Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Before we begin the next item of business, I think it would be helpful to the House if I reminded Members of the decision in question and the procedures for today’s debate. The decision before the House today is not whether a contempt has been committed; it is whether to refer the matter to the Privileges Committee. If such a referral is made, it will be for the Committee to report back to this House in due course and make any necessary recommendations.

The debate today may continue until 7 o’clock at the latest, at which time there will need to be a successful closure motion, or the debate will be adjourned to a future date. In recent years, the length of time taken for debates on similar motions has ranged from seven minutes to five hours. Any Members who wish to speak need to stand at the beginning of the debate to ensure that they catch my eye. If the debate becomes very repetitive, we may have to consider whether it would be appropriate to accept an early closure motion.

Finally, Members will be aware of the rules relating to good temper and moderation in parliamentary language. Today’s proceedings are on a substantive motion relating to specific responses by the Prime Minister to this House. It is perfectly in order for hon. Members to question the veracity of the responses cited in the motion, and to debate whether or not they were misleading. However, it is not in order to challenge in more general terms the truthfulness of the Prime Minister.

The Leader of the Opposition has tabled a motion for debate on the matter of privilege, which I have agreed should take precedence today. I call her to move the motion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Leader of the Opposition for securing and introducing this motion. Does she agree that there is a very dangerous pattern emerging in the Government’s judgment after they bypassed vetting to appoint Lord Mandelson, a man with well-documented security concerns? Is she also concerned about the Government hand-picking an Attorney General whose hands are still warm from defending Gerry Adams against the victims of IRA terror? It is little wonder that the people of this nation, out there in the streets, are worried and concerned. Well done to the Leader of the Opposition for bringing this motion forward.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. You are straying outside the debate, Mr Shannon, and we must not do that.

[Mrs Badenoch]

I am concerned about the Prime Minister’s judgment on all manner of issues, not just the one we are discussing today.

This morning, we even heard the Prime Minister’s former chief of staff say that it should not have been him doing the due diligence, and that what he got back from Mandelson was not the full truth, but the Prime Minister appointed Peter Mandelson anyway—that is Morgan McSweeney saying that it was not full due process.

On several counts, it is clear that full due process was, in fact, not followed in this appointment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

I will ask the questions of the Leader of the Opposition, as that is how interventions work. Can I also suggest that, if she wants Government Back Benchers to support her motion, she should not be insulting us and calling us sheep? The critical question to which a lot of Back Benchers want to know the answer is: why now? Why, when the Foreign Affairs Committee has not concluded its investigation, has she brought forward this motion now? Is it because there are local elections next week, or is that a coincidence?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The decision was made on the letter that was sent to me, not on whether somebody may be meeting somewhere else. It is judged on the merit of that. I do not need to be questioned again.

[Mrs Badenoch]

I think the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) would like his ministerial job back, as that is the only explanation for asking that question.

I asked why, if full due process was followed, Sir Olly Robbins was sacked. No answer.

The Privileges Committee is clear that

“misleading intentionally or recklessly, refusing to answer legitimate questions, or failing to correct misleading statements, impedes or frustrates the functioning of the House and is a contempt.”

The Prime Minister has not answered legitimate questions on this appointment. Labour Members were all there at PMQs when I asked him about six times whether he spoke to Peter Mandelson before the appointment, and the Prime Minister refused to answer—that is contempt.

This is no longer just about the appointment of Peter Mandelson, or about the convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein. This is about whether or not the Prime Minister should be referred for contempt of Parliament. I do not know if he is in the Chamber, but the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) said last week that

“the Prime Minister is a man of the utmost decency who would never, ever lie”.—[Official Report, 21 April 2026; Vol. 784, c. 197.]

If that is the case, Labour Members should welcome this chance to prove it. If they really believe that statement, they would not have to be whipped to block an investigation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

Of course, the Leader of the Opposition is right that the Conservatives had a free vote on the partygate scandal. She chose to abstain, which is an absolute disgrace. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order.

