Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

Ellie Chowns Excerpts

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

Having recognised that, as Sir Philip Barton said this morning, there cannot be any doubt that there was pressure to get this “done as quickly as possible”—that is, to jump through all the hoops, to confirm an announcement that had already been made that Mandelson was appointed as ambassador—[Interruption.] That first bit is a quote; the next part of the sentence is my words. It simply stretches the bounds of reason to breaking point to suggest that pressure on timeframe, within the context of an already announced decision where there was no contingency plan, had no impact on pressure on the content of that decision—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Message received—I call Sam Rushworth.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

rose—

[Dr Chowns]

rose—

[Sam Rushworth]

I will not take any more interventions, because Madam Deputy Speaker is looking at her watch. The allegation simply has not been substantiated. There is pressure going on at the moment: documents are being released under the Humble Address and evidence is being given before the Foreign Affairs Committee. I have to wonder why the Opposition have not waited until that process has been concluded before writing to the Speaker requesting this motion.

I want to address a couple more points quickly, and I will not take any more interventions. I acknowledge that there are Members on the Government Benches, and indeed some Opposition Members, who have suggested that they are so confident that the Prime Minister has no case to answer that he should just refer himself to the Committee to prove it. I do not think that that is the way we should be using the Committee’s time. The onus is on this place to decide whether any evidence has yet come forward that suggests that there is a case to answer, and I do not think that anybody so far has shown any.

People have also referenced the former Prime Minister Boris Johnson. I remind the House that at the point he was referred to the Privileges Committee, it was not a case of what happened in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office beyond the Prime Minister’s knowledge. This was a case of him saying, “There were no parties in Downing Street,” of him then appearing photographed at parties, and there being a Metropolitan police investigation and a criminal conviction. I am simply not going to indulge the Opposition in their games. We all know what this is about. We all know that somewhere in Conservative headquarters right now, graphs are being prepared with our faces on them to try to play some narrative to our voters that we are all part of some big cover-up. When we behave like this, it does a disservice to all of us and to this place, and I am simply not going to play their games today.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)]

Appointing Peter Mandelson was wrong, and, as with any debate on this subject, we should start by acknowledging the suffering of Jeffrey Epstein’s victims. They have my full solidarity.

However, I have listened closely to what has been said by Opposition Members during the debate, and I think we need to call their behaviour what it is: political game playing of the lowest order. Politics is a circus for the Opposition. They thrive on the use of politics as a soap opera, because it is all they know. That is why the public grew so heartily sick of them, and it is precisely why so many of their former colleagues no longer sit on their Benches. Just weeks ago, their leader showed a catastrophic failure of leadership in calling for this country to rush to war. When she spoke then, she had no underlying strategy, and she did not focus on what was right for the country. Clearly she has learned nothing from that. Her cynicism becomes clear now, when we peel back the rhetoric and expose the lack of substance behind her arguments.

Peter Mandelson was dismissed last September, and rightly so. The Prime Minister has already acknowledged that his appointment was a mistake. Senior civil servants, including Olly Robbins, Chris Wormald and Cat Little, have all made it clear that due process was followed in that appointment. Olly Robbins has said that no one from No. 10 ever spoke to him or messaged him to apply pressure, and Philip Barton has today confirmed that there was no pressure on the substance of the vetting.

I want to deal directly with the sequence of vetting. I have been through developed vetting. I have been through security vetting numerous times, and it is completely standard procedure to make offers of jobs contingent on passing security. On this point, as on other points, there is simply no case to answer.

[Dr Chowns]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[David Pinto-Duschinsky]

No, I will make some progress.

