Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

Joe Robertson Excerpts

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I apologise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the fact that I cannot promise as learned and long a speech as that given by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell). [Interruption.] Even in such a heated and highly controversial debate, I have managed to gain cross-party consensus. My day has not been wasted.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak. I am perhaps not so pleased that I am speaking in this particular debate, but the opportunity to speak in this place and represent the people of my constituency is an honour every single day. I hope that Members from across the House will recognise that I do my best to avoid being too party political. In fact, I gave a whole speech in which the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) was not able to intervene on me, because I avoided being party political; I appreciate that the challenge is on again. I do my best to avoid being too party political, except when it comes to education policy, but I declare an interest there.

I have actively engaged in this matter, and have contributed when the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister has attended this House to speak on the subject of the Humble Address, as he has done a number of times. I see he is not here; he has slipped out while I am giving my speech. I have represented to him my genuine concerns about the vetting process, and I would ask him to refer to that in his winding-up speech, if he were here. I have expressed my genuine concern about the impact of Peter Mandelson’s appointment on the victims of Jeffrey Epstein.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to put on record my deepest respect for the Speaker’s Office, and for you personally. As you will be aware, I find you just a little bit terrifying. [Hon. Members: “Quite right.”] More cross-party agreement. I absolutely respect Mr Speaker’s decision to allow this debate. I will admit that I was reluctant to speak in it, not because I lack faith in the Prime Minister—that faith remains firm—and not, to mention an issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Mr Barros-Curtis), because I genuinely worry about my security and that of my family, although I have to put on record that I do; Members from across the House who have supported me in that matter will know what I am talking about.

On a lighter note, I was reluctant to speak in this debate because I could not work out how I was going to make reference to Harlow in it. [Hon. Members: “But you have.”] Twice. Then I realised that that was the point; I come to this place to talk about my constituents. Take my constituent, friend and former work colleague Jamie, who works six days a week, and has nothing left with which to enjoy himself or treat his family, including his two-year-old son. I want to be talking about how this Government help people like Jamie. [Interruption.] Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker—again, terrified. I want to be talking about how we in this House can make a difference to Jamie and tackle the cost of living crisis.

I want to gently respond to those on both sides of the House who have implied that those who do not agree with them are somehow selling their soul. I respectfully disagree. As Members know, I was a teacher before I came to this place, and I came to this place because I was angry with the former Member for Surrey Heath. I frankly disagreed with some of the decisions he made about education, but what really struck me when I came here was that Opposition Members are not the horrible, terrible, horned beasts that I was led to believe they were—some of them, maybe. [Hon. Members: “Horny?”] Did I say that? I meant horned. I feel like I am going to have to make a point of order and apologise in a minute.

Opposition Members genuinely believe in what they are voting for. I saw that the other day during the debate on the Pension Schemes Bill, in the discussion about mitigation. I disagreed with what Opposition Members said, but I respected their right to disagree, and I think it is important that in any debate—including this one—we can agree to disagree.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

I realise that the hon. Member is struggling to read his own handwriting, but does he have anything at all to say about the Prime Minister’s conduct in appointing Peter Mandelson?

[Chris Vince]

I thank the hon. Member for his contribution, I think. I am sorry that he is offended by my handwriting, but there are probably more important things to discuss.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Joe Robertson]

I have a suggestion for this disagreement that is going on in the House: why do we not refer it to the Privileges Committee?

[Harriet Cross]

Genius! My hon. Friend is full of great ideas. That is the calibre that we expect of him.

On misleading the House, the Prime Minister said that no one in No. 10 was aware that there had been any concerns about Mandelson’s vetting before the revelation was made a few weeks ago, despite it being reported in The Independent in September last year. On that very point, I submitted a named day question to the Cabinet Office last week, which was due to be answered yesterday. It simply asked whether The Independent is one of the newspapers to which the current or any previous director of communications, press secretary or anyone else at No. 10 has a subscription. The named day deadline has passed; the answer has not been received.

That was a simple question. Why has it not been answered? It would be very easy to find the answer. Maybe no one at No. 10 had a subscription to The Independent, but if they did, it would be difficult to hold the line that no one at No. 10 had any indication until just a few weeks ago that there had been any issues with Mandelson’s vetting. If the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister would like to intervene now and shed light on either the delay or the answer to that question, I will happily take the intervention.