Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

John Slinger Excerpts

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to take part in this debate. As many colleagues on the Opposition Benches have said, it brings a sense of déjà vu. I have a rather horrible chill up my spine when I remember being on the Government Benches and being pushed by the Whips to vote for certain things.

As has already been said, we have a Prime Minister who promised to do things differently. He promised change, higher standards and transparency, and he is the ultimate arbiter and keeper of the ministerial code. Politics is often about a certain amount of deflection, but he seems to go beyond all precedent in not answering questions. He drives Mr Speaker up the wall—to the point that they have altercations in the Chamber. That is the backdrop. We have a Prime Minister who promised that he would be particularly transparent and bring forward a duty of candour law, but that was dropped. He promised higher standards, yet does not live up to it.

The hon. Member for Rugby (John Slinger), who is the new trade envoy to the Republic of Korea, is in the Chamber, and it is fabulous to see that loyalty can be rewarded. I say to him, “Well done!” If Members back the Government, even when they should not, there can be a reward for them. But, as colleagues on this side of the Chamber have said, if Members do not vote with their conscience or do the right thing when their gut tells them to, they will regret it.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Graham Stuart]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.

There is a particular change today, because we have a three-line Whip on a House matter. Members have spoken on behalf of the Government line. The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth), who is in his place, said that he did not think the three-line Whip was a good idea, and others did not want to talk about it, but who was the three-line Whip for? Perhaps the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister can tell us. Labour Members have told us that they will always vote with their conscience and do the right thing, yet after the Whips had phoned round, it was decided that they must impose a three-line Whip.

My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), who has never been a Whip and does not have much fondness for them, has put the ghastly deed at their door. As a former Whip, I tend to think that it is more likely that the Whips did their job, giving a nuanced but properly informed answer. Then No. 10—sitting in the bunker, panicking, their only job to make sure that the Prime Minister is not replaced—said, “No, unless you can give us 100% support.” “There is no such thing as 100%,” the Chief Whip would reply. “No, no—then we insist that a three-line Whip is imposed.” And that happened.

[John Slinger]

rose—

[Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)]

rose—

[Graham Stuart]

The hon. Lady, who is a brilliant tennis player and a great partner, will forgive me if I give way to the hon. Member for Rugby, whom I referenced and should therefore allow to come in.

[John Slinger]

I like the right hon. Gentleman a great deal and thank him for his kind words. The moment has somewhat passed, but he was implying that the Prime Minister is avoiding answering questions. [Interruption.] If Members will listen: this is the Prime Minister who came before the House last Monday and answered questions from right hon. and hon. Members for two and a half hours.

The right hon. Gentleman spoke about transparency, but we are talking about a Prime Minister who led a Government who are releasing all the documents to this House and the public. He can talk all he likes about transparency and answering questions, but I have just demonstrated that both those things have been achieved already.

[Graham Stuart]

As so often, the hon. Gentleman does two things brilliantly: he reinforces his merit with the Whips when it comes to a future position, yet makes our case for us. The Prime Minister was dragged before the House. It is not just me—Mr Speaker was falling out with him and he is a former Labour MP. This is the frustration of a whole nation at a man who promised that he would be open and transparent but who cannot, ever, just give a straightforward answer. It has got to the point where if he was asked whether he would like mash or new potatoes, he would start talking to his wife about pork chops. He just cannot answer the question.

I say to the hon. Member for Rugby that when the Prime Minister was dragged here—this is the issue today—he misled this House. We have gone over that; Members will be deeply relieved to hear that I will not go over it again. But he said that due process had been followed. We have evidence today: Morgan McSweeney said he did the interview. He is an old pal of Mandelson’s—the man pushing for his appointment. He is the guy who asked Mandelson the questions. Then, whoa—“Let’s review the answers that McSweeney got and get Lord Doyle”—another pal of them both—“to provide the independent review.” That is what the Prime Minister presided over, all to deliver what McSweeney also made clear today was absolutely the Prime Minister’s decision.