[Dr Arthur]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The bigger disgrace is that she voted against taking action on Owen Paterson. An utter disgrace—she was whipped.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Badenoch]

Sit down. No, I will not give way; he has had his chance.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. If the right hon. Lady gives way, that is fine. You have had one crack at the whip, Dr Arthur. I would not try too many cracks.

[Mrs Badenoch]

I know that a lot of Labour MPs have not been in this situation before. They are being stitched up. I am trying to be helpful. This man has led them up so many hills and down again, with U-turn after U-turn. I talked about banning social media for children; there was also a U-turn on pensions mandation. This is a Government that do not know what they are doing.

I think it is very valiant of Labour MPs to come out to defend the Prime Minister, despite the fact that he took the Whip away from MPs who wanted to lift the two-child benefit cap—and then did it anyway. The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) had the Whip removed for opposing the two-child benefit cap, then the Prime Minister U-turned. The hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) had the Whip removed for voting against the Prime Minister’s welfare reforms, then he ditched the reforms. The hon. Member for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours) had the Whip removed for opposing the family farm tax. The Prime Minister has ditched that, but the hon. Member for Penrith and Solway still does not have the Whip back. This matters, Mr Speaker—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. This is about the privileges motion. I know that you are developing a theme, but I think we have run out of theme.

[Mrs Badenoch]

You are absolutely right, Mr Speaker. I am just asking why this is a whipped vote, when it will still happen anyway. This man has ruined the reputation of the Labour party, he has not been loyal to his own MPs and I do not think they are united.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)]

On the point of reading out statements, I see that the right hon. Lady is enjoying reading out her statement. What I cannot see is the case that she makes about the Privileges Committee, and what she does not think is right about a criminal investigation and the inquiries that are consistently being made about the decision, which we have accepted was wrong. What is wrong with the Foreign Affairs Committee and what is wrong with the processes—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sorry; you are out of scope.

[Mrs Badenoch]

Perhaps the hon. Lady should have just taken the Whips’ questions instead of messing that one up. She raises an interesting point about the Foreign Affairs Committee. It is looking only at Mandelson and not into the issue of the Prime Minister misleading the House. Let us stop pretending that the Committee is carrying out a massive inquiry. It really is not.

[Sam Rushworth]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Are you sure it is a point of order?

[Sam Rushworth]

I believe so, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Let’s hear it.

[Sam Rushworth]

A moment ago, the Leader of the Opposition described the statement read out by the Prime Minister as “doctored”. That is akin to saying that it was dishonest and that he was lying. Is that not unparliamentary language, Mr Speaker?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

As I suspected, it is not a point of order. You need to read the rule book. This is a substantive motion; it is not the normal debate. It might be helpful if you took some time out, rather than questioning, because you might be on to something, but not today.

[Mrs Badenoch]

Time and again throughout this debate, I have seen Labour MPs stand up and show that they do not understand what the rules are or what this is about. This is not about the specific statements; it is about whether or not there should be a referral to the Privileges Committee. They are moving the goalposts because they do not want to answer that simple question. They have come up with all sorts of excuses. It is not an excuse to say that there is a war on. The Prime Minister has said repeatedly that we are not in this war. He cannot have it both ways.

At every turn, the Prime Minister has tried to deny the House full transparency over this appointment. The House voted for documents to be released, and yet we discover that documents are not being released. That is a contempt of this Parliament. Labour MPs supported that Humble Address because they knew that we needed to see the truth. Documents from that release show that due process was not followed. The ISC is complaining that the documents are being delayed. We only discovered that there were numerous problems with Mandelson’s vetting because of a leak to The Guardian. The truth is being covered up. Today’s vote is about whether Labour MPs want to be complicit in this cover-up. If they vote against an investigation by the Privileges Committee, they are in this together.

This motion is supported across the House, including by Labour MPs, which is why they have to be whipped to vote against it. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) tweeted last week that he was calling for a referral to the Privileges Committee, before he deleted that tweet. This week he is calling it “a stunt”. Why? Who is twisting his arm? Why was it not a stunt last week when he was doing it, but it is a stunt this week when everybody else is doing it?