What is more, this Government are undertaking an extensive release of documents in the interests of transparency and out of respect for this House. Ministers have updated us on the progress with the Humble Address. On top of that, the Foreign Affairs Committee is holding hearings. Alongside that, the Government have already strengthened the processes around national security vetting and senior appointments. So I ask again: what is the real substance here? We are not uncovering new facts. In fact, the Conservatives’ argument has changed time and again, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Mr Barros-Curtis) so eloquently pointed out. What we are seeing is lots of throwing mud in the hope that some of it will stick. The Conservatives are speaking not in the public interest, but in service of political opportunism.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

I will aim to be brief and to the point. I pay tribute to the moving, powerful and thoughtful speech by the hon. Member for South Shields (Emma Lewell) at the beginning of the debate. I do not underestimate the bravery that it takes to stand up and speak out, and I really welcome and value all Labour colleagues who resist the Whip with courage today. What is at stake today is trust, honesty and integrity—those issues go to the core of what our politics should be about—and the behaviour of a Prime Minister who promised to restore honesty and integrity to government. I agree with the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome), who said powerfully that our constituents do care about honesty, truth, trust and integrity.

It is well known that I have many criticisms of the Prime Minister and this Government, as do constituents across the country. Yes, he has repeatedly shown poor judgment. Yes, he has betrayed the hopes of those who voted for real change in 2024. Yes, I am deeply frustrated that we are having to spend so much time debating these issues, when our constituents face pressing daily concerns and a cost of living crisis to which we should be giving more attention. Yes, I think the Prime Minister should resign. However, that is not what we are here to discuss today. Our decision is not even on whether the Prime Minister misled the House, still less to judge whether it was an intentional or reckless misleading—our decision today is whether the Prime Minister has a case to answer on whether he may have misled the House, and it is absolutely clear that he does.

Looking at the detail of the motion, it cites three quotes from the Prime Minister’s own words. The first is his assurance about “full due process” being followed in the appointment of Peter Mandelson. Just this morning, we heard yet more evidence from Sir Philip Barton, the primary civil servant in the Foreign Office at the time. He was categorical that the normal process is that vetting comes first and appointment comes later, but it was the opposite way round in this case. The Prime Minister, as the motion says, made it clear that his position was that Mandelson’s position was “subject to developed vetting”, and that,

“No pressure existed whatsoever in relation to this case.”—[Official Report, 22 April 2026; Vol. 784, c. 316.]

That is clearly not a tenable position.

Some colleagues on the Government Benches are asking us to believe, although it is perfectly clear that considerable pressure was put on the timescale—within the context of the already announced appointment of Peter Mandelson, within the context of there being no contingency plan if the vetting process failed him, and within the context that it would have been a complete foreign affairs crisis for that vetting process to have failed him—that there was still no pressure whatsoever on the process.

[Sam Rushworth]

Will the hon. Member give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Chowns]

The hon. Gentleman has said a lot today, and there are others still waiting to speak.

It is clear that there is a case to answer here. The decision we have to make is not whether we are definitively certain that the Prime Minister misled the House, but whether we feel that there is a case to be answered, and therefore whether this matter should be referred to the body that is in existence to deal with these issues: the Privileges Committee. As many Members have commented, the Prime Minister could and should refer himself to that Committee. It would clearly save a great deal of heartache within the Labour party. If he will not do that, all of us—whatever our party—owe it to our consciences and to our constituents to refer him to the Privileges Committee and to vote for this motion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Darren Jones]

I am not going to answer silly questions.

Next, on the question of pressure—[Interruption.] Many hon. Members have asked questions today about a general pressure, a specific pressure or a variety of different pressures, so they may want to listen to the answer. It is important to be clear about this, because there is pressure to get stuff done every day across every area of government, as we work hard to deliver for the British people. The Leader of the Opposition and other Members who have previously served in government will no doubt recall that from their time in office, but there is clearly a difference between asking for progress updates and putting pressure on officials to predetermine an outcome or not to follow a proper process. That was not the case in this scenario.

[Dr Chowns]

Is it due process to make a public announcement of an appointment before vetting is completed? Is it not the case that having made a public announcement, the Government created pressure on the process?