The Prime Minister made the decision. He got his mates in this crony boys’ club to sit around, review each other and put Mandelson into place. Then he came here—this is the point—and said that due process was followed. Due process was not followed. Only because of the Humble Address have we found out that the Cabinet Secretary’s official advice to the Prime Minister was that vetting must be done before the announcement of a political appointee—and again, the Government had to give way halfway through the debate as they could see the direction it was going in. That advice was not in the public domain when Chris Wormald, who will have to answer for his own judgments, came out and said that all due process had been followed. But anyone who could read the advice and see what happened can clearly see that it was not followed. Chris Wormald’s letter was false and wrong. I do not see how it can be squared as the great defence of the Prime Minister. We have had no answers to that point.

We have so many questions—even before we get to last week, when, as the hon. Member for Rugby said, the Prime Minister was here. Under questioning from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, who does a brilliant job of keeping her temper while he evades and seeks not to answer, the Prime Minister said that there had been no pressure whatsoever. That is clearly not true, given that Olly Robbins repeatedly said how much pressure there was.

There are plenty of reasons to believe that the Prime Minister, who said that he was going to set a higher standard, has misled this House. That is all we need; as Mr Speaker said, we are not judge and jury today when it comes to whether he actually misled the House. That is why we have the Privileges Committee to look at the matter. It is dominated by Labour MPs, but such is the lack of confidence in No. 10—perhaps in the Whips Office and certainly in the Cabinet—that not only does the Prime Minister not trust the Labour MPs on the Privileges Committee; he does not even trust all the other Labour Members, who are being dragooned by a three-line Whip into voting for something, when no such Whip should ever have been applied.

Middle East

John Slinger Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

I can say to the hon. Member that we are working closely with our European allies, including France, Germany and Italy, on a range of these issues. I do not think that his characterisation of the situation is right.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

I want to express my sorrow at the death and suffering of civilians, wherever that is happening in the region. I commend the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister for their calm and principled approach to this crisis, which is rooted in respect for international law. Could she expand on efforts that she, the Prime Minister and our allies are taking to de-escalate this conflict and to seek a diplomatic solution that will put the interests of those civilians front and foremost in our minds? We hear far too much about regimes and actors in this region; we need to hear more about the rights of civilians.

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right that at every stage we have been urging the protection of civilians. That is immensely important as part of this and is also why we need to work so immensely hard to prevent further escalation. It is one of the issues we have been raising particularly around Lebanon, where I am concerned that we are on the brink of what could be much greater devastating humanitarian consequences. It is also why we have been looking forward to what diplomatic process and settlement process could prevent Iran from posing a threat in future.

Strait of Hormuz

John Slinger Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Gentleman has clearly set out his concerns. The Prime Minister has taken a clear and level-headed approach, in Britain’s national interest, to this crisis, taking each decision as it comes and always prioritising the protection of our people, our allies and our interests. That is the approach he will continue to take in this crisis. He has been clear that we have to reopen the strait of Hormuz to ensure stability in the market for the very reasons that the hon. Gentleman has set out, but that is no simple task. That is why we are working with all our allies, including European partners, to bring together a viable and collective plan to restore freedom of navigation.

The hon. Gentleman raises issues relating to Ukraine, as did the shadow Foreign Secretary. I need to be clear that decisions made by the United States about its own sanctions are a matter for the US. We are clear that we will continue to ratchet up our own measures to put pressure on the Kremlin to change course and to support Ukraine in the pursuit of a just and lasting peace. To be clear, the US has announced a temporary waiver of some sanctions on Indian refiners to purchase Russian oil, but the US Treasury Secretary made clear that that licence was deliberately short term. Matters for the US are obviously for the US. We will continue to strengthen our measures.

With regard to the impact on people here at home, the Prime Minister has announced the capping of energy bills until the end of June, the extension of the fuel duty cut and the £53 million of support we are giving to rural communities with the cost of heating oil. We are continuing to invest in our energy security, which is crucial.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

Given Iran’s reckless behaviour, it is of course right that the Prime Minister has made sure that our brave forces are protecting our allies and our people, and that UK bases are used for defensive operations. With regard to the strait of Hormuz and any further action that we may or may not take, can the Minister confirm that we will not get drawn into a wider conflict that we did not start?

