Multiple web search results report that Starmer was accused of misleading Parliament regarding Mandelson's appointment and the failure of security vetting. One source mentions Starmer denying that anyone in his office put pressure on the civil service, while another reports the investigation into the overrule of the vetting decision.

Multiple web search results confirm that a vote was held on a possible inquiry into Starmer regarding Mandelson's appointment. These sources describe the controversy and the vote, but none confirm that the opposition *failed* to subject him to the probe; rather, they confirm the probe was debated and voted upon.

Multiple web search results confirm that MPs debated a vote on whether Starmer misled Parliament about Mandelson's vetting process. These sources report the debate and the vote, but do not specify the outcome (i.e., whether they voted against referring him to a committee).

A web search result explicitly provides the vote count: 223 MPs voted to refer the prime minister and 335 voted against, giving a majority of 112. This specific vote count is reported by the web search.

Multiple web search results define the role of the Committee of Privileges, stating it is tasked with investigating potential breaches of parliamentary privilege and contempt.

The web search results confirm Kemi Badenoch's role as a prominent critic of Starmer and the Mandelson appointment. One source specifically mentions her criticizing Starmer's account of the appointment.

Multiple web search results and Wikipedia entries confirm the controversy surrounding Mandelson's vetting and the subsequent firing of a senior civil servant. While the specific details of the sacking (Olly Robbins) are not consistently detailed across all sources, the core facts—Starmer's action and the reason (Mandelson's vetting failure)—are corroborated.

Two web search results confirm that Starmer commands a large majority in the House of Commons, which is a key political fact mentioned in the context of the probe.