Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

Charlie Dewhirst Excerpts

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)]

I am mindful of Mr Speaker’s advice about repetition. I will keep my remarks short and to the point. We have had a number of speeches in which Labour Members have debated whether the threshold for referring this matter to the Privileges Committee has been met. If we look at the evidence, there are clearly some very concerning issues arising from the documents that have been released into the public domain, and from what has been said on the Floor of this House and what has not.

Let us take the advice given by Simon Case in November 2024, when he was Cabinet Secretary. It is clear from that document, which was released following the Humble Address motion, that the Prime Minister was advised that if he wanted to make a political appointment, vetting should be done before the appointment was made. We now know that did not happen. We can also take the letter that Chris Wormald, as Cabinet Secretary, sent to the Prime Minister in September 2025, asserting that the process that was followed was in line with the advice given by Simon Case to the Prime Minister. That is important, because the Prime Minister has referred back to that letter as a reason to accept that due process was followed, yet that letter seems, on the face of it, to be inaccurate. We in this House need to investigate that.

We then come to the Prime Minister’s answer at Prime Minister’s questions on 22 April, in which he replaced the word “that” with “any”; he implied that there had not been “any” pressure, instead of saying “that pressure”. When that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) at Cabinet Office questions last Thursday, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster asserted on the Floor of the House:

“I think the difference between the words ‘that’ and ‘any’ is not of material relevance”.—[Official Report, 23 April 2026; Vol. 784, c. 420.]

Anyone with a basic grasp of English, having heard the testimony of Olly Robbins and the Prime Minister’s answer, would clearly say that the Prime Minister has tried, at least in my view, to misrepresent what Mr Robbins told the Foreign Affairs Committee. That, too, is an extremely powerful reason why this matter needs to be referred.

I come to the matter of the unanswered questions, or the evidence that we do not have. I refer again to Simon Case’s advice to the Prime Minister back in 2024. What was released following the Humble Address motion is just Mr Case’s evidence; the box for the Prime Minister’s comments remains blank. Are we expected to believe that the Prime Minister did not respond to the advice given to him by the Cabinet Secretary, or has that advice been withheld from this House? I think that question needs to be answered.

There are other matters, such as the evidence regarding Peter Mandelson that the Prime Minister did see; he confirmed to the House at Prime Minister’s questions that he did see some of it, regarding Jeffrey Epstein. However, he has refused to say whether he was aware of Mr Mandelson’s business links, particularly with Russia, and his directorship of Sistema, even after Russia invaded Ukraine. Then there is the matter of documents of which the Government are unwilling to confirm even the existence, such as Mr Mandelson’s declaration of interests. We have asked repeatedly whether that document exists—we are not asking whether it will be published in full at this point—and we have not received answers.

Then today we find Morgan McSweeney giving evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee and confirming that the first meeting regarding the potential appointment of Mr Mandelson as ambassador to the United States took place in December. The Cabinet Office has said that it has no record of the meeting. Were there no minutes taken of that meeting? If not, why not? Or have those minutes somehow vanished? All those are very good reasons why this matter needs to be referred.

[Graham Stuart]

On the allegation that the Prime Minister may have misled this House, he has told the House that all due process was followed. We were told by Morgan McSweeney this morning that the decision to appoint Peter Mandelson was made in a meeting for which there are absolutely no records and notes, despite extensive searches. At the beginning of this process, the Government failed on due process, yet the Prime Minister has repeatedly told us that due process was followed. That alone would be cause to allow the Privileges Committee to investigate. Labour Members need to look deep into their consciences before they vote against the motion.

[Charlie Dewhirst]

I could not agree more with my right hon. Friend. It is absolutely astonishing that the decision to appoint an individual to the most important ambassadorial role that we can offer took place in a meeting of which there now appears to be no record.

We have three clear issues: a discrepancy in the documents that have been published; an inaccurate recollection of events in response to questions in this House, whether inadvertent or deliberate; and a failure to provide full transparency in relation to this sorry saga. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) said, the Prime Minister is losing in the court of public opinion, and therefore the best route for him now is to refer himself to the Privileges Committee to make his case and perhaps clear his name. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) said, it is not always the cock-up—and we know in this case that the decision to appoint Peter Mandelson was a cock-up—that brings you down but the conspiracy.

