to use this feature<\/p>\n Tories refer Jenrick to parliamentary commissioner for standards over leadership campaign donation<\/p>\n Police are assessing evidence about donations to Robert Jenrick\u2019s campaign to become Conservative leader in 2024 after a referral from the elections watchdog, Rowena Mason reports. The information was passed on by the Electoral Commission<\/a>, which the Guardian understands has been investigating allegations that almost \u00a340,000 of donations to Jenrick\u2019s leadership campaign before he defected to Reform UK, were from a foreign source in breach of electoral rules.<\/p>\n The Conservative party has confirmed that it has raised a complaint about this with the parliamentary commissioner for standards. Kevin Hollinrake, the Tory chair, said:<\/p>\n double quotation markForeign donations are illegal. Politicians who funnel and hide unlawful money should face the full force of the law.<\/p>\n The police must investigate Reform UK\u2019s spokesman for financial affairs, Robert Jenrick. The Conservative party has also reported Mr Jenrick to the parliamentary commissioner for standards, given the apparent serious breach of House of Commons rules. Parliament, the public and the Conservative party all appear to have been deceived.<\/p>\n While Robert Jenrick has been kicked out of the Conservative party and is now Nigel Farage\u2019s right hand man, this represents serious malpractice in a leadership contest.<\/p>\n Share<\/a>Richard Tice and Robert Jenrick at the top of a Reform UK bus at a fuel duty protest in Westminster this morning. Zack Polanski, the Green party leader, has been busy today. He has been in Newcastle promoting a bus policy, but he has also down a series of interviews which have produced various news lines. Here are the key points.<\/p>\n double quotation markYears of deregulation have led to soaring fares, unreliable services and cut routes. Bus privatisation has been an unmitigated disaster. We need to bring buses back into public control so that local councils, who know what their communities need best, can put a ceiling on how much can be charged and make sure their communities are well served. Spiralling transport costs is one of the greatest causes of the affordability crisis and lack of services and the expense of fares affects rural communities in particular.<\/p>\n He has said that he would rather see Andy Burnham or Angela Rayner leading Labour than Keir Starmer<\/a>. He told Sky News it is \u201cno secret that Andy Burnham and Angela Rayner would be much closer to my politics than Keir Starmer is\u201d. Burnham and Rayner \u201cdo care about tackling the cost of living crisis and do care about people in this country\u201d, he said.<\/p>\n He has insisted that Green party<\/a> proposals to cut motorway speed limits from 70mph to 55mph are not manifesto pledges in the local elections. But he did not deny that this was a proposal that Green party members had voted for in the past. Asked about the policy on ITV\u2019s Good Morning Britain, Polanski said:<\/p>\n double quotation markThe important point is that what the members have decided already in the document says this will be reviewed and updated. Because if people vote on things from the 1980s or 1990s, then of course that gets regularly reviewed.<\/p>\n In an interview last week Polanski said the Green party\u2019s policymaking procedures need to be reformed<\/a> because the party has too many policies on its books that it cannot defend. After the interview, Labour issued a news release criticising Polanski for not disowning the 55mph policy completely, saying such a measure would \u201chammer motorists and tank the economy\u201d.<\/p>\n Polanski defended the Green party\u2019s drugs policy, saying it wants not just to legalise drugs but \u201cregulate\u201d them too. He told Sky News that, under the party\u2019s plans, the supply of harder drugs would be in \u201cthe hands of a medical health professional\u201d.<\/p>\n He had a run-in with Ed Balls<\/a>, the Good Morning Britain presenter, after highlighting his record as a former Labour cabinet minister.<\/p>\n Zack Polanski being interviewed at a bus station in Newcastle city centre today. Photograph: Tom Wilkinson\/PAShare<\/a>No 10 says tomorrow’s vote on referring PM to privileges committee ‘desperate political stunt’ by Tories<\/p>\n Downing Street has described tomorrow\u2019s vote on referring Keir Starmer<\/a> to the privileges committee as a \u201cdesperate political stunt\u201d by the Conservative party.<\/p>\n A No 10 spokesperson said:<\/p>\n double quotation markThe government is engaging with the two parliamentary processes that are already running on Peter Mandelson\u2019s appointment with full transparency.<\/p>\n This is a desperate political stunt by the Conservative party the week before the May elections because they have no answers on the cost of living or the NHS. Their claims have no substance.