[Stephen Doughty]

I simply refer my hon. Friend to the comments that the Prime Minister made on this very issue this morning. He said that we will not get drawn into a wider war, but we want to see the strait of Hormuz reopened. We will work with our allies, including European partners, to bring together a viable and collective plan to do that, but I will not hypothesise about that today.

Consular Assistance

John Slinger Excerpts

Thursday 5th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

I, of course, join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to RAF Marham. I also have to mention RAF Waddington, a vital airbase in my constituency, which is providing a considerable contribution. I know the whole House will be thinking of our armed forces as they keep our people, our interests and our allies protected in these tense days.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

My thoughts are with British citizens in the Gulf; as someone who has lived and worked in that region, I can only imagine how concerned they must be. Those on the Opposition Front Bench yesterday and today have used careless, aggressive and disrespectful language in this Chamber, and I imagine they are doing so in order to wrap themselves in the cloak of national security patriotism. Does my hon. Friend agree that this use of language actually undermines national security, because it suggests that this House is divided on such an important issue? I would like to pay tribute to his diplomats, our incredibly brave armed forces and other civil servants in this country who are dealing with this crisis. As they deal with it, they would benefit, I think, from a united House of Commons.

[Mr Falconer]

I agree very much with the tone of my hon. Friend’s question. When I look behind me, I do not see “orcs and goons”—I see hon. Friends concerned about their constituents, and I know the same is true across all these Benches.

Diego Garcia and British Indian Ocean Territory

John Slinger Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. We need to lower the temperature—and everyone can be seated. The Minister can answer each question in full if he wishes to do so.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

I have been doing the maths on the Reform leader’s weekend. He spent 23 hours in the air in his private jet—perhaps run by “Man of the People Airways”—and 12 hours on the ground. That is a day and a half or so when he could have been delivering leaflets and knocking doors for the Gorton and Denton by-election. Does the Minister share my concern that the Reform candidate is missing out on the active support of the hon. Member for Clacton and instead has to fall back on the support and endorsement of Tommy Robinson—AKA Stephen Yaxley-Lennon?

Iran

John Slinger Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

I hear the passion in the hon. Gentleman’s voice. We are taking this issue incredibly seriously. This is a far-reaching sanctions package, and we will come back to the House once the Leader of the House is in a position to set out the timetable for the legislation.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the brutal, violent and illegal repression of Iranian civilians by this regime shows just how difficult it is for civilian populations to rise up against their oppressors, as is so often demanded by people around the world? Would he pay tribute to the young women who have been protesting on the streets with great courage at this incredibly difficult time for their country?

[Mr Falconer]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am sure many Members of the House have seen the pictures of female protesters on the streets of Iran, not just in Tehran but across the country. It is impossible not to be moved by their bravery, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the chance to reflect on that.

British Indian Ocean Territory

John Slinger Excerpts

Wednesday 28th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

Before I turn to the subject of the Opposition day debate, I must comment on the answer that the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), gave to the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart)—a Member I respect hugely. She mentioned climbing the greasy pole, possibly even in relation to me. It is always amusing when people who have served in the Cabinets of multiple Conservative Prime Ministers accuse Back-Bench Members of somehow being involved in climbing a greasy pole. It is just very, very amusing. [Interruption.] I thank the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for his comment; I understand he also did pretty well in the past.

This motion is the Conservatives playing politics with national security—their friends in the other place using a wrecking amendment to block the Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill being a prime example of that. Conservative Members have never been able to answer this question: if there was no problem with British sovereignty and operation of the base, why did they begin the negotiations in the first place?

[Lincoln Jopp]

I thank the and hon. and incredibly loyal Member for giving way. Does he realise that, as the result of a UN judgment in 1965, the United Kingdom was required to enter into negotiations with Argentina over the future of the Falkland Islands? Those negotiations continued until 1982, when they were concluded in a rather different way from that envisaged by the UN.