[Darren Jones]

I am trying my best, but I have answered both those questions already from the Dispatch Box. I refer the hon. Lady to my comments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Darren Jones]

I notice that the right hon. Member has nothing to say to those kids, to those patients waiting in the NHS, or to the line of other people waiting for his Government to perform.

Just for me to complete going around the House, the so-called Green party is desperate to distract from Labour’s clean energy mission, from its opposition to clean nuclear power, and from its quibbling over new solar farms that—I literally could not make this up—it thinks are too big. Get real!

[Dr Chowns]

rose—

[Darren Jones]

We are in an energy bills crisis and a climate emergency, and this Labour party is going to pull out the stops to serve the British people. While the Opposition parties play—

[Dr Chowns]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. In fairness to the right hon. Member, he has given way once already. The hon. Lady cannot stand while he is speaking; she can indicate that she wishes to intervene, but she cannot continue to hang loose like she is trying to summon a taxi.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ellie Chowns Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

Israel is acting illegally in supporting settlement expansion, in committing genocide in Gaza, and in attacking Lebanon and Iran. As the Secretary of State says, all those actions are flagrant violations of international law. She says that we must “put pressure” on Israel, but she is doing nothing. Time and again, she and her Ministers come to the Chamber to condemn, but take no action. When will she ban settlement trade? When will she stop all military co-operation with Israel, which is conducting these illegal attacks? When will she take action?

[Yvette Cooper]

The UK Government have put in place a series of measures that include introducing sanctions against Cabinet members in the Israeli Government. We have taken action around sanctions and arms sales. We have been maintaining continuous international pressure, working with allies, including around the negotiations on Lebanon. We have been pressing strongly for those negotiations, including directly with the Israeli Government, the Lebanese Government and the US Government, who have hosted those talks.

International Development

Ellie Chowns Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

We will continue to work with international organisations on this; in fact, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Chris Elmore), is due to have meetings on disability issues later today. We looked at this issue to ensure that there would not be a disproportionate impact, particularly with regard to equality impact assessments. We recognise that there is a difficult impact from reductions in aid budgets. That is why this has been such a difficult decision to make.

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

Pitching defence against development is utterly short-sighted—it is a totally misjudged binary. These aid cuts make us all less secure. The Foreign Secretary has talked about this as a difficult choice; in fact, it is the wrong choice. Let us be clear: under this Labour Government, we are seeing deeper aid cuts in the UK than in any other G7 country, which will take us down to the lowest level of overseas aid—0.24% of gross national income—since 1970, which will have hugely damaging effects globally. I have three specific questions for the Foreign Secretary. First, when will she publish the country allocations so that we can see exactly where the axe is falling? Secondly, how will she ensure that poverty alleviation remains the focus of overseas development assistance in this context? Thirdly, how does she square this with the comments of her own Prime Minister, who has previously acknowledged that cutting aid makes the world less secure?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. Please answer just one question, Foreign Secretary.

Middle East

Ellie Chowns Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

As I set out in our concerns on Lebanon, we are urging the Israeli Government not to pursue further ground operations but instead to pursue the opportunity of talks and a shared interest with the Lebanese Government, who we continue to support. We have raised our deep concerns and condemned some of the decisions made by the Israeli Security Cabinet in the west bank, because they risk setting back the potential for peace and for the two-state solution that the Gaza peace process should have been an opportunity to move towards. We cannot let that process fall off track.

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

In the Foreign Secretary’s statement—all six pages of it—there was not a single word of criticism of the illegal, reckless action of Trump and Netanyahu in launching the strikes that have set off this conflagration in the middle east. If the Foreign Secretary is not prepared even to criticise that, what hope can the British people have that the UK Government are standing up to the aggression of Trump and Netanyahu behind closed doors? Can she assure us that she and her Government are showing more backbone behind those closed doors? And can she assure us that she is investing in building a special relationship with allies we can really rely on, who believe in human rights, diplomacy and peace?

