Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate
Department: Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office

Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

Anna Turley Excerpts
Tuesday 28th April 2026

(1 day, 14 hours ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kemi Badenoch Portrait Mrs Badenoch
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I agree that this is a matter of trust with the public. We have to show that we do things properly here. As I was saying, the question is whether there is a case to answer that the Prime Minister misled this House and failed to correct the record. If there is a credible case that he did, this matter should be referred to the Committee of Privileges—those are the rules of the House.

I will quickly run through the facts to make sure that every Labour MP hears them. The Prime Minister appointed Peter Mandelson before security vetting was granted, in direct contravention of the advice given to him on 11 November 2024 by the then Cabinet Secretary—that is not due process. The Prime Minister’s own National Security Adviser described the appointment and due diligence as “weirdly rushed”, and the Foreign Office was not asked to feed in—that is not due process. [Interruption.] The chair of the Labour party has a lot to say, so I will give way and let her say what she wants to say.

Anna Turley Portrait The Minister without Portfolio (Anna Turley)
- Hansard - -

The Cabinet Secretary said that it was due process.

Kemi Badenoch Portrait Mrs Badenoch
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

We have another Minister coming to the Dispatch Box to say something quite different. Simon Case, the then Cabinet Secretary, set out what the full due process was. A note from the Cabinet Secretary a year after the appointment—after Peter Mandelson had been sacked and after I had asked questions at the Dispatch Box—is not an exoneration. It is part of the cover-up.

We have been told by Sir Olly Robbins, the former permanent secretary of the Foreign Office, that the Government showed a “dismissive attitude” to vetting and even argued that Peter Mandelson did not need any vetting—that is not due process. We have been told that No. 10 put “constant pressure” on the Foreign Office to approve the application—that is not due process.

Sir Philip Barton, the former permanent secretary of the Foreign Office, said this morning that he was

“presented with a decision… There was no space for dialogue”.

He also confirmed that the normal order is vetting and then announcement, but in this case the announcement was before the vetting—that is not due process.