Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

Gurinder Singh Josan Excerpts

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Gurinder Singh Josan (Smethwick) (Lab)]

Last week in the emergency debate I spoke about the appointment of Peter Mandelson, the approach taken by the Prime Minister as details have become available, and the vetting process overall. Today, I want to address the motion and why I feel it is premature. In doing so, I believe that three principles of this House are key to our considerations today: transparency, due process and proportionality.

A privilege motion is a serious matter and a tool available for Parliament to use in such circumstances. Although a privilege motion is to address such matters, its use also impacts on the integrity of the House and its procedures. Deploying a privilege motion prematurely or in the absence of full and proper grounds has the ability to impact negatively on the integrity of the House.

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

I refer the hon. Member to the words of Mr Speaker earlier. It is the Speaker who decides whether a privilege motion goes ahead. The hon. Member is criticising Mr Speaker for having allowed it.

[Gurinder Singh Josan]

My point is about our consideration of the motion. The fact that Mr Speaker made the decision means we are here discussing it. I am putting a case forward about why I think it is premature to vote on the motion today. Just because the Leader of the Opposition and others have decided to table it does not make it right; it is clearly a political and partisan process.

I am clear that any allegations or concerns must be addressed, and it is clear that the Prime Minister is of that view, too. It is why we have the Humble Address, ongoing inquiries by the Foreign Affairs Committee and even an ongoing police investigation. It is right and proper that all allegations are examined thoroughly and that these processes are allowed to run their course. I suggest that while those things are ongoing, the privilege motion is premature.

[Graham Stuart]

The hon. Gentleman is giving a powerful speech. He says that all allegations should be investigated properly. With the greatest respect to him, the Foreign Affairs Committee is not looking into whether the Prime Minister misled the House, and neither are the police. There is no process to do that, other than the one that Mr Speaker has allowed to be brought to the House today, which is to refer this matter—whether the Prime Minister has misled this House—to the Privileges Committee to determine. If the hon. Gentleman is to be consistent, he should agree with that and vote for it today.

[Gurinder Singh Josan]

The right hon. Gentleman should understand that we are here today only because of things that have been determined, whether from the release of papers through the Humble Address or from evidence people have given to the Foreign Affairs Committee. For him to say that those processes have no relevance is wrong; they absolutely have full relevance. My whole case is that we should let those processes complete in their entirety. That is why I believe this motion is premature. Given that those processes are already taking place, this privilege motion is premature. More than that, this motion is a clear attempt to bypass those processes.

Whatever one’s view of the substantive issues, there are some points on which we should all agree. The Prime Minister has been forthcoming in addressing the allegations, both in the House and outside. The Prime Minister has apologised from the very outset in the House and outside it, for the decision to appoint Peter Mandelson, and his apologies have been full, wholesome and without equivocation. He has also specifically apologised to the victims of Epstein. The Prime Minister has repeatedly answered questions in the House and outside, and has shown a willingness to be held accountable.

[Ayoub Khan]

Whatever the merits of the motion, does the hon. Member accept that the party whip should not be exercised so that politicians are constrained and cannot support or oppose a particular motion? Does he agree that that whip should be withdrawn?

[Gurinder Singh Josan]

I am a humble Back Bencher, and I would not disagree with my Chief Whip in respect of his decisions on how to apply the whip. That is a matter for him.

All the inquiries that I have mentioned are ongoing, and are being robustly pursued. I fear, therefore, that the motion risks setting an unhealthy precedent, namely that unproven allegations alone are sufficient to utilise one of Parliament’s most serious procedures. That is not something with which any of us should be comfortable. The naked politicising of this process will not serve Parliament well. My further fear is that while Opposition Members are seeking to utilise this procedure in this way, some of them will already be looking into what other procedures they can use to extend the process in the same partisan fashion.

It is incumbent on all of us to give consideration to due process and proportionality. Diverting from the high standards that voters expect of the House risks damaging confidence in Parliament itself. Substantial parliamentary and other processes are already under way. We should not pre-empt those processes, which is what this motion has the potential to do, but should allow them to be completed. That is in the best interests of Parliament and in the best interests of transparency, due process and proportionality, and that is why I call on Members to vote against the motion.