Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

Alec Shelbrooke Excerpts

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)]

Sometimes the wisdom of the House is crystallised in the comments of us ordinary Back Benchers. That was particularly evident today in the brave speech of the hon. Member for South Shields (Emma Lewell) and, indeed, the intervention of the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) on the Leader of the Opposition. Both Members said, in effect, that what we have lived through in the last several months is a tragedy—not just for the House, not just for the Government, not just for the Labour party, but for the trust in government, and in our democracy among ordinary people.

At the risk of expulsion from my own party, I will admit to having hoped after the election that this Prime Minister would succeed, because it was in the interests of the country that he did so, but in some ways even more importantly, it was in the interests of our democracy. There is already extant throughout the western world a corrosion of belief in democracy; that goes on and on, and this will make it worse.

We are here today for a simple reason. Statements made by the Prime Minister in this Chamber are at odds with those provided by the civil service on the material issue of Peter Mandelson. This matters. It is not a stunt. Honesty between Ministers and Parliament is fundamental to our democracy. Without it, scrutiny fails. Without it, accountability fails. Without it, trust fails. The responsibility for absolute honesty rests most heavily on the Prime Minister, so the standard that should be met by the Prime Minister is even higher than that applying to others. Recklessness with the truth from any Minister is unacceptable; from the Prime Minister, it is indefensible.

All political parties have their inherent flaws—and I am not going to spend a whole day talking about mine—but the origins of this situation lie in a stance often taken by Labour MPs, which is that good intentions somehow justify bad decisions. It is a case of saying, “We mean well, so our mistakes do not matter” or, worse, “We mean well, so we should be forgiven for anything”, whether it is freebies or wrong appointments or whatever.

That mindset, which I am afraid constitutes a sanctimonious arrogance sustained by a habit of believing their own propaganda, is precisely what led to the appointment of a deeply unsuitable individual as our ambassador to Washington: a man twice dismissed after scandal; a man now under formal investigation by the European Union’s anti-fraud office; a man who had an extraordinary relationship with a convicted paedophile; a man driven, above all, by a pursuit of glamour, money and status; a man who turned amorality into an art form—and, in addition to that, a man plainly compromised by over-close relationships with the proxies of both the Russian and the Chinese Governments.

Together, those facts should have made this appointment unthinkable, yet the concerns were brushed aside. The head of the diplomatic service, as we heard this morning in the Foreign Affairs Committee, was not even consulted. Why? Because within the London establishment, a ludicrous self-deception had taken hold—that the peculiarities of the Trump Administration could be countered by the peculiarities of Peter Mandelson.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the previous ambassador, Dame Karen Pierce, was widely—indeed almost universally—respected and felt to have a good relationship with the previous Trump Administration, and there was no reason to believe that she would not have a good relationship with the current Trump Administration?

[David Davis]

That is entirely true, and in fact, the current Trump Administration made the same point to the Government before the nomination of Peter Mandelson.

That perverse logic led to the most obviously unwise public appointment in modern times, and the implied message, unfortunately, was clear: “Government appointments rest on networks of patronage; great offices of state are perks to be handed out to friends.” It is systemic. They even tried to secure an ambassadorial appointment for Lord Doyle, a man so unsuitable that he has even had the Whip withdrawn. Mandelson’s unsuitability was evident before vetting began. It would have been surprising had the vetting service not found grounds to reject the appointment. I suspect that No. 10 knew that, and leant on the Foreign Office to ensure that the outcome was secured quickly and without question.

One Member—I cannot remember his name, or see him in the Chamber—tried to suggest earlier that pressure on time was different from pressure on outcome, but when vetting is involved, it is not. My first positive vetting took six months. Now, I know I have unreliable friends, but I have fewer, I think, than Lord Mandelson. It would have taken quite a long time to get to the bottom of all the issues relating to Lord Mandelson. Saying “You’ve got to do it quickly” is the same as saying “You’ve got to do it shoddily.” Let us not lose sight of that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

There has been a common theme in the remarks made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner), the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome)—it is a pleasure to follow her—and the hon. Member for South Shields (Emma Lewell). I do not really know what wings of the Labour party they are on, or what complexion of Labour they are, but I do know that the three of them are Labour people, and part of the Labour family to their very fingertips. The emotional difficulty that they felt in giving their powerful speeches was certainly tangible to Opposition Members. I hope that their right hon. and hon. Friends felt it, too.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) and one or two others have mentioned, one of the hardest things in this place is when your instincts and your judgment are to go against the herd—against what your family, or the Whip, is telling you to do. Politics is a tribal thing. We stand together or we hang together, so we are told; but it was Lord Nolan, in the principles that he set out some years ago, who reminded us all that the exercise of our judgment as individual Members of Parliament is so important. It was depressing to hear the hon. Member for Smethwick (Gurinder Singh Josan) say, slightly tongue in cheek, “I’m just a humble Back Bencher. It is not for me to say what the whipping should be.” We are all capable of forming our own rational judgment, informed by all sorts of imperatives.

