Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

Debate between Harriet Cross and Sam Rushworth

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sam Rushworth]

I will address that point in just a moment.

First, let us address the point about process. Sir Chris Wormald’s letter to the Prime Minister said:

“The evidence I have reviewed leads me to conclude that appropriate processes were followed in both the appointment and withdrawal of the former HMA Washington.”

Sir Olly Robbins confirmed that he did not tell the Prime Minister that Mandelson had failed the vetting process, and said:

“You are not supposed to share the findings and reports of UKSV, other than in the exceptional circumstances where doing so allows for the specific mitigation of risk.”

Cat Little, who also appeared before the Foreign Affairs Committee, said:

“My view is that due process was followed...because the process as I’ve outlined to the Committee, is that UKSV make a recommendation, and the Foreign Office make a decision as to whether to grant DV.”

All the evidence so far is certainly corroborating that view.

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sam Rushworth]

I will in a moment. I want to address my colleague’s question about pressure.

Clearly there are different types of pressure that can be exerted, and Sir Olly Robbins was clearly talking about the pressure to reach a decision quickly—[Interruption.] Opposition Members all know what was going on in the decision to appoint Peter Mandelson. We had had a change in Government in the United States. We had no trade deal with the United States, thanks to the legacy that the Conservatives left us. We had a difficult situation that meant that we needed a capable ambassador in post before President Trump’s inauguration.

[Harriet Cross]

Is the hon. Member therefore suggesting that the previous ambassador was not capable?

[Sam Rushworth]

I am happy to answer that point—[Interruption.] If Opposition Members stop chuntering, they will hear the answer, which is no, not at all. It is my personal view, although I am not an expert in these things, that I probably would have appointed an ambassador. I have said I thought the appointment of Peter Mandelson was wrong. I would have probably appointed an ambassador to the United States or left her in post, but that is immaterial to the point I am making. The point I am making is that No. 10 clearly felt time pressure to get somebody in post. There is a difference between feeling a pressure to conclude a process quickly and pressure being exerted on someone to change the decision. If we listen to what Sir Olly Robbins actually said, we will see that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

Having listened to this debate, I fear that the Labour Back Benchers who do not support the motion are being too pessimistic. They see a referral to the Privileges Committee as a threat or something to fear, which is the wrong approach. A referral to the Privileges Committee should be seen by Labour MPs as an opportunity for the Prime Minister to prove, as he says he believes, that he has done nothing wrong and has not misled the House; and an opportunity for the Government, who have summoned all their Back Benchers here today, demanding and expecting that they will give the Prime Minister their confidence, to show that the loyalty the Prime Minister expects of them is justified.

Labour Back Benchers should be in no doubt that, as we have heard multiple times today, the manner in which this vote is being managed by the Labour Whips is not usual for a privilege motion. In whipping them to vote to save him from appearing before the Privileges Committee, and from having to explain himself, the Prime Minister is once again not following normal process.

We have heard many speeches from Opposition Members about the allegations, our belief that the Prime Minister has misled the House, and our belief that normal due process has not been followed, although the Prime Minister has repeatedly said that it has. Labour Members must not forget that at the heart of this saga is the catastrophic lack of judgment shown by the Prime Minister in hiring the twice-fired known friend of a convicted paedophile, who, as the Prime Minister knew, retained, even after the annexation of Crimea, an exec role at Sistema, a company with Russian defence interests. That is the level of judgment and the calibre of decision making that the Prime Minister has been trying to justify, and that is what has led to the claim that he has been misleading the House, which we are discussing today.

The decision that Labour MPs face today is whether to support the Prime Minister’s version of events. We have seen too many times throughout this saga that it has been the Prime Minister’s version of events versus that of others. By asserting that he has not misled the House, the Prime Minister is effectively saying that Sir Olly Robbins and Sir Philip Barton have misled the Foreign Affairs Committee. Is that really what Labour MPs are comfortable supporting?