[Yvette Cooper]

This Government take decisions according to UK values and the UK’s interests. I know that there are different perspectives on foreign policy. There are some who believe that we should agree to and join in with everything that the US does. There are some who believe that we should always criticise and oppose everything that the US does. We believe that it is in the interests of the UK and the people across the UK to pursue UK values and UK interests in a hard-headed, serious and calm-headed way.

Strait of Hormuz

Ellie Chowns Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

I absolutely can assure my hon. Friend of that. I must say that I thought the shadow Foreign Secretary asked some very reasonable questions, but I have been surprised by some of the tone and commentary coming from the Opposition Benches and the media. At times like these, when we have British armed forces bravely defending allies and taking action, I would hope to see more unity and coming together on such a crucial issue. These are complex and difficult issues, and to suggest otherwise, or engage in party political point scoring, is not the right way forward.

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

The Minister and the Prime Minister have talked about the UK being willing to participate in a “viable, collective plan” to reopen the strait of Hormuz, but does the Minister really think that President Trump has a viable plan, given that he had no plan for the illegal war, nor any legal justification for the war he has launched? Given that, will the UK be absolutely unequivocal that we will not give in to Trump’s bullying demands, but will instead stand up for British interests, and will we make it absolutely clear that we will not be dragged into a catastrophic, illegal war in the middle east?

[Stephen Doughty]

Perhaps the hon. Lady could tell us how her party would defend the British national interest without spending money on defence, or indeed by leaving NATO—absolutely crackers.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ellie Chowns Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

As ever, I thank my hon. Friend for her important questions. I wish to clarify quickly. The British Government oppose forced displacement in Palestine, and that is our long-held position. While we are due to update Parliament on the wider issues posed by the ICJ advisory opinion, I would not wish for there to be any ambiguity about our position. We oppose forcible displacement and, of course, there must be accountability and justice for all crimes committed right across Palestinian and Israeli territory.

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

The Minister says that he is concerned by the expansion of illegal Israeli settlements and the expansion of settler violence, and he says that he is considering concrete steps. He refers to previous actions, but it is now many months since the last concrete action by this Government. Actions speak louder than words. It is now way past time to end all settlement trade and impose new sanctions on those responsible for this violence.

[Mr Falconer]

We have taken a range of steps and we continue to take steps, including raising those issues both with our partners and directly with the Israeli Government.

Occupied Palestinian Territories: Genocide Risk Assessment

Ellie Chowns Excerpts

Thursday 5th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

I thank the hon. Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O’Hara) for securing today’s debate. In June last year, I secured a debate in Westminster Hall on the same topic, and the arguments that I set out at length then still hold; indeed, they have been deepened and strengthened by events since. The Green party has long been clear that the actions of the Israeli Government in Gaza constitute genocide, but I agree with the hon. Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) that it is important to be clear about language, so I will make very specific arguments with respect to the genocide convention.

Under the convention, the UK has a legal obligation to assess the risk of genocide, and to act to prevent it when that risk is clear. Article I specifies that the contracting parties undertake

“to prevent and to punish”

genocide. By definition, prevention has to happen before an event has happened, or before it is completed; it cannot wait for a court case after genocide has conclusively taken place. Does the Minister therefore accept that the UK has a duty under article I of the genocide convention to prevent genocide when a serious risk is identified?

Article II sets out a range of acts that, if

“committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part”

a specific group, constitute genocide. Five acts are specified; only one of them needs to be occurring for it to be concluded that genocide is taking place, and there is very widespread agreement that at least four of those acts are happening in Gaza. They include

“Killing members of the group…Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group”

and

“Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part”.

What else is cutting off water and preventing the delivery of food, lifesaving medicines, fuel and power? The fourth is

“Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group”.

The wholesale destruction of healthcare in Gaza is clear evidence that this is occurring.