One or two Labour Members have prayed in aid, as a reason why the motion should not be carried, the Humble Address. I remind colleagues from across the House, but particularly Government Members, that when we started the debate on the Humble Address motion, Government Members were being whipped to vote it down. It was only when the Government Chief Whip and the Leader of the House—two right hon. Gentlemen for whom I have the highest esteem and regard—and the Paymaster General listened to the debate and read the mood of not the House but Labour Members, that they realised that imposing the Whip was wrong, and that they needed to meet somewhere in the middle. Now, all of this could go away, of course, were the Prime Minister to refer himself.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke]

My hon. Friend and I could never have been described as the greatest fans of Boris Johnson. When the question of his going before the Privileges Committee came forward, the Conservatives decided that the Committee was the right body to decide whether he had misled Parliament. Nobody was calling for his resignation until its report came out; after that report, this party moved, and he went. Is it not the flip side of the coin that once the Privileges Committee has cleared the Prime Minister, as many Labour MPs believe will happen, his strength will grow? Is it not true that he has nothing to fear?

[Simon Hoare]

My right hon. Friend has many skills; one that I have just learned of is that he is able to read the left-handed scrawl of my notes, even when he is sitting next to me, because that is the point that I am just about to come to. The hon. Member for South Shields wondered, as have one or two other Members, whether this motion is a trap set by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and Opposition Members. I do not think it is, but if it were, the Government whipping operation today has baited that trap. It is the wrong thing to do. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke) suggests, it makes the Prime Minister look uncertain and weak. He is not using a large parliamentary majority in this place to deliver change for the country; instead, he is turning his MPs into a human shield for himself.

I agree with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East: I think the Prime Minister takes his training and experience as a lawyer very seriously. I think he takes the integrity of politics very seriously. I sometimes think the Prime Minister can be naive in presuming that everybody else takes a similarly elevated view of these things, and I think that can feed into some of his problems. One has to ask: what would the Prime Minister—an experienced lawyer—have to fear from having his name cleared and his reputation strengthened by going through a cross-party, informal process of this House? He would have nothing to fear. He would feel stronger.

We understand that Labour Whips and loyal Ministers have been picking up the telephones, and accidentally on purpose bumping into people in the Lobby and elsewhere, and asking them to vote this motion down. For what it is worth, may I give some thoughts on how I would respond, were a Whip from my party to ask me to do the same?

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke]

Keep it clean.

[Simon Hoare]

Don’t worry, Madam Deputy Speaker; I have checked what is parliamentary language and what is not.

The first point I would make is one that has already been made. I was never a fan of Boris Johnson. We first met in the late 1990s; I never got him then, and he never got me, and nothing ever changed, but not even Boris Johnson thought to apply a Whip on a privileges motion. The question I would be asking the Whips, if I was the hon. Member for Smethwick or any other Labour MP, is this: does Labour really want to let Boris Johnson look like the good guy, when it comes to referrals to the Privileges Committee? That is bad politics, as far as the Labour party is concerned.

The second point I would make is that the Privileges Committee can be a fulcrum, the place where this boil is lanced. It will do that dispassionately, and do it well, without fear or favour. That is what it is taught to do. It has done that in the past; it could do so now; and it will doubtless do so in the future. There is nothing to be afraid of. This is not a kangaroo court, or a Committee composed solely of people who really cannot stand the Prime Minister. It is a Committee of this House.

[Simon Hoare]

My hon. Friend is right. The same was true, of course, when the Privileges Committee looked at Boris Johnson’s behaviour; the majority of MPs on the Committee were Tory, and the Committee was still able to come to a judgment on the facts and the evidence.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Simon Hoare]

Would my right hon. Friend forgive me if I do not? A lot of Members want to speak, so I want to make a little progress.

