In a dramatic session of the House of Commons on Monday, April 20, Zarah Sultana, MP for the newly formed “Your Party,” was suspended after calling Prime Minister Keir Starmer a “bare-faced liar.” During a heated debate, Sultana accused the Prime Minister of being “gaslighting the nation” regarding the Peter Mandelson vetting scandal.
When Sultana refused to withdraw the unparliamentary language, Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle “named” her. This formal motion resulted in her immediate removal from the chamber and a five-day suspension from Parliament, which includes a loss of pay.
Sultana is the first MP to be named and suspended since 2022. Notably, Reform UK MP Lee Anderson was also ordered to leave the House during the same session for similar accusations against Starmer.
The Mandelson vetting scandal: Why Starmer is under fire
It was recently revealed that Lord Peter Mandelson failed several security vetting checks due to his past ties to Jeffrey Epstein.
Foreign Office officials allegedly overrode the security experts’ recommendations, allowing him to serve as the Ambassador to the US. Mandelson was sacked from the post in late 2025 after just nine months.
The scandal has since led to the dismissal of the Foreign Office’s top civil servant, Olly Robbins. In this regard, Prime Minister Starmer told MPs it was “staggering and unforgivable” that he was not informed of the failed vetting.
He maintained that he only learned about the security red flags on April 14, 2026. To prevent a recurrence, Starmer announced a historic change in protocol as ambassadors will now be fully vetted before their appointments are publicly announced.
While blaming officials for withholding information, Starmer acknowledged that the original decision to appoint Mandelson was an error in judgment for which he apologized.
As MPs put questions to Starmer, Sultana said: “We all know that the Prime Minister appointed Mandelson because he owes his job to him. He appointed him, he defended him, and now he claims to know nothing.
“He is gaslighting the nation. So let’s call this out for what it is. The Prime Minister is a bare-faced liar.”
Hoyle said: “Leave now, I’ll name you otherwise, I’d go now if I were you.
“I’ve given the option to name. I’d leave if I were you, very quickly.”
Anderson, the MP for Ashfield, said: “The problem the Prime Minister’s got is that no-one believes him. The public don’t believe him. The MPs on this side of the House don’t believe him. His own gullible backbenchers don’t believe him.
“So does the Prime Minister agree with me, he’s been lying?”
Hoyle intervened to say: “Sorry, we don’t use those words, and I’m sure the member’s withdrawn it.”
Anderson replied: “Mr Speaker, I have the greatest respect for you and your office, but I will not withdraw it. That man couldn’t lie straight in bed.”
John Lamont challenged the Prime Minister, stating that Starmer’s previous claims regarding the Peter Mandelson vetting process have been proven untrue.
Lamont specifically asked Starmer to admit that he had inadvertently misled the House of Commons-a serious charge that often requires a formal apology or resignation in British politics.
While denying personal dishonesty, Starmer acknowledged a major breakdown in communication. He admitted that both he and Parliament should have been provided with the vetting information much earlier.
Starmer argued that his decision to now “set out of the account in full” is proof of his integrity, rather than an admission of guilt for his past statements.
