← Back to House of Commons Debates
Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges
28 April 2026
Lead MP
Kemi Badenoch
Debate Type
General Debate
Tags
No tags
Other Contributors: 68
At a Glance
Kemi Badenoch raised concerns about referral of prime minister to committee of privileges in the House of Commons. Other MPs contributed to the debate.
How the Debate Unfolded
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said:
Lead Contributor
Opened the debate
The motion calls for the matter of Peter Mandelson's appointment as US Ambassador to be referred to the Privileges Committee due to claims that the Prime Minister misled the House. Kemi Badenoch argues that the Prime Minister's statements were misleading and that full due process was not followed in the appointment, referencing specific quotes from Sir Olly Robbins and highlighting inconsistencies with previous assurances.
Gavin Robinson
DUP
Belfast East
Supports the cross-party nature of the motion and questions why a Whip has been imposed on the motion, suggesting that if there is nothing to hide, there is nothing to fear.
Asks for clarification regarding Sir Olly Robbins' statement about pressure, specifically questioning whether the pressure was related to timing or the content of the decision.
Questions if someone with security concerns should be appointed as an ambassador, suggesting that bypassing full vetting procedures is extraordinary and concerning.
Calls for the Prime Minister to face the Committee to restore public trust in politicians due to perceived attempts at shielding the truth from the public.
Anna Turley
Lab
Redcar
Points out that the Cabinet Secretary said it was due process, contradicting claims of bypassing protocols.
Jim Shannon
DUP
Strangford
Supports the motion and expresses concern over a pattern of bypassing vetting procedures and appointing individuals with security concerns or controversial backgrounds.
Justin Madders
Lab
Ellesmere Port and Neston
Questions why the Leader of the Opposition is bringing forward this motion now, when the Foreign Affairs Committee has not concluded its investigation, suggesting potential ulterior motives such as upcoming local elections.
Lindsay Hoyle
Lab
Chorley
Reaffirmed the decision on the Privileges Motion was based on merit, not external factors. Defended against interventions questioning his impartiality and the Government's whip.
Houghton and Sunderland South
Agreed with the Leader of the Opposition that voting against taking action was an absolute disgrace, criticising her colleague for abstaining on similar issues.
Asked why the Prime Minister has not come to the House to answer questions rather than going to the Privileges Committee.
Simon Hoare
Con
North Dorset
Suggested that resolving the issue through a cross-party Privileges Committee would give confidence to the public, as opposed to leaving it up to public opinion alone.
Questioned why there was an insistence on going to the Privileges Committee when other inquiries were ongoing and had been accepted as necessary by all parties involved.
Asked whether it was unparliamentary for the Leader of the Opposition to describe the Prime Minister's statement as 'doctored.'
Emma Lewell-Buck
Lab
South Shields
Expressed disappointment and anger at the handling of the vote by the Government, feeling it smacks of being out of touch. Argued that a Privileges Committee investigation is necessary to clear the Prime Minister's name.
Edward Davey
Lib Dem
Kingston and Surbiton
The Prime Minister's call for a motion to refer the Prime Minister to the Privileges Committee is not a stunt but seeks to defend honesty, integrity, and truth in politics. Edward Davey criticises the hypocrisy of Conservative MPs who defended Boris Johnson while dismissing current scandal as overblown. He highlights that the British people are facing a cost of living emergency and need a government they can trust, yet the Prime Minister is mired in chaos and scandal. Davey points out that despite clear warnings from propriety and ethics teams and security vetting advice, the Prime Minister still appointed Peter Mandelson to the United States without proper clearance, claiming 'full due process' was followed. He questions whether the Prime Minister would have cancelled the appointment if he had known about UK Security Vetting’s recommendation. Davey urges MPs across the House to defend democratic principles and vote in support of their democracy.