It is not just me or the International Court of Justice who says that; the International Association of Genocide Scholars, Médecins Sans Frontières, Amnesty, B’Tselem, Oxfam, Human Rights Watch, the UN commission of inquiry and hundreds of British lawyers say it, as we have heard. Why does the Minister not accept the conclusion of that wide swathe of people that genocide is indeed taking place, or at least that there is a plausible risk, which therefore entails his obligations under article 1?

Article III(e) of the genocide convention specifies that complicity in genocide is punishable. Let us be clear about UK complicity: we have the export of arms, including F-35s, the sharing of intelligence and continued participation in settlement trade, which is participation in the proceeds of crime—that is, land seizure. What more evidence do the UK Government need that genocide is taking place and that we are complicit in it before they take the long-overdue actions that are in their power?

Sudan

Ellie Chowns Excerpts

Thursday 5th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right, and we will continue to maintain the pressure because there has to be access. There must also be continuing support, which is why, in the run-up to the Berlin conference, we will discuss how we can ensure that there is also funding for the humanitarian support that is needed. One of the issues I heard about when speaking to people earlier this week was that families are still going hungry, and nobody should go hungry in the 21st century.

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

I very much thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement, her visit, the new sanctions and aid that she has announced, and for her clear, personal passion to keep the spotlight on the horrific suffering of women and children, in particular, in this conflict, as well as her clear determination to bring together the international community and this country to do what we can to reach a ceasefire.

I draw the Foreign Secretary’s attention specifically to the role of gold in financing the conflict. It is reported that, since the war began, gold production has grown more than tenfold, and that the vast majority is being smuggled out of the country, illicitly financing the arms imports fuelling the conflict. The countries involved include cross-border flows to Egypt and the UAE. What concrete measures is the UK taking—diplomatic, regulatory, sanctions—with partners, including those two countries, to highlight, call attention to and stop the illicit gold trade that is fuelling this horrific conflict?

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Lady is right to raise these issues. We held an event with a group of Foreign Ministers and ambassadors from a range of countries neighbouring Sudan at which we discussed the economics of the conflict and the dangers of allowing a vile conflict to take such deep root over an extended period of time that too many players in the process end up profiting from something that is destroying lives. Therefore, part of the response and peace process must be to target those routes for profit, as well as the routes for arms flows, to bring this conflict properly to a close.

Iran

Ellie Chowns Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

I am grateful for the question. Hostile states have sought to take advantage of the freedoms in this country by failing to register agents on our soil who are seeking to act on their behalf in whatever way. The foreign influence registration scheme means that it is now an offence for someone not to declare that they are acting as an agent for another country. It may well be that those seeking to act for Iran do not register under FIRS. If they do not, they are committing an offence, and I have every confidence in our services and police force that such people will be found.

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

I share the huge concern and outrage expressed across the House at the brave Iranian citizens who have been so brutally repressed by the regime. It is essential that the UK does everything possible, within the framework of international law, to support their struggle for freedom. I welcome the new sanctions that the Minister has announced on the Iranian leadership. On those principles of international law, will the Minister confirm that the UK will not support or enable in any way, including through intelligence sharing, any violation of international law by the United States or any other power in Iran?

[Mr Falconer]

I have set out our commitments to international law, and I will not provide hypotheticals.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ellie Chowns Excerpts

Tuesday 20th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right to raise that important matter. When we see the really flimsy shelters that families are in, despite the terrible flooding and the winter conditions, we know the impact this is having, including in contributing to disease and further displacement. So we are continuing to urge the Israeli Government to change their restrictions to allow better-quality provisions and construction materials into Gaza, and to make sure we meet those basic humanitarian needs. That commitment was made in the 20-point plan not just by Israel, but by all countries, and we need action to support that.

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

Given the utterly extraordinary news yesterday that Donald Trump has invited Putin and Netanyahu to sit on the board of peace, does the Foreign Secretary recognise that the board of peace is unfit to contribute to the task of peacebuilding? Additionally, it includes no Palestinians and almost no women. Does she recognise that it would be inappropriate for Britain, or indeed Brits, to participate in it, and what does she suggest as an alternative?