May I remind those who are mindlessly repeating the lines the Labour Whips have given them that it is also their job to hold the Government to account and uphold the standards of our democracy? Appointing a known national security risk to be ambassador to the United States is a profound failure of government. Do they not think it is important that Prime Ministers tell the truth on a matter of national security, or do they think this is an internal Labour party matter that they can fix themselves? For those who believe that Andy Burnham is coming to rescue them, I just say that if they vote against this investigation, there will be so much contempt for Labour that there is no by-election on this planet that Andy Burnham will be able to win. This is not an internal Labour party matter. Do they believe that when something is wrong, we should look into it? This is about whether they believe that Prime Ministers should not destroy the careers of civil servants to cover up for their own failures.

I know it is very difficult for Labour MPs to walk through the Lobby with Members from other parties, but let me be clear what they are saying if they vote against this motion. Would they rather be on the side of Peter Mandelson, of convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, of Morgan McSweeney and Matthew Doyle, and of the man who sacked Sir Chris Wormald, Sir Olly Robbins and Sue Gray? Is that what they came into Parliament for? Yesterday we read that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) said that Labour Members should back the Prime Minister so that she can pay off her new kitchen. Do they really want to tell their constituents that they voted against this inquiry because they are more concerned about their own personal finances than probity in public life? That is a shocking statement.

Every MP voting on this motion today will need to examine their conscience. This is not a matter of party loyalty; it is a matter of what each and every one of us believes is right. Labour MPs are being asked to defend a man who has let the country down, who has let Parliament down, and—let’s be honest—who has let the Labour party down. I say to Labour MPs: you can defend the Prime Minister today, and there are enough of you to get the vote through, but you will be complicit in a shameful abandoning of promises made to the electorate—promises that every Labour MP stood on. It is up to them what kind of MP they choose to be. They can choose to live up to their promises on standards, to ensure proper scrutiny takes place and allow the Privileges Committee to get to the bottom of this, or they can choose to put party before country. Their vote will define them, and the public are watching.

They say it is a stunt—then let the inquiry expose it. They say there is no evidence of misleading the House—then let the Committee test it. They say the Prime Minister has nothing to hide—then they should not vote to stop the Prime Minister being scrutinised. They do not have to defend this. They can still do the right thing. They can show that Parliament matters—it matters more than any party or any faction. They can vote to enhance Parliament, or they can prove the worst fears of people who think there is one rule for Labour and another rule for everyone else. I commend this motion to the House.

[Emma Lewell (South Shields) (Lab)]

I have watched this whole sorry saga play out for weeks now. Like the public, I feel let down, disappointed and angry. Peter Mandelson should never have been appointed. That was a fundamental failure of judgment. Matthew Doyle should never have been given a peerage. That was also a failure of judgment. I feel the way that today’s vote has been handled by the Government smacks once again of being out of touch and disconnected from the public mood. The fact that MPs like me are being whipped into voting against the motion is, in my view, wrong. It has played into the terrible narrative that there is something to hide, and good, decent colleagues will be accused of being complicit in a cover-up.

A number of weeks ago, at a private meeting with my right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister, I spoke about how, after a career spent working so closely with victims of child sexual abuse, I could not even begin to express how much it hurts me when people are screaming at me in the street that I am a member of the “paedo protectors party”. I also said that prior to this scandal, people criticised the Government’s policies and, at times, lack of political narrative, but they are now questioning the Government’s moral compass. My comments were leaked, almost immediately, by colleagues who were present. My words were later used by the Leader of the Opposition. Recent weeks have seen such abuse intensify and ongoing abuse and threats to my and my staff’s safety continue.

Privilege motions, ISC investigations, Committee hearings and process do not come up on the doorstep. What does come up time and again is a general feeling that there is something just not right—that politicians are failing to deliver on their promises. Trust has gone, and it has been replaced by anger. The already fragile fabric of our democracy is eroding further every day that this continues.