<\/p>\n Share<\/a>Badenoch claims case against Starmer ‘overwhelming’ as she welcomes debate on referring PM to privileges committee<\/p>\n Kemi Badenoch has posted a video message<\/a> on social media claiming that the case against Keir Starmer is \u201coverwhelming\u201d.<\/p>\n double quotation markWith the speaker\u2019s permission, and working cross-party, I am presenting a motion to the House of Commons to refer the prime minister to the privileges committee.<\/p>\n I do not do this lightly. No leader of the opposition should, but the facts are overwhelming.<\/p>\n The prime minister misled the House of Commons, repeatedly.<\/p>\n He appointed a national security risk and friend of a convicted paedophile to be our ambassador in Washington, our most sensitive diplomatic post.<\/p>\n He pretended that full due process was followed for this appointment. It was not.<\/p>\n He has blamed the appointment on officials, when the blame can only be placed at his own door.<\/p>\n The prime minister needs to be held to the same standards he held previous prime ministers to. There is no room for hypocrisy.<\/p>\n He has sacked innocent officials to cover up his failures. He has let parliament down; more importantly, he has let the country down.<\/p>\n That\u2019s why I\u2019m asking MPs to vote to refer the prime minister to the privileges committee.<\/p>\n Every MP now faces a matter of conscience, not party, conscience. Do they cover this up or do they vote to seek the truth?<\/p>\n What is interesting about this is that Badenoch is trying to make this a debate about the Mandelson appointment in general (generally reckoned now to be a terrible mistake \u2013 although the Tories did not say that at the time it was announced), and not about the claim that Starmer misled MPs.<\/p>\n But the privileges committee cannot hold an investigation just into whether a PM has made a bad decision. It is there to investigate matters of privilege, and contempts of parliament, and the evidence for one in this case is very thin. (See 1.32pm<\/a>.)<\/p>\n Share<\/a><\/p>\n The latest episode of the Guardian\u2019s Politics Weekly podcast is out. It features Pippa Crerar and Kiran Stacey talking about what might be another nightmare week for Keir Starmer<\/a>.<\/p>\n Share<\/a>Hoyle stresses that allowing debate tomorrow does not mean he thinks Starmer likely to have misled MPs<\/p>\n Here is Lindsay Hoyle\u2019s statement in full.<\/p>\n double quotation markBefore we come to questions, I wish to make a short statement.<\/p>\n Numerous honourable and right hon members from across the house have written to ask me to give precedence to a matter as an issue of privilege. One of those letters is from the leader of the opposition. The matter concerns the prime minister\u2019s answers to the house about the process for the appointment of Peter Mandelson and related issues.<\/p>\n I think it will be helpful to the house if I explain my role in deciding whether a complaint should be put to the house.<\/p>\n Privilege issues should only be brought to the house sparingly, and it is my duty to act as a gatekeeper to ensure that frivolous applications are not taken forward.<\/p>\n As a gatekeeper, my role is to decide whether the honourable member has made a case which the house itself should be able to consider, not to decide whether someone is likely to have committed a contempt.<\/p>\n If precedence is given, the member tables a motion for debate. At the end of the debate the house itself takes a decision on whether the matter should be taken further.<\/p>\n Some may be wondering why this issue is being looked at now. To be clear, I cannot determine whether an application is made. I have to consider any application when it comes to me.<\/p>\n In this case, having taken advice. I have decided to allow the house to come to a view on whether the committee of privileges should look at the matter.<\/p>\n It is not for me to make any decision or view.<\/p>\n Therefore, the leader of the opposition [Kemi Badenoch] will have the opportunity to put the matter to the house tomorrow.<\/p>\n The debate will be taken after my after any urgent questions and statements or a 10-minute rule bill.<\/p>\n Hoyle could have just said he had decided to allow the debate to go ahead. But he did seem to be at pains to stress that this was just a procedural decison on his behalf, and not an indication that he thinks Keir Starmer<\/a> has committed a contempt of parliament (ie, lied to MPs). Hoyle did sound slightly sheepish about the whole thing. He may have felt he had no choice if \u201cnumerous\u201d MPs were asking for a debate, including the opposition leader.<\/p>\n Share<\/a>Hoyle confirms MPs will get to debate Tory call for privileges committee inquiry into Starmer tomorrow<\/p>\n Lindsay Hoyle, the Commons speaker, is telling MPs about the privileges committee debate.<\/p>\n He says he received letters from various MPs, including the opposition leader.