Anas Sarwar says Scottish Labour MPs will back Keir Starmer

The Tories, backed by the SNP and the Lib Dems, have tabled a motion calling for Sir Keir to be referred to the Privileges Committee over claims in the House including that "full due process” had been followed and that “no pressure existed whatsoever in relation to this case”.

Speaking to The Herald, Mr Sarwar said: “Let's just look at it for what it is, it's a political stunt nine days out from an election.

“People know my view on Keir Starmer, they know my view on the Mandelson scandal, but Scottish Labour MPs are not going to take part in a political stunt, and they are going to focus on this election campaign.

“So, they will vote against this party political stunt from the SNP, the Tories, and others, and they are going to focus on the issues that matter to people.”

Anas Sarwar tells @heraldscotland that Scottish Labour MPs will vote against the Privileges Committee probe into Keir Starmer. Brands it a “party political stunt” from the SNP and Tories. pic.twitter.com/fizpjzskET

— Andrew Learmonth (@andrewlearmonth) April 28, 2026

Asked what voters were saying to him on the doorstep about Sir Keir, Mr Sarwar said: "I think there's an acceptance that people have a disappointment and an anger, yes, with Keir Starmer, but actually also with an SNP government.

"And unlike political opponents I'll be honest about failure wherever I see it.

"Yes, I have a frustration with the mistakes made by Keir Starmer.

"That's why I said what I said back in February but the opportunity that people have in this election is to change the government in Scotland and to remove the SNP from office and change the First Minister.

"So a vote for me and Scottish Labour is not an endorsement of Keir Starmer and it won't be used as an endorsement of Keir Starmer."

SNP Westminster leader Stephen Flynn said that Mr Sarwar was “too weak and untrustworthy to actually stand up to Starmer when it matters most”.

He went on: “The branch office is back — Anas Sarwar and his Labour MPs have today chosen Starmer over Scotland by voting for what looks like a grubby cover-up in the Peter Mandelson scandal.

“Instead of taking action to investigate the scandal-hit Prime Minister, Sarwar and his Scottish Labour MPs have followed orders from Downing Street to keep him in place and, in doing so, have directly implicated themselves in the Mandelson scandal,” he added.

The row came as the former top official at the Foreign Office told MPs that “full due process” had not been followed.

Sir Philip Barton told Westminster’s Foreign Affairs Committee there was an “uninterested” attitude towards getting Lord Mandelson high-level security clearance for the role.

And he suggested there was pressure to “get on with” approving the peer for developed vetting (DV).

Asked directly whether he agreed that full due process had been followed, Sir Philip paused before telling the committee: “I’m going to dodge,” saying it was for MPs to form a view on that.

But he told MPs the “normal order” for ambassadorial appointments was for vetting to be completed before an announcement, contradicting claims by the Government.

Sir Philip said he had learned Lord Mandelson had been picked as US ambassador on December 15, 2024, days before Sir Keir made the announcement.

Asked if he had any concerns about the appointment, he told the committee he had worries about Lord Mandelson’s known connection to paedophile financier Epstein.

“Obviously, I didn’t know what was actually going to happen, because Epstein was such a toxic, hot potato subject in US politics itself, including in the election campaign,” he said.

But he also suggested there was no way for him to raise his concerns before the appointment, as “I was presented with a decision … and told to get on with it”.

He told MPs: “I had a concern that a man who demonstrably from the public record at the time — and it was clearly much bigger than we all knew — had a link to Epstein, and that Epstein, through both the presidential election campaign in the US and more generally in US politics, had been and was a controversial figure, and I was worried that this could become a problem in future.

“That is a very candid account of probably what I was thinking at the time but there was no space or avenue or mechanism for me to put that on the table.

“A decision had been taken. It was a political decision.”

Sir Keir had been “made aware of the risks, and had accepted those risks and decided to proceed”, Sir Philip added.

He denied there was a “dismissive” attitude towards the vetting process — as his successor Sir Olly Robbins had claimed — but added: “The word I would use is uninterested.

“I think people wanted to know that all the practical steps required for Mandelson to arrive in Washington on or around the inauguration date … needed to be completed at pace, as it were.”

His evidence contradicted suggestions from the Government that it was normal procedure to carry out vetting after a political appointment to a diplomatic posting was announced.

Sir Philip said: “The normal order is vetting and then announcement.”

Asked if he knew why the process was reversed in Lord Mandelson’s case, he said: “No, the timing of the announcement was driven and decided by No 10.”

Lord Mandelson was granted DV status by the Foreign Office in late January 2025, under Sir Olly, despite failing checks by the specialist UK Security Vetting agency.

The peer was sacked in September after further details emerged about his friendship with Epstein.

The committee also heard from Sir Keir’s former chief of staff Morgan McSweeney, who insisted he did not “ask officials to ignore procedures, request that steps should be skipped, or communicate explicitly or implicitly that checks should be cleared at all costs” during the appointment of Lord Mandelson.

Mr McSweeney admitted he was “wrong” to advise the Prime Minister to appoint the peer but said he believed Lord Mandelson had been the right choice to deal with Donald Trump’s incoming administration.

He told MPs: “What I did do was make a recommendation based on my judgment that Mandelson’s experience, relationships and political skills could serve the national interest in Washington at an important moment. That judgment was a mistake.

“What I did not do was oversee national security vetting, ask officials to ignore procedures, request that steps should be skipped, or communicate explicitly or implicitly that checks should be cleared at all costs.”

Labour MPs will be ordered to oppose the attempt to launch an investigation into the Prime Minister, which has been led by the Tories and supported by the Liberal Democrats, SNP and other opposition MPs.

Sir Keir sought to dismiss the Commons bid to refer him to the committee, a move which ended Boris Johnson’s political career, as a “political stunt” ahead of May’s elections.

His defence is that former head of the civil service Sir Chris Wormald had concluded that “appropriate processes” were followed in the appointment of Lord Mandelson.

And on the issue of pressure, Sir Keir has insisted that there was only the “everyday pressure of government” in trying to implement decisions quickly.