Gurinder Josan
Lab
Brent Central
Josan argues that the deployment of a privilege motion is premature, citing three principles: transparency, due process, and proportionality. She asserts that ongoing inquiries by the Foreign Affairs Committee, as well as an existing police investigation, should be allowed to run their course before invoking such serious procedures. She highlights the Prime Minister's willingness to address allegations and apologise for his actions, suggesting that jumping to a privilege motion undermines established processes.
David Davis
Con
Haltemprice and Howden
Davis criticises the decision-making process around Peter Mandelson's appointment as ambassador to Washington, pointing out that established procedures were bent to accommodate a hurried vetting process. He cites evidence from civil servants and former officials who confirm pressure on the Foreign Office to meet an accelerated timeline. Davis also highlights inconsistencies in the Prime Minister’s statements regarding the timing of his awareness of security vetting issues and the adherence to due process.
Alec Shelbrooke
Con
Elmet and Rothwell
Shelbrooke intervenes to suggest that there was no reason to believe the previous ambassador, Dame Karen Pierce, would not have a good relationship with the current Trump Administration.
Mark Francois
Con
Rayleigh and Wickford
Francois agrees with Davis's speech, noting that Mandelson had been found to be working for a Russian company post the invasion of Ukraine, which should have completely barred him from being appointed as ambassador to Washington due to his access to sensitive intelligence.
Arthur seeks an intervention but is declined by Davis.
Karl Turner
Lab
Kingston upon Hull East
Turner apologises for mistakenly publishing correspondence and clarifies his view that he does not believe the Prime Minister deliberately misled Parliament. He acknowledges a discrepancy between what the PM said in response to the Leader of the Opposition and Olly Robbins' evidence but suggests there is a case for an inquiry by the appropriate Committee. Turner expresses concern about the motion being seen as a stunt designed to capture Labour MPs, potentially harming their reputations with constituents. He defends the Prime Minister's decision to appoint Peter Mandelson in the national interest, despite political difficulties that followed. Turner warns colleagues of potential backlash if they block the inquiry process and suggests direct referral to the Privileges Committee for efficiency.
Edward Leigh
Con
Gainsborough
Leigh states he is not party political and does not wish to make personal attacks. He supports the Prime Minister's integrity but acknowledges questions that reasonable people are asking, including regarding Sir Olly Robbins' sacking. He emphasises the importance of public trust in Parliament and its reputation for telling the truth. Leigh proposes a narrow inquiry by the Privileges Committee without party-political interference, suggesting this would help restore public confidence.
Centres Epstein’s victims and argues against the distraction from government achievements. Criticises No. 10 for appointing Peter Mandelson, overshadowing positive developments. Suggests Conservatives are using the issue for political gain but believes constituents care about honesty in politics. Supports the motion as it seeks clarity on whether the Prime Minister misled Parliament. Expresses concern over pressure put on Foreign Office regarding Mandelson’s appointment based on Sir Olly Robbins’ evidence. Advocates for transparency and criticises Labour MPs being whipped to oppose the motion.
Simon Hoare
Con
North Dorset
Hoare highlighted the emotional difficulty Labour MPs faced in their speeches, noting the importance of individual judgment over party loyalty. He criticised the Government for whipping against the motion and suggested that such actions were damaging to the Prime Minister’s image. He urged Labour MPs to support the referral to show confidence in the Prime Minister's integrity.
Alec Shelbrooke
Con
Elmet and Rothwell
Shelbrooke intervened, supporting Hoare by recalling that even during Boris Johnson’s time as Prime Minister, the Conservative Party had no issue with referrals to the Privileges Committee. He argued that a positive outcome from such a referral would strengthen the current Prime Minister's position.
Caroline Johnson
Con
Sleaford and North Hykeham
Johnson intervened, questioning the composition of the Privileges Committee and suggesting it may include more Labour members. She implied that this could be seen as fair since the Prime Minister would face judgment from a broad range of MPs.
Nusrat Ghani
Con
Wealden
Calls on Members to maintain a calm temperament during the debate.
