Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

Debate between Ellie Chowns and Sam Rushworth

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[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 ---

[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?

Representation of the People Bill (First sitting)

Debate between Ellie Chowns and Sam Rushworth

Committee stage
Wednesday 18th March 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Chowns]

Q I would like to return to the question of your experience of having the franchise extended to 16 and 17-year-olds, and particularly to the topic of political literacy. You have given a few examples of work there. What conversations are happening nationally to ensure maximum co-ordination and investment in supporting political literacy, particularly with the extension of the franchise? Is there anything further you would like to say on that? Do you feel that the Bill sufficiently addresses the issue, and what lessons can be learned for supporting political literacy among over-18s as well? Is there more to be done in that space, and what has your experience been in that arena?

Robert Nicol: Registration at 14 and votes at 16 have been embedded for quite some time, but I view this Bill—if it was to pass—as an opportunity to promote registration further. We are proud of the registration levels that we have been able to achieve, but there are still gaps and we want to make sure that we can narrow them as much as possible. I would welcome any involvement in trying to re-promote that across the franchise when the legislation does come into place.

The question of wider political literacy is quite interesting. We have heard much about the missing millions and so on in the Electoral Commission’s reports. No doubt, every single electoral registration officer wants to make sure that, for everybody who is eligible and wants to be registered, that facility is available to them in the format and means that best suit their needs.

The answer to political engagement and literacy will probably not come from a middle-aged guy. It will come from within our communities; that is where the engagement really has to happen. I think I am right in saying that there are particular funding streams available for some community groups around this. That has to be the appropriate way; the message that we are getting out there has to be delivered by trusted voices—people who are trusted in their communities to give accurate information. Some of the stuff that we give out is complex and difficult to understand. There is no single message or delivery method that will get that to everybody who needs it, so it is wider than just administrators in terms of enthusing the electorate, both to be registered and to actually take part in the process.

Malcolm Burr: It much depends on how much effort is made by everyone in the system. It is one thing having the right to vote, but our rights are arid without the feeling that participation makes a significant difference. It is always a work in progress. As an electoral administrator, it is a work in progress largely with our schools, and with the Electoral Commission, which does good work producing materials, generally. But of course, not all young people are in schools; you have to use other local media to encourage participation and show what the exercise of your right means practically.

As an anecdote, I always try to invite as many young people as the rules will allow to election counts. You see then where the process goes; you see what is done with your vote and how it makes a difference—along with other votes, obviously—and what candidates then say when they are elected or not elected, and what they talk about. It is very important to show that system and the difference that voting makes. In Scotland, we have the experience of the independence referendum in 2014. That showed, in respect of all groups, that when the electorate feel there is an issue at stake, they turn out in huge numbers to vote. That is the example of that.

As Robert Nicol said, accessibility is also important. We tend to think of accessibility in terms of voters with disabilities, but accessibility is beyond that; we have to look equally at how we reach hard-to-reach groups in the younger franchise. It is a combination of good publicity, good education and good appreciation, as much as possible, of how the voting system and casting your vote affects and changes things. It is a whole process. Sorry for the long answer.

Karen Jones: I have two points, if I may. I do not disagree with my Scottish colleagues. Young people helping to co-design some of the communications and engagement methods is important. I think Robert made the point about people of our generation maybe not being the obvious people to go and engage with young people, so there is an opportunity there to involve young people in how we go about those exercises. An evaluation report about the experience in Wales referred to the timing of some of these activities. Young people have periods when they are very busy sitting examinations and so on, so there are periods within a year when it is possible to get better levels of engagement. That was a practical lesson that we drew from the experience in Wales.

[Sam Rushworth]

Q One of the key arguments for lowering the voting age to 16 and allowing English 16 and 17-year-olds to have the same voting rights as their Scottish counterparts is that it increases turnout. Is there evidence from Scotland showing a higher turnout among 16 and 17-year olds?

COP29 and International Climate Finance

Debate between Ellie Chowns and Sam Rushworth

Wednesday 30th October 2024 Westminster Hall

[Ellie Chowns]

The hon. Member raises an important point. There is a history of multilateral and bilateral efforts by Governments to tackle debt crises, and there is a role for government to play in regulating the private finance sector to prevent vulture finance, effectively, from preying on countries in that way. There is a key need for international co-operation to address that issue, because the lenders are from all over the world. If a country has debt relief through one process, it is crucial that it does not then find itself stuck in a debt crisis in relation to another lender. I would be glad to hear the Minister’s proposals on debt relief.

My third point is that it is essential that international climate finance comes largely in the form of grants, not loans. The UK Government generally have a good record: roughly 85% of the climate finance we have committed has been through the form of grants, and I believe that commitment is in place until 2026. Will the Minister commit to that figure remaining a floor? Will she seek to increase it, so that the vast majority of climate finance is provided in such a way that it does not build up debt repayment problems for the future?

[Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

I welcome the point the hon. Lady is making. Thirty-four countries in Africa are spending more on debt interest than on health and education. If we are to talk about a just transition, it is simply not right that the poorest people in the world should be paying for it. That gives force to what she is saying. Will she comment more on ensuring that this is a just transition?

[Ellie Chowns]

Absolutely. The hon. Member makes a very important point, which relates to the one I made at the beginning: we cannot avoid the fact that we in the UK have an historical responsibility to take action on climate finance. We need to ensure that we are not storing up further problems for the future by providing climate finance in the form of loans, which make things harder for the poorest people in the poorest countries. Frankly, it is a scandal that, as he says, so many people in the poorest countries find that their Governments are spending more on debt repayments than they are on investment in crucial health and education, which build what we sometimes call the human capital that is so essential to sustainable development in such countries. I very much hope that the Government will lead on this issue and ensure that climate finance is in the form of grants—all of it, if possible, but at least the very largest proportion of it.