This Prime Minister is very careful with his words and does have respect for the office he holds. He does want to change this country for the better, and he truly believes in public service—something that has been sorely lacking from Prime Ministers in recent years—so I cannot understand why the Prime Minister does not refer himself to the Committee, with a clear statement that he is doing so to clear his name. One quick session of the Committee could surely see this matter concluded. Instead, this will now drag on and dominate every headline and interview. It will overshadow and undermine every good policy we make and continue to drag every single one of us down. Whether any Prime Minister misled the House is not a matter for the Foreign Affairs Committee, nor is it a matter for the Intelligence and Security Committee. It is a matter for the Privileges Committee—that is why such a Committee exists.

It may be that Opposition parties are using this motion to box Labour MPs in. I am not angry about that—that is politics; some of us here would do the same. I know one thing for certain today: I will not be voting against this motion. But I want to listen carefully to the rest of this debate, because like everyone, when I came to this House I wanted to do the right thing, and I hope I continue to do that for however long I have left in this place.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Sir Ed Davey, leader of the Liberal Democrats.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karl Turner]

I completely agree with my right hon. Friend. I think I said on Twitter that he rarely gets things wrong—I was accused of being wrong for agreeing with what he said. In the time I have known him, my right hon. Friend has rarely, in my opinion, got it wrong. I think he is absolutely spot on.

I am confident and convinced. I know the Prime Minister and know that he is not a liar. I know for a fact that he would not deliberately mislead. I think he would be exonerated. The trouble we now face is accusations from the electorate that we stopped the inquiry from happening in the first place and that the Prime Minister is guilty through the fact that we avoided it. Once we are in that position, we have a big problem, because you cannot prove something that never happened.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

May I first extend my thoughts and prayers to the victims of Epstein? I commend the bold and courageous contributions of Labour Members who will be voting for the motion.

I was elected as an independent Member of Parliament to represent the people of Birmingham Perry Barr without fear and without favour. I was sent here without a party Whip—without shackles or controls, or indeed hidden notes given to me behind closed doors. I was sent here to exercise my judgment, my discretion and my conscience at the behest of my constituents, and that is exactly what I do each and every day.

The truth is that the British public feel deeply, profoundly disenfranchised. Too many people no longer trust politicians. Too many believe that we say one thing and do another. Too many feel that there is one rule for those in power and another for everyone else. We cannot simply dismiss that sentiment; we must confront it. Honesty matters. Integrity matters. Credibility matters. Above all, transparency matters. Without those fundamental elements, public confidence does not just weaken; it disappears. And once it is gone, it is incredibly difficult to rebuild. I therefore ask colleagues across the House—especially Labour colleagues—what message do we send today if we refuse even to allow a Committee to examine the facts? What are we saying to the public if we block scrutiny before it has even begun?

The motion is not a verdict, a judgment or a declaration of guilt; it is a fair, established parliamentary process to examine evidence, to determine the facts and to allow the truth to emerge. Yet we are told that Labour Members are under a three-line Whip. For those outside the Chamber who may not know, that means they are being instructed and compelled to vote against the motion—to vote against even allowing the question to be examined. Let us be honest about what that looks like.

If an individual votes to prevent the investigation, they are not defending due process, but denying it; they are not upholding transparency, but obstructing it; they are not strengthening public trust, but further eroding it. To the British people, it will look like they are shielding, blocking and protecting the powerful from scrutiny. That is precisely the perception that we should all be fighting against, not reinforcing.

If we expect the public to follow the rules, to respect the law and to have faith in our institutions, we must hold ourselves to the same, if not higher, standards. We cannot ask for trust while refusing accountability, we cannot demand integrity while avoiding scrutiny and we cannot rebuild confidence by closing ranks.

This is a moment that calls for courage—not partisan courage, but moral courage; the courage to say, “Let the process take its course”; the courage to say that no one is above scrutiny; and the courage to put principle above party. As an independent Member, I answer only to my constituents and to my conscience. I am confident that every Labour Member will listen to their conscience. My conscience tells me that supporting this motion is the right thing to do, not because of politics, but because of principles, and not because of personalities, but because of the standards that we owe to the British public.

