Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

Luke Evans Excerpts

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Badenoch]

You are absolutely right, Mr Speaker. I am just asking why this is a whipped vote, when it will still happen anyway. This man has ruined the reputation of the Labour party, he has not been loyal to his own MPs and I do not think they are united.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

When the Prime Minister came in, he said that he wanted to do things differently. He has had not one, but two, opportunities—one in an emergency debate tabled by the Opposition—to come to the House and answer all the questions so he would not need to go to the Privileges Committee. Will my right hon. Friend surmise why he has not come to the House to answer on two occasions?

[Mrs Badenoch]

That is an excellent question from my hon. Friend. Why has the Prime Minister not come to the House to correct the record at the earliest opportunity on multiple occasions? What is there to hide? We are hearing evidence to Committees that conflicts with what is being said on the Floor of the House. I will be interested, by the way, to hear whether the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, when he responds, will be happy to repeat the Prime Minister’s words at the Dispatch Box that there was no pressure whatsoever. Will he repeat that statement? Let us see how brave he is.

This is absolutely critical: this cannot just be a debate about the Labour party, or a division between those who are in the inner circle and those who are on the outside. Again and again, we have seen the children of the chosen ones—people who had never been in Parliament before—getting all the best jobs. We now have the sacked chief of staff Morgan McSweeney’s wife, who is a Whip, telling people to vote for a cover-up. That is not right. [Interruption.] She has been notified. I know that Labour Members do not like it, but have I said something that is not true? No. I am speaking the truth. I know it hurts, but someone has to point it out. Those people are hanging everyone else out to dry and I cannot believe that Labour MPs are letting it happen again.

I know that a lot of them are expecting a reshuffle after the May election. Let me tell them: it is not worth it. I say directly to those Labour MPs hoping to be Ministers after 7 May that they will condemn themselves to being sent out on the morning round to repeat things that they know are not true, that they do not believe in and that they know will end in disaster. They will end in disaster, as everything the Prime Minister touches does.

This vote should not be about loyalty to the Prime Minister, but about standards. Why should Labour MPs ruin their reputations to save a man who has never shown loyalty to them? He has shown that he will throw everybody under a bus: Sue Gray, Morgan McSweeney, Sir Chris Wormald, Sir Olly Robbins. Do Labour MPs really think that if this goes wrong he will not throw all of them under a bus? Some are walking around Parliament telling everyone that they are going to be one-term MPs and so it does not matter. It does matter, because when they leave this place no one will remember what their Whips told them to do. People will only remember that they voted for a cover-up. That is what will follow them around like a bad smell until the end of their careers. That is what will be in their Wikipedia entries.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)]

The appointment of Mandelson was a profoundly flawed process; it was also a profoundly flawed choice—it was the wrong choice. I think of the victims of Epstein; I also think of Alistair Darling, who was a fine, committed public servant, and what he would be thinking today.

This afternoon, we are being asked to make several leaps of faith, one of which is to believe that just nine days from local and national elections, we are here not because of a political stunt co-ordinated by the Conservative party but to accept that the Conservatives have turned into a sober, principled set of defenders of parliamentary standards who are not interested in pre-election theatre. Nobody seriously believes that. Even their own press briefings give the game away: a senior Conservative source was reported as saying

“we got the privileges vote. That was the goal”

ahead of the local elections. The goal was not the truth, not the outcome, and not the merits of the case—it was simply to force the spectacle of a vote. That tells us everything we need to know about the intent behind what is happening this afternoon.

It is therefore no surprise that this debate has been widely characterised, even by those observing closely—political correspondents—as a win-win exercise for the Opposition. If they secure an inquiry, they claim vindication; if they lose, they still bank the headlines, the insinuation and the noise. That is not how the House should conduct itself when invoking one of the most serious mechanisms at its disposal.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Gurinder Singh Josan) powerfully pointed out, we are not dealing with a vacuum. Mechanisms are already in train, including the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Humble Address, and last week the Prime Minister answered questions for nearly three hours. That is important.

Referral to the Privileges Committee is not a partisan tool or a device to be deployed because one side sees a political opportunity. It exists for a clear, serious and evidenced prima facie case of misleading the House—cases that go to the heart of ministerial integrity.

[Dr Luke Evans]

If it is not party political, why is it being whipped?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)]

In advocating for the motion, the Leader of the Opposition—[Interruption.] She is just returning to her place; I knew she was waiting for me. Her essential argument, I believe, was that we in this House had not spent enough time debating this issue, and that perhaps just one more Committee would be the answer.

Before we began our debate today, there had been five statements and two debates: more than 13 hours of debate in the House of Commons. That is my count of how long we have been discussing the Mandelson issue. That is a conservative estimate—small c—because it cannot account for Prime Minister’s questions and all the other ministerial questions. It is also, of course, distinct from the important hearings being held by the Foreign Affairs Committee, as well as those of the Intelligence and Security Committee, as it forensically carries out its work in compliance with the Humble Address and the release of all papers relating to Mandelson’s appointment as ambassador to the United States.

