Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

Phil Brickell Excerpts

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

May I start by saying that I take serious exception to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey), who I see is just about to leave the Chamber? She complained about us spending an afternoon talking “laboriously” about process. It is process that is on the face of the motion that the Leader of the Opposition has brought to the Chamber today, and that is what we are debating. That is because of the hon. Lady’s party. I am more than happy to spend an afternoon talking about process, because that is what we are here to do.

I speak in this debate on privileges with a unique perspective—one garnered from almost 15 years of experience working in a highly regulated sector, with responsibility for managing financial crime and reputational risk at two FTSE 100 firms, accountable for decisions made in managing conflicts of interest, promoting ethical codes of practice, training staff on when to do the right thing, testing the effectiveness of whistleblowing regimes and completing enhanced due diligence on individuals who posed heightened risk. That experience was gathered in the UK, the US, India, the UAE and elsewhere. I also speak as a recently departed member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, who sat in Portcullis House only in November and quizzed Sir Chris Wormald, the former Cabinet Secretary, and Sir Olly Robbins, the former permanent under-secretary at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, when they gave oral evidence to the Committee in the light of the sacking of Peter Mandelson as UK ambassador to Washington.

Let me say first that my thoughts are with the victims of Jeffrey Epstein’s terrible crimes. Nothing we say or do today can take away from the unimaginable hurt and pain that that man caused and continues to cause for victims, survivors, and their friends and families. Today and all days, we must remember them and do all that we can to support them in their continued fight for justice.

Secondly, I will confine my remarks to the specifics of the proposed referral to the Privileges Committee in the motion today. Mandelson’s appointment, what was recorded in the proprietary and ethics team’s due diligence report, and the UK Security Vetting process have all been debated on numerous occasions in this place already, and there remain live reviews under way that I do not want to preclude in any way.

Thirdly, the Prime Minister has rightly recognised that appointing Mandelson as ambassador to Washington was a mistake. Mandelson’s behaviour has been contemptible, and we are in no doubt on the Government Benches that he should never have been appointed. It was a mistake for which the PM has faced significant opprobrium, and there have been consequences for him—let us not forget that.

The honest truth is that we are all fallible. The PM made an error of judgment. For that, he rightly apologised in the House last Monday and sought forgiveness. As I will set out, to suggest that he has in any way misled the House is a political fabrication anchored not in truth but in a smokescreen of political mendacity that supposes a cock-up somehow equates to a conspiracy.

The Opposition moved a motion to have the Prime Minister referred to the Privileges Committee—something that has not happened since Boris Johnson’s referral back in the early part of 2022. That case and the matters being debated today are like chalk and cheese. Johnson was referred to the Privileges Committee for the most egregious of lockdown breaches: partying in No. 10, in breach of the rules, while we all made daily sacrifices to contain the virus; denying that he had breached the rules; and then doubling down on his denials.

Reading back through the Committee’s 108-page final report from 2023 gave me flashbacks, especially in recalling that Johnson misled the House on no fewer than six occasions, that he misled the Privileges Committee, that he breached confidence, that he impugned the Committee and undermined the democratic processes of the House and—perhaps most importantly—that he was complicit in a campaign of abuse and attempted intimidation of the Committee. I mention all that not to advance a political argument but rather to warn Conservative colleagues that the country has not forgotten what took place the last time the Privileges Committee convened to consider a PM’s conduct, and to advise them to take heed of that history.

[Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is speaking wisely of the time when Boris Johnson was before the Privileges Committee. Does he believe the House should remember that that Prime Minister lost an anti-corruption champion, who resigned over the issue? Conservative Members would be well placed to remember what happened when the Privileges Committee found misdeeds and wrongdoing on the part of that Prime Minister.

[Phil Brickell]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. He is a noble campaigner on cleaning up the House and the public sector more broadly.

The Opposition’s motion supposes that the PM may have misled the House due to statements he gave in this place about due process and about pressure. This is a complex topic. Given the forensic demolition of the motion by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Mr Barros-Curtis) with reference to pressure, I will focus my remarks on due process.

Before I speak more pointedly to process, as flagged by the Opposition, let me say this: I have no special access to information and I have not spoken to any of the individuals concerned regarding Mandelson in any way, shape or form since the Humble Address. I offer only my analysis based on the documents we have been given and statements made to the House by the Prime Minister and others when giving evidence before Parliament.