[John Slinger]

I thank the hon. and even-more-loyal-than-I Member for his intervention. We spar across the House—

[Mr Francois]

He is an hon. and gallant Member.

[John Slinger]

I thank the even more loyal hon. and gallant Member for his history lesson, but it does not change the fundamentals: 85% of the negotiations took place under the Conservatives.

In November 2022, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), who was then Foreign Secretary, said:

“Through negotiations, taking into account relevant legal proceedings, it is our intention to secure an agreement on the basis of international law to resolve all outstanding issues”. —[Official Report, 3 November 2022; Vol. 721, c. 354WS.]

In February 2025, a spokesperson for the Leader of the Opposition insisted that she understood that negotiations over the islands were needed due to the international legal position. This motion is obvious political opportunism. These are hon. and right hon. Members of this House of Commons who raised no objections in Parliament, filed no critical questions and voiced no concerns on social media. Only after leaving government did they do so, but with no plan of their own.

On the matter of the sovereignty of the Chagossians, the Conservatives’ view is logically inconsistent. They want the UK to retain sovereignty, but they attack the Government for not giving the Chagossians the right to self-determination. They ruled out resettlement. Some Chagossians want to return to Diego Garcia, so are Conservative Members calling for them to be returned to that island, with the inevitable issues that that would cause for the operation of the vital base? Opposition Members have gone rather silent on that point.

[Dr Murrison]

Does the hon. Gentleman see any parallel between the plight of Chagossians and the plight of Greenlanders? The Prime Minister has gone out of his way, correctly, to defend the rights of Greenlanders, but he is doing the complete reverse for Chagossians.

[John Slinger]

The sovereignty of the Chagossians is a sensitive and delicate issue which we are attempting to deal with, as my hon. Friend the Minister set out. We have established a contact group. Many meetings have taken place, and I strongly endorse those steps to give respect to the Chagossian people for what has happened to them. The Conservatives used only £1.6 million of the £40 million support fund for the Chagossian people, which hardly indicates that when they were in office the interests of the Chagossian people were their No. 1 priority.

In conclusion, this motion is political opportunism of the worst kind, because it concerns national security and the British national interest, and the Conservatives really should not be playing party political games with that. Nor should they be using words like “surrender” with such abandon, as the shadow Foreign Secretary does, because that implies things that are simply not true and it is whipping up public concern, which is totally unnecessary, particularly regarding British national interest. That is why I am very glad to oppose this opportunistic motion before the House. I commend the Minister on her speech.

Arctic Security

John Slinger Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

We have always been clear that a trade war between any nation—certainly between the US and European countries—is deeply damaging and not in anyone’s interest. That is why our first priority right now should be to stop this happening and stop the tariffs, and to build a shared sense of security.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should send a message of reassurance to our children and young people, who will undoubtedly be feeling concerned and scared about the developments in the Arctic and Greenland, and more broadly regarding our international system? Does she agree that they know instinctively that international co-operation, standing up for our allies, international friendship and defending a rules-based system is the right way for our world? Does she agree that they should take some reassurance from the fact that our Government, this House and our allies agree with them?

[Yvette Cooper]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s framing of this around the interests of our young people and the values of shared co-operation. It is co-operation with allies that makes us stronger.

Iran: Protests

John Slinger Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

I am grateful to my Lincolnshire colleague for the question. I do not have a great deal more to add to the discussions that we have already had this afternoon on the IRGC. “Muslim Brotherhood” is a term that covers a whole range of groups, including, depending on how we consider it, Hamas. Where there is a violent threat to the UK, we will of course take proscription action as necessary.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

I condemn the violent oppression of the Iranian people. Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to the work of the BBC World Service and BBC Persian, not only in getting free journalism and the truth into that country, but in getting stories of bravery, courage and suffering out to the wider world?

[Mr Falconer]

I will. The BBC World Service and BBC Persian are a lifeline, as are so many of the other World Service channels. I pay tribute to the vital work that they do in reporting, even in the most difficult circumstances.