<\/p>\n He says issues like this should be taken to the privileges committee sparingly.<\/p>\n He is a gatekeeper, he says. He says he is there to stop frivolous complaints being taken forward.<\/p>\n He says his job is to consider if the Commons should take a view.<\/p>\n Having taken advice, he has decided to let MPs take this decision.<\/p>\n He says Kemi Badenoch<\/a> will be able to table a motion for debate tomorrow. The debate will be held after any statements and urgent questions.<\/p>\n Share<\/a>MPs to vote on whether to hold inquiry into claims Starmer misled MPs over Mandelson’s vetting<\/p>\n Keir Starmer will face a vote on whether to launch an investigation into claims he misled the Commons over his decision to appoint Peter Mandelson<\/a> as ambassador to Washington, Kiran Stacey and Pippa Crerar report.<\/p>\n Share<\/a>Swinney says SNP will hold Holyrood vote on independence referendum on 1st sitting day if it wins election<\/p>\n John Swinney, the Scottish first minister, has said the SNP will prioritise trying to get a second independence referendum if it wins the Hoyrood election.<\/p>\n As the Press Association reports, a new paper setting out what actions a re-elected SNP government would take in its first 100 days in office promises a vote to approve the development of a section 30 order \u2013 which would be needed to transfer powers to hold a referendum from Westminster to Holyrood.<\/p>\n This vote would take place on the first sitting day at Holyrood after the appointment of a new government \u2013 with Swinney also vowing<\/a> a draft referendum bill would be published and that the Scottish government would initiate discussions with Westminster over the transfer of powers to allow such a vote to be held.<\/p>\n In a speech today<\/a>, Swinney said:<\/p>\n double quotation markI can confirm today that on the first sitting day after the appointment of the new government, we will bring forward a vote of the Scottish parliament to approve the development of a section 30 to give Scotland the power to hold an independence referendum.<\/p>\n The parliament chosen by the people of Scotland, will have the chance to represent the democratic will of the people of Scotland.<\/p>\n Within the first hundred days, we will publish the draft referendum bill.<\/p>\n We propose that the question, as in 2014, is: \u2018Should Scotland be an independent country? Yes or No.\u2019<\/p>\n As PA reports, Swinney refused to say what would happen if Westminster refused to hand over the necessary powers for a referendum to the Scottish parliament \u2013 as Starmer and other leading Labour<\/a> figures have already indicated they will do.<\/p>\n John Swinney speaking at the Pearce Institute in Glasgow this morning on what the SNP would do in first 100 days if they win election. Photograph: Jeff J Mitchell\/Getty ImagesShare<\/a><\/p>\n Updated at\u00a008.51 EDT<\/p>\n What is case for referring Starmer to privileges committee over claims he lied to MPs about Mandelson’s vetting?<\/p>\n After the Guardian revealed that Peter Mandelson was given security vetting by the Foreign Office even though he had failed his vetting interview with UK Security Vetting, Kemi Badenoch said that she was certain<\/a> that Keir Starmer had lied about this. She said it was \u201cpreposterous\u201d to think Starmer had not been told. But Starmer had not been told, and Badenoch has dropped this particular accusation.<\/p>\n Instead, she has raised alternative claims about Starmer being dishonest with MPs about Mandelson\u2019s vetting.<\/p>\n The ministerial code says that \u201cministers who knowingly mislead parliament will be expected to offer their resignation\u201d. But Badenoch cannot have Starmer investigated for a potential breach of the ministerial code because Starmer himself is the person who ultimately adjudicates on these cases, and so instead she is deploying a tactic used against Boris Johnson after he lied repeatedly to MPs about Partygate. She is calling for an investigation by the Commons privileges committee.<\/p>\n The committee investigates alleged acts deemed in contempt of parliament, and that is defined as \u201cany act or omission which obstructs or impedes either house of parliament in the performance of its functions\u201d. This would cover a minister lying to the Commons.<\/p>\n As Badenoch made clear in her interview this morning (see 12.49am<\/a>), the Tories are now focusing on two claims by Starmer that are allegedly false.<\/p>\n 1) \u201cDue process\u201d<\/p>\n What Starmer said: In September last year Starmer repeatedly said<\/a> that due process had been followed in relation to the Mandelson appointment.<\/p>\n Why it can be argued this is misleading: Because Mandelson was given security vetting, even though the UK Security Vetting team who interviewed him recommended he should not be cleared. And because Simon Case, the cabinet secretary, had advised Starmer to make sure Mandelson cleared vetting before the appointment was announced. (A related accusation is that, even though Starmer did not know Mandelson failed his vetting interview, he should have told MPs at the first opportunity after being told \u2013 PMQs the following day \u2013 instead of waiting another five days before making a Commons statement.)