I do not think that the British public believe that just one more Committee is the answer, but I want to set out why I think we are at an important juncture and to look at three actions that the Government have taken: the apology from the Prime Minister, the action taken across Government Departments and the ongoing scrutiny still being applied to this case. The Prime Minister has offered repeated and unconditional apologies from the Dispatch Box and when he has been asked questions by the media, including to the victims of Epstein. He has made clear that this was an error of judgment. A message of contrition has been heard by people in this House and across the country. We all make mistakes; that is not in dispute. Let us turn next to the action that has been taken and continues to take place across Government.

More than 300 documents have already been released to the Intelligence and Security Committee, in full compliance with the Humble Address. That is really important. I was part of the debate—a good debate in this House—about giving the Intelligence and Security Committee oversight of the process. At the time, the Opposition said that that was an important thing to do and there was consensus across the House.

[Dr Luke Evans]

I also took part in that debate. The hon. Gentleman will remember and the record will show that the decision was suddenly made during the debate. The Government were going to vote against the Humble Address; the decision was made only because Members on both sides, particularly those on the Intelligence and Security Committee, put themselves forward and said that there was that option. We were having the debate in the first place because the Opposition compelled the Government to submit the papers. The hon. Gentleman cannot say that the decision was just put out there by his side.

[Andrew Lewin]

I remember the debate vividly. Members from both sides made the case. I said in my remarks that that was an example of the House at its best, because we came to a good decision to involve the ISC. I raise the issue again today because I was fascinated by what the Leader of the Opposition said. She characterised that Committee as a “never-never” Committee earlier today, as if it would never come to the answer. All of a sudden it seems that it is politically convenient for the Opposition to lose faith in the ISC, although they were advocating for it for so long.

More action has been taken, and that is important. Vetting has been discussed extensively today. The process in place under the last Government and at the start of this Government has gone: it has already been changed by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister. In future, all vetting will now be completed before appointments. That is absolutely the right change.

--- Later in debate ---

[Phil Brickell]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. He is a noble campaigner on cleaning up the House and the public sector more broadly.

The Opposition’s motion supposes that the PM may have misled the House due to statements he gave in this place about due process and about pressure. This is a complex topic. Given the forensic demolition of the motion by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Mr Barros-Curtis) with reference to pressure, I will focus my remarks on due process.

Before I speak more pointedly to process, as flagged by the Opposition, let me say this: I have no special access to information and I have not spoken to any of the individuals concerned regarding Mandelson in any way, shape or form since the Humble Address. I offer only my analysis based on the documents we have been given and statements made to the House by the Prime Minister and others when giving evidence before Parliament.

I speak as a Member of the House who is determined to drive up standards in public life, to improve the integrity of our system of government and to work constructively with Members of all political persuasions to improve the standing of politics as a force for good in the country at large. That is why only last week I met the Ethics and Integrity Commission to give formal input into that body’s workstream to tighten rules about financial disclosures, lobbying and the operation of the business appointment rules as they relate to Ministers and senior civil servants. But first, let us consider ongoing proceedings.

On 4 February, the House passed a Humble Address relating to the appointment of Peter Mandelson as His Majesty’s ambassador to Washington DC. It directed Government to

“lay before this House all papers relating to Lord Mandelson’s appointment…including but not confined to the Cabinet Office due diligence which was passed to Number 10, the Conflict of Interest Form Lord Mandelson provided to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office…material the FCDO and the Cabinet Office provided to UK Security Vetting”

as well as, among others,

“all information on Lord Mandelson provided to the Prime Minister prior to his assurance to this House on 10 September 2025 that ‘full due process was followed during this appointment’”.

Subject to agreed redactions for national security and international relations purposes as agreed with the Intelligence and Security Committee, the first volume of material was published by the Cabinet Office on 11 March.

Last Tuesday, the Foreign Affairs Committee took evidence from Sir Olly Robbins, the former permanent under-secretary at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. On Thursday, the Committee heard from Catherine Little, the civil service chief operating officer and permanent secretary at the Cabinet Office. Earlier today, the Committee heard from Sir Philip Barton, the previous permanent under-secretary at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, as well as from Morgan McSweeney, the former chief of staff at 10 Downing Street. There is also a separate live police investigation being undertaken by the Met into Mandelson, which the Cabinet Office will be keen to avoid prejudicing. It will require a delicate balancing of information to ensure that detectives are able to conduct their vital work without it being in any way overshadowed by ongoing parliamentary inquiries.

This brings me to the reasoning for today’s debate brought by the official Opposition. The first limb is due process. To the best of my ability, my understanding is that the Opposition contend that due process was not followed, first, because UK security vetting took place after Mandelson’s appointment and, secondly, because his vetting decision was not escalated for discussion with No. 10 or the Cabinet Office.