I speak as a Member of the House who is determined to drive up standards in public life, to improve the integrity of our system of government and to work constructively with Members of all political persuasions to improve the standing of politics as a force for good in the country at large. That is why only last week I met the Ethics and Integrity Commission to give formal input into that body’s workstream to tighten rules about financial disclosures, lobbying and the operation of the business appointment rules as they relate to Ministers and senior civil servants. But first, let us consider ongoing proceedings.

On 4 February, the House passed a Humble Address relating to the appointment of Peter Mandelson as His Majesty’s ambassador to Washington DC. It directed Government to

“lay before this House all papers relating to Lord Mandelson’s appointment…including but not confined to the Cabinet Office due diligence which was passed to Number 10, the Conflict of Interest Form Lord Mandelson provided to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office…material the FCDO and the Cabinet Office provided to UK Security Vetting”

as well as, among others,

“all information on Lord Mandelson provided to the Prime Minister prior to his assurance to this House on 10 September 2025 that ‘full due process was followed during this appointment’”.

Subject to agreed redactions for national security and international relations purposes as agreed with the Intelligence and Security Committee, the first volume of material was published by the Cabinet Office on 11 March.

Last Tuesday, the Foreign Affairs Committee took evidence from Sir Olly Robbins, the former permanent under-secretary at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. On Thursday, the Committee heard from Catherine Little, the civil service chief operating officer and permanent secretary at the Cabinet Office. Earlier today, the Committee heard from Sir Philip Barton, the previous permanent under-secretary at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, as well as from Morgan McSweeney, the former chief of staff at 10 Downing Street. There is also a separate live police investigation being undertaken by the Met into Mandelson, which the Cabinet Office will be keen to avoid prejudicing. It will require a delicate balancing of information to ensure that detectives are able to conduct their vital work without it being in any way overshadowed by ongoing parliamentary inquiries.

This brings me to the reasoning for today’s debate brought by the official Opposition. The first limb is due process. To the best of my ability, my understanding is that the Opposition contend that due process was not followed, first, because UK security vetting took place after Mandelson’s appointment and, secondly, because his vetting decision was not escalated for discussion with No. 10 or the Cabinet Office.

On the sequencing of events, let me set the record straight as I see it. When the Cabinet Office published its first volume of material after the Humble Address, it included a file note dated 11 November 2024 and marked:

“Official Sensitive—Personal and Staffing. Advice to the Prime Minister, Options for His Majesty’s Ambassador Washington.”

In that note, written to the PM by Simon Case, the Cabinet Secretary at the time, it is laid out in very clear language that one option was a political appointment, as was undertaken when Ed Llewellyn was appointed as HM Ambassador Paris by David Cameron in 2016 and as HM Ambassador Rome by Boris Johnson in 2022, for which there was a clear process to go through. To quote Lord Case in that note to the PM:

“If this is the route you wish to take you should give us the name of the person you would like to appoint and we will develop a plan for them to acquire the necessary security clearances and do due diligence on any potential Conflicts of Interest or other issues of which you should be aware before confirming your choice. A letter is then needed from the Foreign Secretary to the PUS to FCDO formalising the decision to make a political appointment.”

That was in November 2024.

Simon Case’s note was followed up by another note dated 11 December 2024 from the PM’s principal private secretary, Nin Pandit, noting that due diligence had been sought from the propriety and ethics team in the Cabinet Office on Mandelson—checks which were conducted by PET on 4 December 2024. After that, the PM’s chief of staff discussed Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein and noted that the PM’s director of communications was satisfied with Mandelson’s responses to questions about contact. Importantly, this was before further information came to light in September of last year, when it was identified that those responses were not truthful.

[Dr Luke Evans]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Phil Brickell]

I am going to make some progress, if that is okay—[Interruption.] I am in the flow of things and I am not halfway through yet, so I have a long way to go.

The PM’s PPS flagged that the relationship between Mandelson and Epstein would be gone over with the Prime Minister by his private office, and the principal private secretary noted that after a decision to proceed was made, only then would a decision be made as to when to make any appointment and announce it, and when the new ambassador would take up post, subject to a letter from the Foreign Secretary to the permanent under-secretary at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, followed by approval by the King and then agrément being obtained from the US Administration.

