Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

Andrew Lewin Excerpts

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)]

In advocating for the motion, the Leader of the Opposition—[Interruption.] She is just returning to her place; I knew she was waiting for me. Her essential argument, I believe, was that we in this House had not spent enough time debating this issue, and that perhaps just one more Committee would be the answer.

Before we began our debate today, there had been five statements and two debates: more than 13 hours of debate in the House of Commons. That is my count of how long we have been discussing the Mandelson issue. That is a conservative estimate—small c—because it cannot account for Prime Minister’s questions and all the other ministerial questions. It is also, of course, distinct from the important hearings being held by the Foreign Affairs Committee, as well as those of the Intelligence and Security Committee, as it forensically carries out its work in compliance with the Humble Address and the release of all papers relating to Mandelson’s appointment as ambassador to the United States.

I do not think that the British public believe that just one more Committee is the answer, but I want to set out why I think we are at an important juncture and to look at three actions that the Government have taken: the apology from the Prime Minister, the action taken across Government Departments and the ongoing scrutiny still being applied to this case. The Prime Minister has offered repeated and unconditional apologies from the Dispatch Box and when he has been asked questions by the media, including to the victims of Epstein. He has made clear that this was an error of judgment. A message of contrition has been heard by people in this House and across the country. We all make mistakes; that is not in dispute. Let us turn next to the action that has been taken and continues to take place across Government.

More than 300 documents have already been released to the Intelligence and Security Committee, in full compliance with the Humble Address. That is really important. I was part of the debate—a good debate in this House—about giving the Intelligence and Security Committee oversight of the process. At the time, the Opposition said that that was an important thing to do and there was consensus across the House.

[Dr Luke Evans]

I also took part in that debate. The hon. Gentleman will remember and the record will show that the decision was suddenly made during the debate. The Government were going to vote against the Humble Address; the decision was made only because Members on both sides, particularly those on the Intelligence and Security Committee, put themselves forward and said that there was that option. We were having the debate in the first place because the Opposition compelled the Government to submit the papers. The hon. Gentleman cannot say that the decision was just put out there by his side.

[Andrew Lewin]

I remember the debate vividly. Members from both sides made the case. I said in my remarks that that was an example of the House at its best, because we came to a good decision to involve the ISC. I raise the issue again today because I was fascinated by what the Leader of the Opposition said. She characterised that Committee as a “never-never” Committee earlier today, as if it would never come to the answer. All of a sudden it seems that it is politically convenient for the Opposition to lose faith in the ISC, although they were advocating for it for so long.

More action has been taken, and that is important. Vetting has been discussed extensively today. The process in place under the last Government and at the start of this Government has gone: it has already been changed by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister. In future, all vetting will now be completed before appointments. That is absolutely the right change.

[Graham Stuart]

It is quite clear, from the advice given by Simon Case in November 2024, that that was the situation. We only found out that there was not the alternative process because the documents were forced into the open. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that Chris Wormald’s letter, which suggested that everything had been done properly, contradicts the direct advice given by the then Cabinet Secretary that the vetting should be done first? It is not compatible; it is illogical. Surely, the hon. Gentleman, who is giving the least embarrassing speech on behalf of the Government so far—congratulations to him on that—can see that?

[Andrew Lewin]

The right hon. Gentleman is very kind; I will see him on the cricket pitch in a week’s time. There is a serious point, in that there are a number of very senior civil servants, who I will come to, who have given evidence on that and have said that process was followed. That leads neatly to my next point about the importance of ongoing scrutiny—the scrutiny that is being conducted by the Foreign Affairs Committee.

[Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)]

I want to pick up on that point. We have heard a lot of evidence today. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is clear that there were so many inconsistencies and so much confusion about the process that the Prime Minister was absolutely right to build back trust in that process and make the decisions he has made?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Lewin]

I appreciate my hon. Friend’s intervention. The Prime Minister was right and the House was right to accept the Humble Address, involve the Intelligence and Security Committee, and give the Foreign Affairs Committee all the scope it needs to ask questions of the key actors in the process. Just to remind the House, in the past few weeks and days we have heard evidence in public from Cat Little, Sir Olly Robbins, Morgan McSweeney and from the Prime Minister himself, repeatedly, from the Dispatch Box. The Prime Minister and the Government are not hiding; they are putting everything in the sunlight, as an hon. Member suggested earlier.

This is a deeply serious issue for the House and for the country. I want again to associate myself with everyone who has spoken today about the pain that is continually being felt by the victims of Jeffrey Epstein every time this issue is raised. Our thoughts are with all of them.

The Prime Minister has apologised unconditionally. He has acted and the Government have acted, and scrutiny from two Committees is still ongoing. The judgment before us is not whether scrutiny should happen—it most clearly and evidently is happening—but whether we should support a conveniently timed motion from the Leader of the Opposition to refer the issue to one more Committee. I am afraid I do not believe that that is the answer, and I would trust the judgment of this Prime Minister over that of the Leader of the Opposition every day of the week.