Argues that Labour members should have acted sooner when the Prime Minister acknowledged knowing about Mandelson's relationship with Epstein. Criticises Labour for defending the Prime Minister despite emerging scandals and warns of potential future repercussions. Suggests that a confident Government would willingly go to the Privileges Committee if they believed in their Prime Minister’s innocence.
Sam Rushworth
Lab
Dewsbury
Rushworth argues against making a referral to the Privileges Committee due to lack of political pressure on decision-making processes. He highlights that time pressure is part and parcel of government work but maintains there was no evidence of improper influence on decisions regarding Mandelson's appointment.
Ellie Chowns
Lab
Nottingham East
Chowns challenges Rushworth’s logic, asserting that the context of an already announced decision and lack of contingency planning inherently impacted the content of the decision-making process. She criticises the notion that pressure on timeframe had no bearing on the substance of decisions.
Alicia Kearns
Con
Somerton and Frome
The motion calls for transparency and truth in political appointments. The speaker argues that the Prime Minister's judgment was found wanting regarding Peter Mandelson's appointment, given its seriousness and implications. She questions whether Members of this House support transparency and truth. She emphasises specific laws protecting individuals from undue pressure by those in power and highlights that multiple people lost their jobs over this decision. The speaker expresses her faith in the Privileges Committee chaired by Alberto Costa to conduct an investigation. She also warns new MPs against dismissing advice from previous intakes, stating they should listen if something seems problematic.
Sam Rushworth
Lab
Bishop Auckland
Intervened to dispute the idea that there was pressure to change the outcome of vetting. He cited Sir Olly Robbins's testimony as evidence that No. 10 felt the vetting process was important and had to be followed, despite pressure to complete it quickly.
Caroline Nokes
Con
Romsey and Southampton North
Acknowledged previous contributions but did not provide a substantial argument or position in her brief interjections.
Imran Hussain
Lab
Bradford East
Asked whether due process was followed, emphasising that vetting must come before an appointment. He stated it is clear from evidence presented to the Foreign Affairs Committee that due process was not followed in this case.
Brian Leishman
SNP
Dunbartonshire East
Supports the motion for justice for those harmed by Jeffrey Epstein, criticises the Labour Party's position on transparency and accountability. Believes Prime Minister should refer himself to Privileges Committee. Condemns various political parties' deflection and cover-ups regarding austerity measures, SNP failures in public services, and Tory lockdown parties.
Roger Gale
Con
North Thanet
Acknowledges the debate's importance for truth, probity, and integrity of House. Supports colleagues on Government Benches who are supporting the motion. Criticises the idea that the motion is a ruse before local government elections. Urges Government Whips to withdraw whipping tonight so Members can vote according to conscience.
Chris Kane
Lab
Weaver Vale
Refers to the rarity of invoking the Privileges Committee and highlights ongoing processes like the Foreign Affairs Committee's investigation and compliance with transparency procedures. Criticises the timing of the motion as politically motivated but acknowledges its place in the system. Discusses pressure within high-performing environments versus inappropriate pressure, emphasising the Prime Minister’s competence and consistency under difficult circumstances.
Caroline Nokes
Con
Romsey and Southampton North
Orders hon. Members to confine their remarks to the subject of the debate, suggesting that comments about the SNP are irrelevant.
Critiques the Prime Minister's response as a 'stunt' and an insult to victims and survivors of abuse. Questions Labour MPs' reluctance to vote for proper investigation despite promises of transparency. Expresses disappointment in the Government’s lack of accountability and transparency, citing examples such as partygate and previous scandals.
Votes against the motion due to a perceived weak case made by the opposition. Emphasises personal integrity and best interests for constituents despite party pressure. Criticises the lack of credibility in the allegations, noting that existing procedures are sufficient.
Graham Stuart
Con
Beverley and Holderness
Stuart intervenes to argue that the Prime Minister's repeated assertion of due process being followed, despite evidence suggesting otherwise, justifies referring the matter to the Privileges Committee.