Gibraltar Treaty

Charlie Dewhirst Excerpts

Thursday 26th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

As the Member of Parliament for Portsmouth North and the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Gibraltar, I welcome this statement and place on record my strong support for the ratification of the treaty. This agreement represents a practical, well balanced and forward-looking settlement for Gibraltar, the United Kingdom and our European partners. Crucially, the deal has the clear backing of the Government and the people of Gibraltar, and that point should carry significant weight across this House. We should be guided not by abstract political positioning, but by the lived reality of the community whose prosperity and security are directly affected. The treaty protects United Kingdom’s red lines. Sovereignty remains unchanged and was never in question. British jurisdiction is respected and Gibraltar—

[Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlingto and the Wolds) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way? [Laughter.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. That is not good form. Ms Martin, you are not meant to give way when you are asking a question, but I assume you have finished your question.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Even though he has been a very naughty boy, I call Charlie Dewhirst.

[Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)]

Madam Deputy Speaker, I can only apologise for being a naughty boy.

Hon. Members will remember that in 2001 the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, entered into negotiations with Spain over a joint sovereignty agreement with Gibraltar, which resulted in a referendum in which 98.5% of Gibraltarians rejected that deal. Although the Government of Gibraltar welcome today’s treaty, which I am sure is well intentioned, the Minister will no doubt understand that there may be some concern with that history and the involvement of Spain in the operation and governance of Gibraltar. Can he therefore reassure the House, the United Kingdom and the Gibraltarian people that any future changes to the current treaty and any further alignment with the EU will be done only with the agreement of the people of Gibraltar?

[Stephen Doughty]

I can absolutely assure the hon. Gentleman of that. We were not willing to enter into an agreement that the Gibraltarian people were not content with. That is the principle of the double lock, which we have stuck to throughout this process. It is 2026, not 2001. We are confident that this deal protects our interests and the interests of the people of Gibraltar.

Iran

Charlie Dewhirst Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

It is the 25th anniversary of the women, peace and security resolution at the United Nations. At the heart of that resolution is not just that we should stand up for women victims of conflict, repression and persecution, but that women’s voices need to be heard as part of any positive peace and reconciliation process.

[Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)]

Not only is the despotic Iranian regime gunning down protesters in the street, but it continues to support terrorist proxies such as Hamas and Hezbollah, it provides drones to the Russian military in Ukraine and it remains a very real threat to this country. While I welcome the statement, will the Foreign Secretary assure the House that the police and the security services have all the tools that they need to keep Britain safe from Iran and its proxies?

[Yvette Cooper]

I assure the hon. Gentleman that the police and security services have our full backing in all the work that they do to keep us safe from state-backed threats, including Iranian-backed threats, on our soil. We always need to look at how we can keep up with rapidly changing hybrid threats, in order to ensure we can keep our country safe.

Ukraine War: London Talks

Charlie Dewhirst Excerpts

Thursday 24th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Lady asks an important question about sanctions. The Prime Minister has been very clear that sanctions against Russia are a vital part of our armoury, and the UK is committed to maintaining our Russia sanctions—we are not considering lifting them. As the PM said in Paris, in order to get Russia to the table, we need to keep up the economic pressure to hinder its ability to wage war, and we need to deal with all the ways in which the war is being fuelled and supplied. The purposes of our sanctions are very clear: to stop Russia threatening and undermining Ukraine’s sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence; to help ensure that Russia pays for the damage it has caused; and to make sure that Ukraine is placed in the best possible position to secure a just and lasting peace. We will continue to work with the United States and all our allies on those important issues.

[Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)]

Further to the last question, there is rightly concern that Russia continues to bypass sanctions through its shadow fleet. What measures are the Government taking alongside our allies to prevent that?

[Stephen Doughty]

Since this Government came into office, we have ramped up our efforts, particularly on the issue of the shadow fleet, on which we first sought sanctions at the European Political Community summit, just days after coming into office. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the impact of those sanctions has been substantial in constraining and taking down Russia’s ability to wage this war. Collectively, the sanctions by the previous Government and this Government have prevented $450 billion-worth of support to fuel Russia’s war. That could have paid for another three or four years of military aggression against Ukraine. We will not hesitate to consider further actions in this area; indeed, we have announced some of the biggest packages in recent weeks.