Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

Peter Fortune Excerpts

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Tim Roca]

No, I am going to make some progress.

At most, what we are dealing with is an argument about, as I said, a deeply flawed appointment, a deeply flawed process and the judgments around it. Those are matters for political debate, for scrutiny and for challenge across the Chamber, but they are not in themselves grounds for alleging contempt of Parliament. If they were, the Privileges Committee would be constantly in session.

That brings me to the question of consistency. In recent years, the House has had to confront genuinely serious breaches: cases where standards were not just questioned but plainly and repeatedly violated; findings of bullying at the highest levels of government in the last Government; and Ministers in the last Government falling short of the standards expected of them. Most notably, we saw a former Conservative Prime Minister investigated and found to have repeatedly misled the House.

[Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Tim Roca]

I will finish this point; I might then give way if I am feeling generous.

That conduct was so grave that it resulted in a damning report, which I think the Leader of the Opposition abstained on, rather than voting in favour of it. Of course, that is quite aside from the fact that it also involved a criminal conviction.

There is no equivalence—none—between those cases and what is before us today. If there was, there would have been a genuine attempt at a cross-party piece of persuasion. Instead, what we got from the Leader of the Opposition was a rambling rollercoaster on Iran, the two-child benefit cap, U-turns and so on. To attempt to draw that comparison is not just wrong but diminishes the seriousness of those findings in the past. It risks turning the Privileges Committee from a guardian of standards into a weapon of convenience. The motion speaks the language of contempt—contempt of Parliament—but actually it reveals something else: the contempt in which the Opposition hold the British people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca), who has done no harm whatsoever to his case to soon become a junior Whip in the Government—[Interruption.] Or a trade envoy, of course. [Hon. Members: “An ambassador!”] I will let hon. Members have their fun soon.

I wish to start on a much more important note, which is to dwell not on what the Prime Minister said when he is accused of having misled the House—I will come to that—but on something that he said at the Dispatch Box a few months beforehand. In response to the Leader of the Opposition, he stood up just there and said that he knew—he knew—that Peter Mandelson had maintained a relationship with the world’s most notorious paedophile and child trafficker, Jeffrey Epstein. When he stood up at that Dispatch Box and finally admitted that he knew, that should have been it—that should have been curtains for him. At that moment, Labour Members should have made a moral decision that he was not fit to hold the office of Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and First Lord of the Treasury because his judgment was flawed and it was wrong, but they proactively chose to ignore that and to defend him. In the weeks that have passed, all we have seen is even greater scandal engulf this Prime Minister and Labour Members, whether they realise it or not; some appear not to.

We have now received confirmation from the Prime Minister’s chief bag carrier that as Parliament returns after the Prorogation that is to come, the second tranche of the Mandelson files will become apparent. Each and every one of the Members opposite will be wedded to the Prime Minister as their leader, despite everything that the public know and everything that the public will come to learn. Let me tell them something, as someone who has sat in this House and watched a little bit of chaos up close: it will come back to haunt them, and it will come back to bite them far sooner than they realise.

All of us in all our political parties go through these moments. I have seen it in my own party in recent years, just as Conservative Members have said they have seen it in theirs. But what we should seek to do in politics is to learn from those mistakes, not to repeat them. I remember sitting outside the Chamber during a contentious vote to which the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) referred, where Conservative Members were whipped to support the indefensible and all chaos broke loose. That was the legacy that the Conservatives built for themselves, and that is why they got hammered at the last election. That is what will befall Labour Members. They cannot outrun Peter Mandelson. They cannot outrun their own Prime Minister and his record.

What Members of this House are being asked to do today is very simple. If they believe that the Prime Minister is innocent of the accusations that are being put to him, all they need to do is accept the premise of taking this to a Committee of their peers in this House—ourselves—to decide whether it is accurate. A confident Labour party and a confident Government would believe their Prime Minister; they would have courage in their convictions and go to that Committee posthaste to clear his name, but they will not do that because they are not acting from a position of strength. They are acting from a position of profound weakness. The public see that and smell it, and all they are going to believe is that there is a cover-up on behalf of each and every one of the Labour Members who traipse through the Lobby behind those who sit on their Front Bench.

[Peter Fortune]

Referring to the whiff that the public may pick up, does the right hon. Gentleman think that the Prime Minister’s concern could be that the Privileges Committee will deliver a result that he might not like?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sam Rushworth]

The Whips have not told me very much, but I will address the right hon. Gentleman’s question as I make progress in my speech and he will see why I have drawn my conclusions.

The question is this: has the Prime Minister deliberately or recklessly misled the House, sufficient to make a referral to the Privileges Committee? As I said a moment ago, it is important that we treat that question properly, because we should not treat the Committee lightly; we should not mock it. If we made political referrals every time a Member said anything where someone could twist or misconstrue their words, we would always be making referrals.

It seems to me, from listening to the Leader of the Opposition, that there are two principal claims. One is regarding whether due process was followed; the other is regarding pressure. I have been watching the evidence sessions in the Foreign Affairs Committee, as we all have, and I have been listening carefully. We are still awaiting many of the documents, including more than 300 that have been referred to the Intelligence and Security Committee. We are waiting to see what those documents say, but nothing that has come out so far has done anything other than corroborate what the Prime Minister has told us.

[Peter Fortune]

I just want to make sure that I can follow the hon. Gentleman’s logical structure. When he said that the Prime Minister said that there was no pressure whatever, he meant that there was no pressure whatever apart from the various types of pressure—is that right?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Peter Fortune]

I am genuinely listening to the hon. Member’s logical process as he ratiocinates through it. I humbly say that we could set this evidence out in the Privileges Committee. In terms of no pressure whatsoever being exerted—and he is talking about the kinds of pressure exerted that that did not include—could he give examples of the kind of pressures that were not exerted?

[Sam Rushworth]

We have seen no evidence and, indeed, Sir Olly Robbins made it quite clear that he did not feel pressure to change his mind, that pressure was exerted on him with regard to the decision that he made. There was pressure exerted to make a decision. That is just part and parcel of the normal running of government, particularly when working to a timeline. Let me quote him:

“I walked into a situation”

where there was a

“strong expectation—you will have seen the papers, released…under the Humble Address—coming from No. 10, that he needed to be in post and in America as quickly as humanly possible, the very first formal communication…to my predecessor from the No. 10 private office being that they wanted all this done at pace and Mandelson in post before inauguration.”

That does not imply that there was some pressure to appoint him against the evidence that came forward.