Baxter criticises the Opposition for focusing on political point-scoring rather than practical solutions. She argues that transparency and accountability have been demonstrated in the handling of Mandelson's appointment, and that politically motivated use of Privileges Committee procedures risks undermining them.
Richard Tice
Con
North West Durham
The debate revolves around two key issues: process and pressure. The Prime Minister claims full due process was followed, yet evidence suggests otherwise. Senior civil servants have testified to the existence of pressure on the speed of decision-making, not just the decision itself. This contradicts the Prime Minister's claim that there was no pressure whatsoever. Richard Tice argues that the Prime Minister has misled the House twice: first by claiming full due process and second by denying any pressure applied.
Harrow East
Appointing Peter Mandelson was a mistake, but the opposition is engaging in political game playing. The Prime Minister has acknowledged this error, and senior civil servants confirm due process was followed. Pinto-Duschinsky argues that there are no new facts to uncover; instead, it appears the Conservatives are merely trying to distract from the Government's mandate for change.
Joy Morrissey
Lab
Cynon Valley
Morrissey questions why the Prime Minister has not referred himself to the Committee of Privileges if he claims to have nothing to hide. She highlights his previous demands for others to resign or be referred, suggesting hypocrisy in his current actions. She expresses sympathy rather than condemnation for the Prime Minister's predicament.
Andrew Lewin
Con
Rotherham
Advocates that the House has spent enough time debating Mandelson's appointment and criticises the proposal for another committee to examine the issue. He mentions over thirteen hours of debate in the Commons, including statements and debates, as well as important hearings by the Foreign Affairs Committee and Intelligence and Security Committee. The Prime Minister has repeatedly apologised, more than 300 documents have been released, vetting processes have been changed, and ongoing scrutiny is taking place.
Luke Evans
Con
Cardiff North
Intervenes to remind the House that the decision to involve the Intelligence and Security Committee was not straightforward and required persuasion from both sides of the house.
Graham Stuart
Con
Beverley and Holderness
Questions whether Chris Wormald’s letter is compatible with Simon Case's advice in November 2024, suggesting that vetting should have been done before any appointments were made.
Preet Kaur Gill
Lab
Birmingham, Edgbaston
Agrees with the point raised by Graham Stuart about inconsistencies and confusion in the process leading to the Prime Minister’s decision to rebuild trust in the appointment process.
Sorcha Eastwood
Con
Fermanagh and South Tyrone
Asserts that everything concerning Mandelson's appointment was public-source information and criticises the lack of transparency. She highlights concerns about social mobility and meritocracy, questioning the Prime Minister’s consistency in his actions.
Phil Brickell
Lab
Leicester South
Speaks on privileges with a unique perspective from his background in financial crime and reputation risk management. He criticises the Opposition for politicizing an important review process and warns Conservative colleagues about the potential backlash from previous Privileges Committee findings against Boris Johnson.
John Lamont
Con
Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk
The Conservative MP criticises the Prime Minister for his handling of the Peter Mandelson scandal and argues that he is avoiding scrutiny. He suggests that Labour MPs should support an investigation to demonstrate their commitment to accountability and transparency.
Luke Evans
Con
Hinckley and Bosworth
Evans highlighted that the Prime Minister did not adhere to his own standards set before he became Prime Minister, noting inconsistencies in promises versus actions. He also stressed the doubt surrounding the Prime Minister's decision-making process and urged Labour MPs to consider their constituents' concerns.
Ellie Chowns
Lab
Gedling
Chowns acknowledged criticisms of the Prime Minister but focused on the specific issue at hand: whether there is a case for the Prime Minister to answer regarding misleading the House. She cited evidence from Sir Philip Barton and argued that due process was not followed in Peter Mandelson's appointment, making it clear there is a case to be answered.
Christchurch
Chope argues that the Prime Minister's conduct undermines his position and could lead to further Labour party manoeuvres. He suggests that referring the matter to the Privileges Committee would be a fairer approach, citing Margaret Thatcher’s handling of similar issues as an example.
