Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

Karl Turner Excerpts

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Ind)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis). He and I rarely agree politically, but we do work together constructively in our constituencies for the betterment of the region.

I start by way of an apology, because last week —I think this was mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition—I accidentally published correspondence between me and you, Mr Speaker. That was my mistake. I respect you, Mr Speaker, and I respect your office, so I apologise sincerely for that mistake, but it was my mistake.

Do I believe that the Prime Minister deliberately misled this House? No, frankly. I have known him a long time, and I think I know him very well. It is fair to say that I describe him as a friend, and I think he has described me as a friend as well. Both him and I are lawyers by trade. In my honest opinion, there is no way that the Prime Minister would come here and deliberately mislead the House. However, there was a very significant difference, in my view, between what the Prime Minister said in answer to the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition in last week’s Prime Minister’s questions, and Olly Robbins’ evidence the previous day. I think I am right in saying that the Prime Minister said there was “no pressure whatsoever”, intimating that that was the evidence that Olly Robbins had given to the Foreign Affairs Committee, but I watched every minute of it and that is definitely not the case. I have looked back, and I have checked Hansard and the evidence that was given by Olly Robbins.

So I do think that there is a prima facie case for this matter to be investigated and for an inquiry to be conducted by the appropriate Committee of this House. I suspect that is not going to happen, because this debate is being whipped. I do not blame the Government for that—I find it unfortunate, to be honest, but they are not setting any new precedent; there is precedent for whipped scenarios in these situations in the past. But I do think that the Prime Minister would be vindicated.

[Alicia Kearns]

The hon. Gentleman is right that there are some precedents for House business being whipped, but the lesson is that it is a fool’s errand—it is normally the start of the end. He is making a fair point and being kind to his Front Benchers, but does he agree that we should learn from precedent and not necessarily repeat it?

[Karl Turner]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady, who is spot on. She leads me to the point raised by the Leader of the Opposition. I made a statement on social media that this motion is a stunt. A stunt is defined as an action designed to capture attention, but it is worse than that, actually. If I was to be cynical, I think the problem is that the motion is designed to capture Labour MPs. That is my concern. If it is said by our political opponents that Labour MPs came here today to block an inquiry of this House into the leader of the Labour party and Prime Minister, every single one of us will be accused by the electorate of trying to help the Prime Minister when he needed to face the music.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister has set out a detailed chronology. He has made it abundantly clear that he has not lied and he has not misled this House. In those circumstances, would it not be right to embrace this process and wipe the floor with the critics who have put those things to him? While we are at it, would my hon. Friend agree that the fact that Peter Mandelson had previously made it abundantly clear that his purpose every day was to take action to bring down the then duly elected leader of the Labour party made him wholly and utterly unsuitable for the office of ambassador?

[Karl Turner]

I was about to say that my hon. Friend is a good man—he used to be my boss in the shadow Transport team, Mr Speaker, and he always tries to help me. I do not want to get into the stuff about Mandelson, as my hon. Friend hopes I will. But while I am speaking about the appointment of Mandelson, I will say this: I think that the Prime Minister appointed Mandelson in the national interest. I think he thought Mandelson would go to Washington, do a job in the national interest and deliver for the country. I think that is why he made the appointment.

When it became clear, following the Bloomberg emails, that the appointment was politically difficult for the Government, the Prime Minister again did the right thing by dismissing Mandelson, very properly. Where I think the Prime Minister went wrong was in the shenanigans between those two points: looking around for an excuse for why it had gone wrong. “Just take it on the chin—deal with it!” That is the advice I would have given him, and that is why I am particularly disappointed.

Colleagues who came in at the last general election might be disappointed in me for having the audacity to stand up and say what I happen to believe is the truth. I am sorry if they are not happy with me, but I am here to represent not my interests but the interests of those who elected me. That is what I will always do; whether it is against the policy of a Tory Government or my own Government, I will do what I think is in the interests of my electorate.