Ukraine

John Slinger Excerpts

Wednesday 14th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

I have spoken consistently about the need to protect the international rules-based system. Not only is that system under direct and indirect threat throughout the world, but in Ukraine it has clearly failed, in so far as Russia invaded. This is a moment not to jettison it, but to redouble our defence of it, as we have done in the past. Britain has a proud track record: the world wars; the cold war; the liberation of the Falkland Islands, Kuwait and latterly Iraq; our actions in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and in Kosovo; and the no-fly zone in northern Iraq. In each case, we defended brave victims against bullies. We used military force to uphold the rights of nations and of human beings.

We know that intervention has a chequered history. Arguably, the warlords and some dubious Governments noticed the abject failure of the international community to prevent the genocide in Rwanda. Even in cases where we took military action, others watched and drew conclusions. Malevolent actors around the world must have looked upon the former Yugoslavia and noticed that a quarter of a million civilians were killed before the international community got truly serious, with American leadership finally ensuring that NATO took decisive action. Need I add that Saddam Hussein got away with breaching every known international law before the Americans, this country and others belatedly took action? Belated tough action, feeble action, or the absence of action—which is itself an action—all have profound consequences. Many people forget that Russia’s move to consolidate its strategic military influence in Syria only proceeded apace once the west and the international community had signalled that they would not enforce the most basic of red lines and act against Assad for using chemical weapons. Surely that must have emboldened Russia in other in other parts of the world, such as Ukraine—a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (David Taylor). Despite the excellent efforts of the British military and diplomatic missions in Ukraine, which ramped up military and other support long before 2022, and which I commend, we can say with hindsight that it was self-evidently insufficient.

I have always been hugely reassured by the almost universally cross-party nature of this Parliament’s steadfast support for Ukraine—this is Parliament at its best—but at this crucial moment, we must do everything we can to ensure that the sacrifice of Ukrainian soldiers and civilians is not in vain. More generally, we must make sure that the rules-based system does not wither on the vine.

I want to say something about what is happening in my constituency, where there are two home fronts at work. One is our own, here among British citizens. It is crucial that they realise just what is at stake. It is not an exaggeration to say that if we get this wrong, or if we do not get it sufficiently right, war will come ever closer to these shores. The public will have to make sacrifices, because that is what is needed to defend democracy. Secondly, there is the extended Ukrainian home front in communities such as mine in Rugby, where families, schools and businesses have welcomed Ukrainians as they flee conflict. It is being supported by civil servants nationally, and especially by settlement teams in, for instance, Warwickshire county council, who do excellent and compassionate work alongside their district council colleagues, charities, volunteers and, most important, our citizens. It is also supported by community groups such as the Rugby branch of the Association of Ukrainians in Great Britain, whose work I have seen. This is Britain at its best, living up to our values of welcoming those in need.

Let me share with the House some direct testimony from Ukrainian families who have been in touch with me this week. This is what they said:

“Russia is systematically targeting the energy system, using hundreds of drones and missiles. Radiators go cold and water freezes in the pipes.

People no longer live by the clock, but by the moments when electricity briefly returns. Children do their homework at night. Parents cook food in the dark hours.

Civilian life itself is the target, not military locations. The aim is to break people, to exhaust them, to destroy society from within.

And then there are the night attacks. Sirens, explosions, the constant fear, they don’t let you sleep.

Your body is tired, but your mind stays awake, waiting for the next sound.

This is what it does to your mental state: you live in constant anxiety. You are always on edge…Even in silence, you are listening.

Supporting Ukraine’s energy system, its air defence and its logistics is not abstract assistance. It is the simplest and most effective way to save millions of lives and to prevent a new humanitarian catastrophe in Europe.”

There is a great deal at stake, but, as the Government have made very clear, we will not turn our back on Ukraine; quite the reverse. We will strengthen international law and the rules-based system, which, in conjunction with military power, keeps us, our allies and the wider world safe.

[Several hon. Members rose—]