Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

Harriet Cross Excerpts

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sam Rushworth]

I will address that point in just a moment.

First, let us address the point about process. Sir Chris Wormald’s letter to the Prime Minister said:

“The evidence I have reviewed leads me to conclude that appropriate processes were followed in both the appointment and withdrawal of the former HMA Washington.”

Sir Olly Robbins confirmed that he did not tell the Prime Minister that Mandelson had failed the vetting process, and said:

“You are not supposed to share the findings and reports of UKSV, other than in the exceptional circumstances where doing so allows for the specific mitigation of risk.”

Cat Little, who also appeared before the Foreign Affairs Committee, said:

“My view is that due process was followed...because the process as I’ve outlined to the Committee, is that UKSV make a recommendation, and the Foreign Office make a decision as to whether to grant DV.”

All the evidence so far is certainly corroborating that view.

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sam Rushworth]

I will in a moment. I want to address my colleague’s question about pressure.

Clearly there are different types of pressure that can be exerted, and Sir Olly Robbins was clearly talking about the pressure to reach a decision quickly—[Interruption.] Opposition Members all know what was going on in the decision to appoint Peter Mandelson. We had had a change in Government in the United States. We had no trade deal with the United States, thanks to the legacy that the Conservatives left us. We had a difficult situation that meant that we needed a capable ambassador in post before President Trump’s inauguration.

[Harriet Cross]

Is the hon. Member therefore suggesting that the previous ambassador was not capable?

[Sam Rushworth]

I am happy to answer that point—[Interruption.] If Opposition Members stop chuntering, they will hear the answer, which is no, not at all. It is my personal view, although I am not an expert in these things, that I probably would have appointed an ambassador. I have said I thought the appointment of Peter Mandelson was wrong. I would have probably appointed an ambassador to the United States or left her in post, but that is immaterial to the point I am making. The point I am making is that No. 10 clearly felt time pressure to get somebody in post. There is a difference between feeling a pressure to conclude a process quickly and pressure being exerted on someone to change the decision. If we listen to what Sir Olly Robbins actually said, we will see that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Barros-Curtis]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. Even if his intervention was perhaps slightly askew from the point I am about to make, it goes to the question of consistency on this issue and many others.

As I said, the Opposition party leaders have been shapeshifting on this issue. The Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), rather than waiting for the evidence, had already made up their minds two weeks ago. On 17 April, the day after the story broke in The Guardian, the Lib Dems put out a press release stating that

“Starmer must be investigated by Privileges Committee over…the decision to overrule Mandelson’s failed security vetting”,

but that was found wanting, because the evidence showed otherwise. That was proven when the Prime Minister came to the Chamber at the earliest opportunity, on Monday 20 April, and laid the evidence before this House. Sir Olly Robbins backed that up in his evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee on 21 April.

[Harriet Cross]

The hon. Member mentioned the Guardian story on 16 April. The Prime Minister found out about this on 14 April, so the earliest opportunity would have been 15 April at Prime Minister’s questions, would it not?

[Mr Barros-Curtis]

The Prime Minister addressed that question when it was put to him in this House a number of times over the following days. He said that he was trying to secure the answers to the questions that he asked on that evening, and the officials were not able to answer, so as he has said, and as colleagues have made clear, including Cabinet colleagues, he came back to this House at the earliest opportunity to update it, as is right.

I go back to the timeline of the Opposition’s shapeshifting. On Friday 17 April, the Leader of the Opposition went on national radio and television to say:

“It is completely preposterous for us to believe that civil servants would have cleared a political appointee who had failed security vetting.”

She also said that the Prime Minister is “taking us for fools,” and she called for him to go. As other colleagues have elaborated—I will not dwell on this—that standard was not consistently applied to the proven liar Boris Johnson, so we see the shapeshifting of the Opposition parties on that point.

The motion before us dwells on two aspects: due process and, of course, the question of pressure. On due process, I will explain why I do not think the case is made out. I note that the motion does not criticise the process, which, as this debate has played out over recent weeks, has been shown to be seriously deficient and lacking. That has necessitated reviews and changes, at the Prime Minister’s order, and some of that has been elaborated on in today’s debate. Indeed, the motion makes assertions, without actual evidence, that have not withstood further testimony from key officials to the Foreign Affairs Committee. We know that the Prime Minister was not told about UK Security Vetting’s recommendation not to grant clearance to Peter Mandelson for many weeks, and Sir Chris Wormald has confirmed that due process was followed, so I do not accept that the case has been made out.

When we turn to the question of there being no pressure, the Leader of the Opposition made great play of her selective quotes. I have the Hansard before me for Prime Minister’s questions of 22 April, and it is quite clear:

“Let me deal with this directly, particularly this question of pressure in relation to the decision to appoint Peter Mandelson and to put him in place.”—[Official Report, 22 April 2026; Vol. 784, c. 316.]

The Prime Minister was clearly referring to the parts of Sir Olly’s evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee on 21 April on the specific point about whether or not pressure was brought to bear on the outcome of the vetting process. That was also the gist of the Leader of the Opposition’s preceding question to the Prime Minister. It is also notable that just today, Sir Philip Barton substantiated the position that there are two different types of pressure, and while there was pressure to get on with making a decision, which the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton alluded to, Sir Philip went on to say that he was

“not aware of any pressure on the substance”

of the vetting decision, which is what this motion goes to.