Let me warn colleagues about what will happen if we are seen to go through the Lobby to defeat this process. It is a reasonable process; this is not the shenanigans that the Government have suggested in relation to jury trials. This does not involve a single judge, but a jury of peers—impartial, and made up of more Labour MPs than Tory MPs. The Prime Minister has nothing to fear. He ought to do the right thing. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) has suggested, he should have referred himself. That would have saved us all this messing around—debating the point and trying to justify why the referral is a bad idea or having two Committees running alongside each other. Utter nonsense! Get on with it, let it be dealt with and let us move on.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend mentioned my recommendation that the Prime Minister should refer himself. I did that because when someone is under attack like this, they should not run away from the attack; they should face it with confidence. They should argue that if people want to criticise the individual concerned, they should produce the evidence. My hon. Friend knows as well as I do that the Privileges Committee would deal with this matter fairly, and I believe that the Labour party would come out stronger as a result.

[Karl Turner]

I completely agree with my right hon. Friend. I think I said on Twitter that he rarely gets things wrong—I was accused of being wrong for agreeing with what he said. In the time I have known him, my right hon. Friend has rarely, in my opinion, got it wrong. I think he is absolutely spot on.

I am confident and convinced. I know the Prime Minister and know that he is not a liar. I know for a fact that he would not deliberately mislead. I think he would be exonerated. The trouble we now face is accusations from the electorate that we stopped the inquiry from happening in the first place and that the Prime Minister is guilty through the fact that we avoided it. Once we are in that position, we have a big problem, because you cannot prove something that never happened.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

West Bank: Forced Displacement

Karl Turner Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Claire Hazelgrove (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Lab)]

I completely agree that what we are seeing on the ground in the west bank and in Gaza is horrendous. Does my hon. Friend agree that with the ultimate goal in mind of a lasting peace via a two-state solution, it is crucial that Palestinians are able to return to and rebuild their homes and lives? Does he also agree that to secure that future, there must not be any attempt to annex land in Gaza?

[Karl Turner (in the Chair)]

Order. Can I just say that interventions are supposed to be short?

[Martin Rhodes]

I agree. We need to make sure that there is a Palestine to first be recognised and then be part of that two-state solution.

In May 2025, Israeli Ministers approved 22 new illegal settlements in the west bank—the biggest expansion in decades. Defence Minister Israel Katz, as reported by the BBC, said the move

 “prevents the establishment of a Palestinian state that would endanger Israel”.

I hope the Minister can address that issue in his remarks. How can we hope for a negotiated two-state solution when the very existence of a Palestinian state is framed as a danger by Israeli Ministers?

Since the ’67 war, Israel has occupied the west bank and East Jerusalem, which has led to 160 settlements housing 700,000 Israelis. Those settlements exist alongside an estimated 3.3 million Palestinians under occupation and are widely seen as illegal under international law. Last year, the UN International Court of Justice issued an advisory opinion that Israel’s continued presence in Palestinian territory was unlawful. Furthermore, the court said that all settlements should be evacuated due to their establishment and maintenance being in violation of international law.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Rhodes]

I certainly think that the Government should look at that. There is obviously a process to go through in terms of proscribing, but it is something that should be looked at.

With regard to the plight of the Palestinian people in Gaza, the UK Government must redouble their efforts to pressure Israel to reopen crossings and lift restrictions on movement and fuel. The UN co-ordination of humanitarian aid must be restored and a permanent ceasefire agreed. That will once again allow professional and experienced humanitarian aid agencies to reach people in need at scale, with meaningful assistance.

Finally, for there to be a peaceful two-state solution between a safe and democratic Israel and a safe, democratic and viable Palestinian state, there must be a people and a land called Palestine left to recognise. As the UK, let us work to ensure that.

[Karl Turner (in the Chair)]

There are a couple of housekeeping matters that I need to mention. The debate can go on until 5.44 pm because of injury time in previous debates, so I want the wind-up speeches to begin at 5:20 pm. I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to catch my eye to speak in the debate. There will be a three-minute time limit on speeches.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) on securing the debate.

The Conservatives are clear in our support for a two-state solution delivered in the right way at the right time. The only way forward is a solution that guarantees security and stability for both the Israeli and the Palestinian people. We must give the people of the west bank and Gaza the political perspective of a credible route to a Palestinian state and a new future.