Sir Olly Robbins said that No. 10 put pressure on the Foreign Office to expedite Mandelson’s vetting, and the Prime Minister insists that this did not happen. Sir Philip Barton said today at the Foreign Affairs Committee that the usual process for appointing an ambassador would be vetting first and then the announcement, not the announcement and then the vetting, as happened in the case of Mandelson’s appointment.

[Sam Rushworth]

I think the hon. Lady may be inadvertently misquoting the Prime Minister, but if I am wrong, I invite her to quote exactly what the Prime Minister said about pressure to expedite the process. My recollection is that the Prime Minister said that there was no pressure to change the decision, not expedite the process.

[Harriet Cross]

That is a very welcome intervention. My recollection, and that of most Opposition Members, is that the Prime Minister said there was no pressure whatsoever. That is not what was said at the Foreign Affairs Committee. Both those things cannot be right. Are Labour MPs saying that the Prime Minister is right, or are they saying that Sir Olly Robbins misled the Foreign Affairs Committee? Both those things cannot be right. They need to choose who they agree with and which of those is correct. They cannot both be correct.

Winter Fuel Payment

Debate between Harriet Cross and Sam Rushworth

Tuesday 10th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

I have not written a speech—I have written down a few points—because, like many colleagues, I have spent the past week agonising over how to vote today. In the end, I decided to vote with my conscience, which meant that I voted with the Government. [Interruption.] Conservative Members laugh, but I will tell them why.

Today I listened sincerely to contributions from Conservative Members, and this is what I have learned. First, there were several interventions in which they criticised the Government’s efforts to improve the take-up of pension credit. [Interruption.] Well, they did—Members can go and read Hansard if they want to dispute that. There have been several criticisms of that, almost to the point that, when they talk about who is vulnerable, I wonder whether they have a blind spot for some of our most vulnerable constituents.

Secondly, I have learned about Conservative Members’ disdain for hard-working people, because we have learned that, in their spending plans, they intended to reject the pay recommendations of their own pay body.

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

Does the hon. Member appreciate that some of the hardest working people are the pensioners we are now standing up for, and who we are trying to stop freezing in the winter to come and those ahead?

[Sam Rushworth]

I absolutely do, and Members may recall that I came to this House last week and asked the Chancellor a question about my own constituents. I represent the snowiest and coldest constituency in England, and I have had deep concerns about those pensioners. However, I have studied the detail and listened to pensioners in my constituency. In the last week alone, it has turned out that several people who have come forward to me expressing concerns about this policy are people who could be claiming pension credit but are not.

I want to make a broader point about the winter fuel allowance. The winter fuel allowance was introduced under the last Labour Government in 1997, when the state pension was £3,247 a year. If that had increased at the rate of inflation, today it would be £6,200 a year. Thankfully, it is more than twice that. [Hon. Members: “Because of us.”] Conservative Members say that it is because of them, but, again, they may want to look at the record. In fact, under both the previous Labour Government and the previous Conservative Government, the state pension increased at above the rate of inflation, and I absolutely welcome that. The winter fuel allowance, however, has not increased for 20 years. So the winter fuel allowance, in real terms, has become less and less year after year. The point I am making is that we need to consider our people. If the Conservatives’ argument is that, after 14 years in government, people on the full state pension are £100 away from death and destitution, what have they been doing for 14 years?

We need a new settlement for the economy, and this Government are actually answering the concerns of my constituents, who live in cold, stone-built, badly insulated homes, and who lost out when the previous Government chose to cut the funding available to insulate homes. This Government are setting up Great British Energy, which will help to cut bills over the long term. People are poor and struggling to pay their bills not because we do not give away enough taxpayers’ money in small pockets of benefits here and there. What we need are higher wages and better pensions, and I have been convinced by the Chancellor’s arguments that, under this Government, the pension will rise at or above the rate of inflation year on year, while energy bills will fall.

Finally, my constituents would not thank me if I did not take steps to stabilise the economy, because we need to get NHS waiting lists down and we need—