I am conscious of time, so I will conclude by expressing solidarity with my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Emma Lewell), who spoke with great power. She and I spoke about some of these issues before I had the privilege of coming to this place, and of course I offer my support.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland said in his excellent speech, it is clear from the tone of some in this debate that this is not about the substance of the issue; it is about trying to exploit the situation for partisan political gain. There is no doubt in my mind that certain political opponents will seek to make the lives of my hon. Friends and others difficult, just as they have on other serious issues, for example by impugning our decisions on grooming gangs and targeting us on social media, which means we become subject to death threats. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields said, that makes it much worse for her in her constituency. Indeed, the Tory Front Benchers were nodding when my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland talked about this earlier. As I said, they probably already have their digital media attacks ready, in which they will define us as voting to cover up. [Interruption.] They confirm it again; that belies their intent.

There is no doubt in my mind that it was a mistake to appoint Peter Mandelson, and the Prime Minister has taken responsibility for that, but as the quality of certain contributions today suggests, and as I explained in setting out my reason for not supporting the motion, it is clear to me that the motion, rather than seeking to uphold standards, risks undermining them. We should get on with the business of Government, and we should get on with tackling the issues that our constituents are most concerned about, as the Leader of the Opposition said. We should focus on the job in hand. For all those reasons, I will not support the motion today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

Having listened to this debate, I fear that the Labour Back Benchers who do not support the motion are being too pessimistic. They see a referral to the Privileges Committee as a threat or something to fear, which is the wrong approach. A referral to the Privileges Committee should be seen by Labour MPs as an opportunity for the Prime Minister to prove, as he says he believes, that he has done nothing wrong and has not misled the House; and an opportunity for the Government, who have summoned all their Back Benchers here today, demanding and expecting that they will give the Prime Minister their confidence, to show that the loyalty the Prime Minister expects of them is justified.

Labour Back Benchers should be in no doubt that, as we have heard multiple times today, the manner in which this vote is being managed by the Labour Whips is not usual for a privilege motion. In whipping them to vote to save him from appearing before the Privileges Committee, and from having to explain himself, the Prime Minister is once again not following normal process.

We have heard many speeches from Opposition Members about the allegations, our belief that the Prime Minister has misled the House, and our belief that normal due process has not been followed, although the Prime Minister has repeatedly said that it has. Labour Members must not forget that at the heart of this saga is the catastrophic lack of judgment shown by the Prime Minister in hiring the twice-fired known friend of a convicted paedophile, who, as the Prime Minister knew, retained, even after the annexation of Crimea, an exec role at Sistema, a company with Russian defence interests. That is the level of judgment and the calibre of decision making that the Prime Minister has been trying to justify, and that is what has led to the claim that he has been misleading the House, which we are discussing today.

The decision that Labour MPs face today is whether to support the Prime Minister’s version of events. We have seen too many times throughout this saga that it has been the Prime Minister’s version of events versus that of others. By asserting that he has not misled the House, the Prime Minister is effectively saying that Sir Olly Robbins and Sir Philip Barton have misled the Foreign Affairs Committee. Is that really what Labour MPs are comfortable supporting?

Sir Olly Robbins said that No. 10 put pressure on the Foreign Office to expedite Mandelson’s vetting, and the Prime Minister insists that this did not happen. Sir Philip Barton said today at the Foreign Affairs Committee that the usual process for appointing an ambassador would be vetting first and then the announcement, not the announcement and then the vetting, as happened in the case of Mandelson’s appointment.

[Sam Rushworth]

I think the hon. Lady may be inadvertently misquoting the Prime Minister, but if I am wrong, I invite her to quote exactly what the Prime Minister said about pressure to expedite the process. My recollection is that the Prime Minister said that there was no pressure to change the decision, not expedite the process.

[Harriet Cross]

That is a very welcome intervention. My recollection, and that of most Opposition Members, is that the Prime Minister said there was no pressure whatsoever. That is not what was said at the Foreign Affairs Committee. Both those things cannot be right. Are Labour MPs saying that the Prime Minister is right, or are they saying that Sir Olly Robbins misled the Foreign Affairs Committee? Both those things cannot be right. They need to choose who they agree with and which of those is correct. They cannot both be correct.

[Joe Robertson]

I have a suggestion for this disagreement that is going on in the House: why do we not refer it to the Privileges Committee?

[Harriet Cross]

Genius! My hon. Friend is full of great ideas. That is the calibre that we expect of him.

On misleading the House, the Prime Minister said that no one in No. 10 was aware that there had been any concerns about Mandelson’s vetting before the revelation was made a few weeks ago, despite it being reported in The Independent in September last year. On that very point, I submitted a named day question to the Cabinet Office last week, which was due to be answered yesterday. It simply asked whether The Independent is one of the newspapers to which the current or any previous director of communications, press secretary or anyone else at No. 10 has a subscription. The named day deadline has passed; the answer has not been received.

That was a simple question. Why has it not been answered? It would be very easy to find the answer. Maybe no one at No. 10 had a subscription to The Independent, but if they did, it would be difficult to hold the line that no one at No. 10 had any indication until just a few weeks ago that there had been any issues with Mandelson’s vetting. If the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister would like to intervene now and shed light on either the delay or the answer to that question, I will happily take the intervention.

[The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister (Darren Jones)]

indicated dissent.

[Harriet Cross]

That says all we need to know.

I hope that Labour Back Benchers and, indeed, Ministers see today as the opportunity it is for the Prime Minister. By voting for the motion, they will give the Prime Minister an opportunity to present his case to the Privileges Committee, an opportunity to prove his side of the story and an opportunity—if, as he said, he did not mislead the House—to be exonerated on that claim. I leave MPs with this final thought. If, as he claims, the Prime Minister has done nothing wrong, why has he whipped the entire Labour party, some of them back from across the country—some of whom we have not seen for weeks in this place—to vote to prevent him from having to give evidence to the Privileges Committee?