Correspondence from No. 10 to the permanent under-secretary at the FCDO, and from the FCDO PUS at the time, Sir Philip Barton, to the King’s private secretary, was disclosed in the first volume of material published following the Humble Address, which testifies to this sequence of events having taken place. On 20 December 2024, the private secretary to the permanent under-secretary at the FCDO emailed Mandelson congratulating him on his appointment and noting his onboarding, including regarding his “clearance”, which the head of the US and Canada Department of the FCDO noted on 23 December 2024 was an important “first step”.

When Sir Olly Robbins came before the Foreign Affairs Committee on 3 November last year, he said in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson):

“as is normally the case with external appointments to my Department and the wider civil service, the appointment was made subject to obtaining security clearance.”

Moreover, Sir Olly confirmed in that very session:

“we also went through the standard UK national security vetting process for DV… I am absolutely confident that UKSV undertook the process in precisely its standard way, doing all the checks it would expect to do, and we had ample time to assess and decide on the basis of its work.”

In reference to the remarks by the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood), it was worth noting for the record that it was confirmed to the Foreign Affairs Committee that the high-risk concerns in SV were not Epstein-related.

[Sorcha Eastwood]

Does that make it better?

[Phil Brickell]

I am correcting the hon. Member on the points mentioned here; I am not here to talk about the process—we will come on to that shortly.

Chris Wormald, the former Cabinet Secretary, noted at the same session on 3 November that

“the normal thing is for the security clearance to happen after appointment but before the person signs a contract”

—as my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (David Pinto-Duschinsky) mentioned—and

“takes up post. If we are recruiting a permanent secretary or similar from outside the civil service, that is normally what would happen: the security clearance process would happen after the announcement of the appointment but before the person takes up post, and the appointment would be subject to the security clearance being granted.”

Mandelson was issued an FCDO employment contract with a start date of 3 February 2025. Section 17 of that contract, entitled “Security Clearance”, was explicit:

“You must obtain the required level of security clearance as soon as possible and maintain the required level of security clearance throughout your employment.”

Dated 30 January 2025, Mandelson’s offer of fixed-term employment with the FCDO confirmed his

“security clearance has been confirmed by Vetting Unit and is valid until 29 January 2030.”

I will not be selective in referring to evidence given to this House that favours one view or another, so let me be clear: Olly Robbins mentioned in his letter of 21 April to the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee that the then Cabinet Secretary at the time of Mandelson’s appointment being proposed, Simon Case, recommended—the operative word—in November 2024 that vetting should have been completed before an announcement was made. But in the very same letter of 21 April, Robbins was also explicit in confirming that:

“When the Prime Minister informed the House that the proper process had been followed in respect of NSV, he was correct.”

Moreover, on the topic of vetting, Robbins stood by the letter he wrote with the Foreign Secretary to the Foreign Affairs Committee on 16 September 2025, in which he confirmed:

“Ministers…are not informed of any findings other than the final outcome.”

He went on to state in his letter on 21 April:

“This position reflected long-standing practice and guidance, and correctly constrained our ability to share information beyond the vetting process then or later.”

He noted that the FCDO

“completed DV to the normal high standard”;

that he, Robbins, met the director for the estates, security and network directorate and was briefed orally that Mandelson was

“a ‘borderline’ case, leaning towards recommending that clearance be denied”;

that the highest risks “could be managed and mitigated”, as recommended by ESND; and that UKSV acknowledged that the FCDO may wish to grant clearance. Robbins also confirmed that UK Security Vetting

“did not ‘fail’ Mandelson and FCDO did not ‘overrule’ their decision”;

that a risk-based decision was arrived at by the FCDO, taking into account the feedback from UKSV as a result of the full vetting process having been gone through; and that

“DV clearance is a risk judgement.”

Sir Olly was clear in his evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee recently that no direct communication took place between anyone in No. 10 and himself, that the interaction between UK Security Vetting and the Foreign Office was “entirely standard”, and that clearance was granted subject to mitigations agreed following an FCDO security department assessment that could address the highest risks associated with Mandelson.

Take the remarks from Cat Little, civil service chief operating officer and permanent secretary to the Cabinet Office, in her oral evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee. She was clear in her remarks last week:

“My view is that due process was followed, and if I might explain why I believe that, it is because the process, as I have outlined to the Committee, is that UKSV makes a recommendation and the Foreign Office makes a decision as to whether to grant DV. That is the process, and that is the process that is agreed with the Foreign Office.”