There are several factors making progress towards a two-state solution more difficult. First, on Israeli settlements in the west bank, our position is as it was in government and is well understood: settlements are not helpful for achieving long-term peace. We urge Israel not to take steps that could make a two-state solution more difficult and to use its legal system to clamp down on settler violence.

In February last year, we took action in government by sanctioning extremist Israeli settlers who violently attacked Palestinians in the occupied west bank. We raised the matter of settlements with Prime Minister Netanyahu on a number of occasions, and in December 2023 the UK and 13 partners released a statement calling on Israel

“to take immediate and concrete steps to tackle…settler violence in the occupied West Bank.”

I would be grateful if the Minister could update us on the latest conversations he has had with his Israeli counterparts and other partners.

I turn to the Palestinian Authority, where reform and credible governance are essential requirements for peace. The Palestinian Authority must prove that they are capable of governing. That should start with key reforms, including on elections, education and ensuring broader freedoms. In April, the Government signed a memorandum of understanding—[Interruption.]

[Karl Turner (in the Chair)]

Order. The sitting is suspended for 15 minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

On resuming—

[Karl Turner (in the Chair)]

The debate may continue until 5.58 pm.

[Wendy Morton]

In April, the Government signed a memorandum of understanding with the Palestinian Authority, but we were left with more questions than answers. On elections, can the Minister confirm the “shortest feasible timeframe” referenced in the MOU for the Palestinian Authority to hold presidential and parliamentary elections? Does he believe that they are currently capable of holding free and fair elections? If not, what steps is he taking with allies to build that capacity?

Overseas Territories: Tax Transparency

Karl Turner Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Joe Powell]

I completely agree. Without transparency, we cannot follow the money. We have some prominent examples of properties owned by sanctioned oligarchs that came into the sanctions regime only after investigations uncovered those assets. Keeping the anonymous trust option available, without the requirement to declare the true owners, allows for exactly the sort of behaviour that my hon. Friend outlines.

The main opposition is from some highly self-interested trust lawyers, so I urge the Government to take on those claims and bring trust-owned property into the register, which would help us not only to fight economic crime but to revitalise our high streets, where buildings often sit empty because enforcement action cannot be taken when the true owners cannot be tracked down. Indeed, some of my constituents were evicted using a spurious section 21 notice by an anonymous landlord who was based overseas in a tax haven.

My local walking tour, as part of the Kensington Against Dirty Money campaign, ends outside Roman Abramovich’s frozen mansion, which he purchased for £120 million, on Kensington Palace Gardens. In the past week or so, Abramovich has again been in the news, this time for allegations that he owes approximately £1 billion in UK taxes. At the heart of this story are, again, the UK overseas territories. Abramovich and his advisers used a complex web of corporate structures, via Cyprus and the BVI, to use money from the sale of Sibneft back to the Russian Government at huge profit in 2005. They set up approximately 200 hedge funds and maintained that the operations were happening in the BVI, but it has now been uncovered that the real activity was continuing in London—indeed, in Stamford Bridge itself.

This is potentially the biggest tax case since Bernie Ecclestone, and it is vital that His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has the resources it needs to investigate. Enforcement of the rules and regulations is critical to recovering as much money as possible for the Exchequer and supporting the Minister’s efforts to improve the public finances. It is also time to upgrade our anti-money laundering supervision regime for professional bodies such as accountancy and legal firms, so that dirty money does not flow through the City. The previous Government opened a consultation, but it has not been responded to.

This is urgent, because Abramovich’s is not an isolated case. For years, the BVI has been the global destination of choice for those seeking maximum secrecy for their money. It featured prominently in the Panama papers, in which half of the exposed entities were linked to the BVI. That is why Parliament has clearly stated its will that public registries of beneficial ownership should be implemented across the overseas territories and Crown dependencies.