The third compelling point is that Labour Whips and Ministers will have deployed an argument about the local elections, and elections in Wales and Scotland; they will say, “This will not do Labour any good at all.” Well, what would give a whole lot more confidence to party canvassers would be the ability to say, if this subject was raised on the doorstep, “My leader has nothing to fear. He has referred himself to the Privileges Committee—or has sought not to hinder a motion that referred him.” If Labour Members follow the advice—that might be the gentlest way of describing it—of Government Whips today, they will be creating the largest albatross to hang around their neck in these closing days before polling day. They will be asked, “Why did you vote to cover up for the Prime Minister? Why did you not do the right thing? What has the Prime Minister got to hide? Why is the Prime Minister running scared?”. It would be far better to be able to say to the floating voter, or the person havering over where to put their cross, “What confidence my party leader has! The Prime Minister is happy for this to happen. He is absolutely clear in his own mind that his integrity is unimpeachable and his honesty is unquestionable. He has not misled the House.” They would be off to the races! But this is another trap that the Labour party seems to be keen to fall into. We are all familiar, I would say to the Whips, with the idea that sunlight is the best disinfectant. Let the Privileges Committee be that sunlight.

I can well remember the whipped vote in the previous Parliament. Thirteen of us Government Members rebelled. It was a hard and tricky vote. We came under pressure during it, and most certainly after it. However, within 24 hours, the position of the Government had changed, and they found themselves pointing in the direction of those of us who had rebelled, rather than those who had been loyal.

This may be a slightly old-fashioned question to ask ourselves, but when we leave this place—either by our own choice, or by the choice of our electorate—we all want, I think, to sit back and ask ourselves: when those crunch votes came, did we do the right and honourable thing? Did we do something that left our soul and spirit feeling peaceful, or in a state of turmoil? Possibly more importantly for today and tomorrow, could we, without blushing or crossing our fingers, or trying to find some weasel words, say truthfully why anybody would vote against this motion, if we were asked that in the supermarket queue this weekend, or at the butcher’s, the fishmonger’s or wherever?

If there is nothing to hide, let that absence of something to hide be shown to the Privileges Committee. The Prime Minister will be strengthened, the integrity of this place enhanced, and the honesty of politics burnished. The referral is the right thing to do. In their hearts, Labour Members know that. They should have the courage of the hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull East, for Nottingham East and for South Shields; they will be in jolly good company.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

At the start of the debate, when Mr Speaker was in the Chair, he reminded the House that this was not a trial of the Prime Minister, but a debate about whether or not an issue should be put to the Privileges Committee; I do think we all need to remember that. He also said that when the debate became repetitive, he might consider taking a closure motion. I am sorely tempted to move one, Madam Deputy Speaker—but not yet.

It saddens me deeply that we are where we are today. It saddens me that the motion has been presented by some Members on the Government Benches as a ruse before the local government elections. This is about something very fundamental to many of us; it is about the truth, the probity and the integrity of this House, and every man and woman who sits in it. I have heard some very courageous speeches from the Government Benches this afternoon, and I applaud each and every one of the people who made them, because I know just how difficult this is.

Mr Johnson has been referred to frequently. I was one of the first—possibly the first—to call publicly for him to resign as Prime Minister. That was not a happy circumstance—I did not enjoy it, as I do not like taking on my own side—but I believed then, as I believe now, that that man was not fit to be Prime Minister. I know that what I did and said was right, as I believe those hon. Members on the Government Benches who have spoken in support of the motion are doing what they believe to be right.

I am horrified to have to believe that House business is being whipped. It should not be. It has been said repetitively that the sensible thing would have been for the Prime Minister to refer himself to the Privileges Committee. If that is not going to happen, we all need to understand that there are people out there who are waiting to see what we do and if we can be trusted—never mind if the Prime Minister can be trusted. Can we be trusted to take the right and proper decision tonight?

Every single one of us is going to get up in the morning and look in the mirror, either to put on make-up or to shave—

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke]

Or both.

[Sir Roger Gale]

My right hon. Friend reminds me that he said, incorrectly, that the vote on the call for Johnson to resign was not taken until after the Privileges Committee had released its findings. He is quite wrong: that call was made well before it went to the Privileges Committee.

Let me come back to what I was trying to say. Every single one of us has to be able to look in the mirror and live with ourselves. I hope very much that the Government Whips will withdraw the whipping tonight, so that hon. Members can vote according to their conscience. I believe that if that is done, then this matter will be referred, entirely properly, to the Privileges Committee, and then after the King’s Speech we can get on with our job and devote our concerns to the cost of living, fuel prices and the manner in which hospitality businesses are being destroyed, and to all the matters that we ought to be discussing today, rather than discussing this. I beg my friends on the Government Benches to do the right thing tonight.