Bool criticises the Prime Minister for misleading statements and lack of transparency regarding Peter Mandelson's appointment. She references Matthew Syed's book 'Black Box Thinking' to argue that learning from failure is crucial, and contends that the security vetting process was not followed properly.
Graham Stuart
Con
Beverley and Holderness
Stuart argues against the imposition of a three-line whip on a matter concerning House privileges, questioning Labour's commitment to voting with conscience. He emphasises that this undermines the Prime Minister's pledge for higher standards and transparency.
Dave Doogan
Lab
Glasgow North East
The Prime Minister’s version of events is inconsistent with evidence, revealing his dishonesty. The appointment was a political deal and now the damage to politics across the islands is substantial. The Prime Minister has inflicted considerable harm on trust in politics by appointing Peter Mandelson despite knowing about his connections to Jeffrey Epstein.
Ben Obese-Jecty
Lab
Islington North
The public announcement of Peter Mandelson’s appointment before vetting had taken place and the granting of access to classified briefings beforehand reveal a lax approach to national security. Questions remain about the assessment made by US intelligence services regarding Peter Mandelson's clearance and the damage this debacle has caused to the UK-US relationship. The Prime Minister’s actions, such as pressuring the FCDO to give Matthew Doyle a role despite his lack of qualification, illustrate nonchalance, arrogance, incompetence under this premiership.
Ayoub Khan
Birmingham Perry Barr
Expressed concern about public disenfranchisement and the lack of trust in politicians. Emphasised the importance of honesty, integrity, credibility, and transparency in rebuilding public confidence. Asked Labour Members to consider their vote's impact on public perception regarding scrutiny and accountability. Supported the motion for a committee inquiry into the Epstein affair as an act of moral courage.
Alex Burghart
Con
Brentwood and Ongar
Condemned the Labour MPs who opposed the motion as partaking in a political stunt. Cited lack of adherence to due process in the Prime Minister's appointment of Peter Mandelson, including security clearance procedures not being followed despite advice from Cabinet Secretary Simon Case. Criticised the Prime Minister for misleading the House by misrepresenting Sir Olly Robbins' statements regarding pressure exerted on him during the appointment decision-making process. Emphasised that Labour MPs were being whipped into supporting a position contrary to their beliefs and constituents’ views.
Darren Jones
Lab
Bristol North West
The Government has repeatedly provided updates on Peter Mandelson's appointment. The Prime Minister did not put pressure on officials to predetermine an outcome and the vetting process was completed before Mandelson took up his post in February 2025, as confirmed by Sir Olly Robbins.
Asked Darren Jones why he is ignoring public opinion that shows 61% of people believe there should be an inquiry into the matter, while only 20% agree with the Minister's position.
Indicated she wanted to intervene on the issue but was stopped by Speaker Lindsay Hoyle for disrupting the debate.
Julian Lewis
Con
New Forest East
Asked the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister about who first suggested Peter Mandelson's appointment as Ambassador to the United States, following a failed written answer attempt and a previous reference in the House.
Darren Jones
Lab
Bristol North West
Apologises to the right hon. Gentleman for not clearing parliamentary questions and refers him to evidence given by Mr Morgan McSweeney about Peter Mandelson recommending himself for the position of ambassador.
Raises a point of order regarding custom and practice when an MP visits another MP’s constituency, noting that she was not informed by the Leader of the Opposition before her visit to Emily's constituency. Seeks advice on resolving this issue.
Lindsay Hoyle
Lab
Chorley
Advises Members about custom and practice for visiting another MP’s constituency, stating that courtesy is to inform the Member in advance unless it is a private visit. Encourages adherence to good practice especially as an election approaches.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy
About House of Commons Debates
House of Commons debates take place in the main chamber of the House of Commons. These debates cover a wide range of topics including government policy, legislation, and current affairs. MPs from all parties can participate, question ministers, and hold the government accountable for its decisions.