Furthermore, Cat Little was clear about vetting in her oral evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee:

“I do have access to a number of emails that have been disclosed recently to me… What I can see is that there is a senior official from the Government Security Group who goes back to the Foreign Office security team and advises two things: one, that this is a decision for the Foreign Office, and two, that they would advise that developed vetting is sought.”

She went on to say that

“the Prime Minister did not know about the UKSV conclusion, and he did not know which specific risks were identified at the time of appointment.”

Only this morning, former Foreign Office permanent secretary Sir Philip Barton told the Committee that he was confident that the appropriate process was carried out.

Those are not my comments, but those of senior civil servants—a former Cabinet Secretary, two former permanent under-secretaries of the FCDO and the current permanent under-secretary at the Cabinet Office—and they all stand in direct contract with the motion before the House. They are all of the view that proper process was followed. I know whose words I would rather believe. Their remarks chime with those of the Prime Minister, who said:

“for a direct ministerial appointment, it was usual for security vetting to happen after the appointment but before the individual starting in post.”—[Official Report, 20 April 2026; Vol. 784, c. 24.]

Opposition Members might object to the process—they would be right to do so—but it was set out at the time of the appointment, and it was followed by the Cabinet Office, the FCDO, UKSV and, ultimately, the Prime Minister. As the Minister ultimately accountable for the decision, the Prime Minister has rightly changed the process so that appointments can be confirmed only once vetting has been completed. He has rightly appointed Sir Adrian Fulford to lead a review of security vetting to ensure consistency across Government in the way decision makers are informed of concerns ahead of appointments.

The Prime Minister has rightly set up the Ethics and Integrity Commission and tasked it with improving processes around lobbying, the revolving door between Government and the private sector, and financial transparency. I commend him for those steps and for his commitment to introducing as soon as possible legislation allowing for the removal of disgraced peers—that is the right thing to do. I trust that the legislation will obtain support from across this House.

Only yesterday, the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister confirmed that

“the Cabinet Office will have passed to the ISC all the material it has processed as part of the Humble Address and judged to be prejudicial to national security or international relations. This has amounted to over 300 individual documents. It includes a number that are relevant to the processes of Peter Mandelson’s security vetting, too.”—[Official Report, 27 April 2026; Vol. 784, c. 588.]

We expect the second tranche of documents under the ambit of the Humble Address to be published after Parliament returns following Prorogation.

As mentioned in yesterday’s ministerial statement on progress on the Humble Address, outstanding documents are either with the Government awaiting publication, with the ISC, or with the Metropolitan police, given the ongoing criminal investigation into Mandelson. The last time a Prime Minister’s conduct was referred to the Privileges Committee was during the covid pandemic. Boris Johnson was under investigation by the Metropolitan police for repeatedly partying in No. 10 during lockdown. He then misled the House by saying that rules had been followed when they had not. The police had issued fixed penalty notices for breaches of covid-19 regulations.

I have mentioned the Cabinet Office’s vital ongoing work to review the documents within the remit of the Humble Address, the Intelligence and Security Committee’s work to review proposed redactions, the Foreign Affairs Committee’s public evidence sessions, and the wholly separate police investigation. My question to the Leader of the Opposition is: why bring this motion now? Why bring this motion when we have not had the full disclosure of the documents within the ambit of the Humble Address, including the private messages, WhatsApps, and the additional minutes and file notes that were not published in volume one back in March. Why duplicate the work that is already being undertaken by the Cabinet Office and the ISC under the Humble Address? Why not wait until after Prorogation, when the full documentary evidence is available, to determine whether a Privileges Committee referral is warranted? Why not wait until all relevant witnesses have given evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee? We are only just digesting the evidence given today.

The Leader of the Opposition makes much of due process in her motion. My retort is simple: due process ought also to be followed in getting to the truth. Let all the documents be released, and then let this House determine the facts of the matter. The cynic in me would say that today’s privileges motion is nothing but a bare-faced political stunt by the Conservative party, which, with just over a week to go until the local elections, is clutching at straws. It politicises the important review process that is under way across Government and Westminster. Hard-working and dedicated civil servants are working alongside Ministers to ensure that the Humble Address is fulfilled as quickly as possible. My first obligation is to this country above all else. I owe it to my constituents to outline my rationale and my way of thinking, as I have done. I will vote with the Government today.