<\/p>\n Why it can be argued that it isn\u2019t: Because \u2018due process\u2019 is a vague phrase that basically just means vetting, and Mandelson did ultimately get security vetting approval. Because the Case advice was just advice, and Starmer says when he subsequently checked, he was told it was OK for vetting to take place after the appointment was announced. Starmer does not accept that \u201cdue process\u201d was misleading; even if he did, telling MPs the full story six days later, not one day later, would be relatively normal, and consistent with the need to check the facts.<\/p>\n 2) \u201cNo pressure existed\u201d<\/p>\n What Starmer said: Starmer told MPs at PMQs last week<\/a> that \u201cno pressure existed whatsoever in relation to this case\u201d.<\/p>\n Why it can be argued this is miseading: Because Starmer was talking about the evidence given by Olly Robbins to the foreign affairs committee the previous day, and Robbins explicitly told the committee that the Foreign Office had been under pressure to deal with the Mandelson vetting process quickly.<\/p>\n Why it can be argued that it isn\u2019t: Because it is clear from the context <\/a>of what Starmer said that he was talking about Robbins not personally being under pressure to approve the vetting, not pressure on the institution to act quickly (which is routine in government). Given that Robbins had given evidence in public the previous day, it would have made no sense at all for Starmer to lie about what had been said.<\/p>\n Ministers frequently make comments in the Commmons which can arguably be described as misleading. That is because many political statements that appear quite simple (\u2018crime has fallen\u2019) can be interpreted in different ways, depending on how terms are defined (what types of crime, down since when?)<\/p>\n The Johnson inquiry was unprecedented in modern times because Johnson was found to have lied quite blatantly. The allegations against Starmer are not remotely comparable, and it would be surprising if Lindsay Hoyle and his advisers really think this really merits a privileges committee investigation.<\/p>\n But if the leader of the opposition makes a request of this kind, the speaker is obliged to consider it seriously. And, as the Institute for Government director Hannah White said this morning (see 10.42am<\/a>), there is a case for saying the Commons as a whole should decided whether an inquiry is needed.<\/p>\n Share<\/a><\/p>\n Updated at\u00a008.34 EDT<\/p>\n Badenoch urges Labour MPs to do ‘what is right for country’ and not block privileges committee inquiry into Starmer<\/p>\n Kemi Badenoch has revived her call for a privileges committee inquiry into Keir Starmer. And she has challenged Labour MPs not to block the proposal.<\/p>\n Speaking to Sky News, she said:<\/p>\n double quotation markThe prime minister has misled parliament multiple times. When he said the full due process had been followed on a national security issue, it clearly had not. We\u2019ve seen the evidence.<\/p>\n And also when he said he did not put pressure whatsoever on civil servants to push the Peter Mandelson appointment through, despite knowing the security risks.<\/p>\n There is still a lot of information that doesn\u2019t add up.<\/p>\n And what I\u2019m seeing is a prime minister who is saying whatever it is he needs to say to save his own skin.<\/p>\n I think it is important that this is looked at. Parliament is the right place to hold Keir Starmer to account.<\/p>\n And Labour MPs need to look in to their consciences and know that what they are doing should be what is right for the country, not just what\u2019s right for the Labour party.<\/p>\n Asked if this would be a good use of parliamentary time and resources, Badenoch said an inquiry would only create work for the handful of MPs sitting on the privileges committee.<\/p>\n Kemi Badenoch on a visit to Leonardo Helicopters in Basildon, Essex, this morning. Photograph: Stefan Rousseau\/PAShare<\/a>Starmer to face PMQs on Wednesday, as government whips drop plan to send MPs home early this week<\/p>\n Keir Starmer will have to face PMQs on Wednesday, it has emerged. Last week it was reported that Labour MPs were hoping to end the current session of parliament by Tuesday night, which would have meant PMQs on Wednesday being cancelled. But it how emerged that the government whips do not think they will be able to get all the remaining parliamentary bills through the \u2018ping pong\u2019 process before Tuesday evening, and so now the Commons will be sitting on Wednesday.<\/p>\n
Photograph: Carlos Jasso\/AFP\/Getty ImagesShare<\/a>Polanski says Burnham or Rayner ‘much closer to my politics’ than Starmer<\/p>\n