I urge colleagues across this House, particularly those under instructions today, to reflect carefully on the message that their vote will send. Will it be a message of openness or a message of obstruction? Will it be a message of accountability or a message of avoidance? The public are watching and they will draw their own conclusions. If we are serious about restoring trust in politics, we must be serious about transparency. If we are serious about integrity, we must be serious about scrutiny. If we are serious about public confidence, we must allow the truth to be examined, wherever that truth leads. For that reason, I support the motion. The Prime Minister is willing to put each and every Labour Member of Parliament at risk at the next general election, but he will not risk going in front of the Privileges Committee.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State, Alex Burghart.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Chowns]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. In fairness to the right hon. Member, he has given way once already. The hon. Lady cannot stand while he is speaking; she can indicate that she wishes to intervene, but she cannot continue to hang loose like she is trying to summon a taxi.

[Darren Jones]

I am grateful, Mr Speaker. I, for one, am rather enjoying myself, but I think the public might want to listen to the debate in the House today.

While the Opposition parties are playing games—as we can hear from their chuntering, their joking and their shouting—this Labour Government are doing the work that matters. I have been asked, “Where is the Prime Minister?” This afternoon, the Prime Minister has been chairing the middle east response committee, bringing together the Government to mitigate the impact of the war in the middle east. In contrast, the Opposition parties want to distract from the fact that after years of ordinary people facing pressures from the cost of living and feeling like hard work is not rewarded like it used to be, the Conservatives and their friends in Reform wanted the UK to go to war in the middle east, making it harder for families up and down the country—distraction, distraction, distraction.

In contrast, this Government are investing in new rail, roads and nuclear reactors, new scanners for our hospitals and free breakfast clubs for our kids. It is this Labour Government who have saved British Steel and who are investing in sovereign AI, renewing our high streets and delivering home-grown energy. This is relevant, Mr Speaker, because it goes to the motivation behind today’s motion.

This Labour Government are doing the hard work of building a better Britain, a Britain that gives people hope for a better future. All these Opposition parties want to tear that down—they want to tear down this Labour Government and the labour movement. [Interruption.] They agree, because like our forefathers before us, we have stood up to the power of vested interests, and we will do so again. When the Opposition parties come to the Chamber to try to tear down this labour movement and our project for the British people, I say to them all, “Not today—not on our watch. We will not let it happen.”

Question put.

--- Later in debate ---

18:13

Division 512

Question accordingly negatived.

Ayes: 223

Noes: 335

[Mr Speaker]

A Member of Parliament has complained to me, as has another Member. When Members are shouting “shame” at others who are voting, it is not acceptable and will not be tolerated. I hope that the people concerned will apologise to those Members they shouted at.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Out of 190 questions for written answer that I have put down in this Session, which is coming to its close, all but one have been answered. The exception is one that I mentioned on the Floor of the House yesterday during the statement by the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister. He responded:

“I always ensure that I honour parliamentary questions in a timely fashion.”—[Official Report, 27 April 2026; Vol. 784, c. 598.]

The last day for answering this question is today, and it so far has not been answered, so I wonder if I might give the Chief Secretary the opportunity to answer it now. It is this:

“To ask the Prime Minister who first suggested to him that Peter Mandelson should be appointed as Ambassador to the United States.”

[Darren Jones]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

We are not going to carry on the debate, but the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister is desperate to answer.

[Darren Jones]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. First, may I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman? I would have cleared parliamentary questions, but I have been in the House all afternoon. To answer his specific question, I refer him to the evidence given today to the Foreign Affairs Committee by Mr Morgan McSweeney, who confirmed that the first person to recommend Peter Mandelson to become ambassador was Peter Mandelson.

[Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I understand that when an MP visits another MP’s constituency, the custom and practice is that they should give that MP due notice. The Leader of the Opposition came to my constituency but did not inform me that she would be there. I seek your advice on how best to resolve this.[Official Report, 28 April 2026; Vol. 784, c. 870.] (Correction)

[Mr Speaker]

The good thing is that the Member has told me about it. I say to Members—whether they are Ministers, shadow Ministers, leaders or whoever—the courtesy is to the inform the Member whose constituency is being visited, unless it is a private visit. Can everybody please take that on board, especially as we are coming up to the election? The fever is already with us, so please adhere to what I believe is good practice.