At the first Joint Ministerial Council of this new Government, in November last year, the BVI, alongside other overseas territories, promised reforms to ensure maximum transparency, and the Government reiterated their commitment to full public access in due course. I absolutely support the Government in this mission, which is why it was so deeply disappointing to see the BVI’s proposals around company registries, which were published last month. Access would be severely restricted. One provision would even allow company owners to be notified not only that someone is attempting to uncover their identity, but of who is making the request and why, putting investigative journalists and anti-corruption activists at risk of legal or physical intimidation. Worse still, that warning system could tip off criminals and give them a head start, allowing them to move illicit assets before enforcement agencies can act. Such measures do not protect business or privacy; they protect kleptocrats and criminals.

We know it can be done: Gibraltar has shown us what can be achieved. It introduced a public register that is similar to the one that the UK has had for several years. If Gibraltar can do it and we can do it, so can the BVI, the Cayman Islands, Bermuda and all the overseas territories. We must not let our Crown dependencies off the hook, either.

Many overseas territories have cited the privacy concerns outlined in the European Court of Justice rulings, but I encourage them all to review the sixth anti-money laundering directive, which would ensure that journalists, civil society, law enforcement and businesses with anti-money laundering duties all have access to the register anonymously and in full. I continue to believe that public registers are the best solution for the overseas territories and Crown dependencies, but minimum progress would be to meet that European regulatory standard.

It is clear from all the evidence—I expect we will hear much more today—that we need to do far more collectively to support the overseas territories to make progress on economic crime. The path forward is challenging, but I know the Government are seized of its importance. The overseas territories must meet the June deadline to make progress towards public registers. There must be no further delays. Trust-owned property should be included in the register of overseas entities. AML supervision should be strengthened to halt the enablers of dirty money. HMRC, the National Crime Agency and other enforcement agencies must proactively make cases and have the skills and resources they need.

To galvanise our international partners, the Foreign Secretary’s proposal for a summit of financial centres here in London would create a focal point for aligning rules and policies. I hope this debate will galvanise support across the House for the vital mission of tackling corruption and economic crime.

[Karl Turner (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to take part in the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Karl Turner (in the Chair)]

Order. Before I call the next speaker, I will impose an informal time limit of five minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Karl Turner (in the Chair)]

Order. With a time limit of four minutes, I call Bobby Dean.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Garnier]

I hope my right hon. Friend will not mind if I do not, because I am conscious that we have very little time.

It remains a concern that major financial centres such as the British Virgin Islands, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands remain resistant to these measures. Will the Exchequer Secretary provide an update on what pressure the UK Government are placing on those overseas territories that are not fully complying with the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018?

The UK Parliament has sovereign powers over the overseas territories. Therefore, we cannot allow any jurisdiction to water down these proposals. The previous Government allowed for an interim step of a legitimate interest model, which would allow access to beneficial ownership information by members of the public with a legitimate interest in accessing it, including media and civil society organisations involved in the fight against illicit finance and money laundering. Even if that might be a stepping-stone for some overseas territories, I hope the Minister will confirm that it should not dilute efforts to create a public register.

Overseas territories must align with the UK’s own standards and comply with UK law. What is the Government’s plan if further delays occur? Will there be consequences for non-compliance? This Government and the previous Government have repeatedly stated that tackling illicit finance is a priority—we agree on that point. The current Foreign Secretary has declared:

“The golden age of money laundering is over”.

I am sure the Minister would agree that our overseas territories and Crown dependencies must not become the weak link in the fight against money laundering and corruption.

[Karl Turner (in the Chair)]

Before I call the Minister, I remind hon. Members that the Member in charge normally has two minutes at the end to wind up. I would be grateful if the Minister bore that in mind.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joe Powell]

If I am allowed to.

[Karl Turner (in the Chair)]

Sure.

[Mr Mitchell]

We have another three minutes, so I am keen to help out.

To be clear, we are talking here about dirty money and the source of this money—money stolen from Africa and from Africans. The baddies have all the best tunes, and they have the money to get their way, so the forces of law and order are always fighting to catch up. It is important to emphasise the open registers. The mist fell from all our eyes when, thanks to the BBC and The Guardian newspaper, the Paradise and Panama papers were published. They showed that, without this open register approach, we cannot join up the dots to see what those clever villains are doing, catch them, trap the money and hopefully return it. The hon. Gentleman and I agree completely, but I hope that we can carry the Government with us.