On the sequencing of events, let me set the record straight as I see it. When the Cabinet Office published its first volume of material after the Humble Address, it included a file note dated 11 November 2024 and marked:

“Official Sensitive—Personal and Staffing. Advice to the Prime Minister, Options for His Majesty’s Ambassador Washington.”

In that note, written to the PM by Simon Case, the Cabinet Secretary at the time, it is laid out in very clear language that one option was a political appointment, as was undertaken when Ed Llewellyn was appointed as HM Ambassador Paris by David Cameron in 2016 and as HM Ambassador Rome by Boris Johnson in 2022, for which there was a clear process to go through. To quote Lord Case in that note to the PM:

“If this is the route you wish to take you should give us the name of the person you would like to appoint and we will develop a plan for them to acquire the necessary security clearances and do due diligence on any potential Conflicts of Interest or other issues of which you should be aware before confirming your choice. A letter is then needed from the Foreign Secretary to the PUS to FCDO formalising the decision to make a political appointment.”

That was in November 2024.

Simon Case’s note was followed up by another note dated 11 December 2024 from the PM’s principal private secretary, Nin Pandit, noting that due diligence had been sought from the propriety and ethics team in the Cabinet Office on Mandelson—checks which were conducted by PET on 4 December 2024. After that, the PM’s chief of staff discussed Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein and noted that the PM’s director of communications was satisfied with Mandelson’s responses to questions about contact. Importantly, this was before further information came to light in September of last year, when it was identified that those responses were not truthful.

[Dr Luke Evans]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Phil Brickell]

I am going to make some progress, if that is okay—[Interruption.] I am in the flow of things and I am not halfway through yet, so I have a long way to go.

The PM’s PPS flagged that the relationship between Mandelson and Epstein would be gone over with the Prime Minister by his private office, and the principal private secretary noted that after a decision to proceed was made, only then would a decision be made as to when to make any appointment and announce it, and when the new ambassador would take up post, subject to a letter from the Foreign Secretary to the permanent under-secretary at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, followed by approval by the King and then agrément being obtained from the US Administration.

Correspondence from No. 10 to the permanent under-secretary at the FCDO, and from the FCDO PUS at the time, Sir Philip Barton, to the King’s private secretary, was disclosed in the first volume of material published following the Humble Address, which testifies to this sequence of events having taken place. On 20 December 2024, the private secretary to the permanent under-secretary at the FCDO emailed Mandelson congratulating him on his appointment and noting his onboarding, including regarding his “clearance”, which the head of the US and Canada Department of the FCDO noted on 23 December 2024 was an important “first step”.

When Sir Olly Robbins came before the Foreign Affairs Committee on 3 November last year, he said in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson):

“as is normally the case with external appointments to my Department and the wider civil service, the appointment was made subject to obtaining security clearance.”

Moreover, Sir Olly confirmed in that very session:

“we also went through the standard UK national security vetting process for DV… I am absolutely confident that UKSV undertook the process in precisely its standard way, doing all the checks it would expect to do, and we had ample time to assess and decide on the basis of its work.”

In reference to the remarks by the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood), it was worth noting for the record that it was confirmed to the Foreign Affairs Committee that the high-risk concerns in SV were not Epstein-related.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

I usually come to this House to represent the people of Hinckley and Bosworth, and occasionally other people across the nation, by raising and debating pertinent issues. Today, however, my speech is aimed at Labour Back Benchers, because at the end of the day, regardless of what is said here, it is their decision. When there are 400 of them, it is they who will decide what happens in this debate. I therefore gently highlight two points: the standards that have been set, and doubt.

The Prime Minister has set very clear standards since he has been in Parliament. It reminds me of the famous fable of the fox and the stork. Those familiar with it will know that the fox invites the stork in to have dinner. The fox serves soup but mischievously does so on a flat plate and, of course, the stork cannot eat it. The stork, not losing its temper, reciprocates and invites the fox back to have soup at its house. When the stork serves the soup, it serves it in a long, thin glass. Of course, the fox cannot get to it and loses its temper. The moral of the story is to treat others as you wish to be treated.

The process that the Prime Minister is going through is due process by the standard he himself set, happening in retort to himself. We only have to look at some of the tweets that he put out. In January 2022, he said:

“The Prime Minister is a national distraction.

Millions of people are struggling to pay the bills, but Boris Johnson and his government are spending the whole time mopping up their own rule-breaking, sleaze and deceit.

He’s got to go.”

He followed that up by saying to Boris Johnson at the Dispatch Box:

“There are only two possible explanations. Either the Prime Minister is trashing the ministerial code, or he is claiming he was repeatedly lied to by his own advisers and did not know what was going on in his…own office. Come off it!”—[Official Report, 30 March 2022; Vol. 711, c. 807.]

That is the standard he set himself before he became Prime Minister. Is he following that standard? We only have to look at his actions since he was elected to see that he is not. He gave a donor a pass to No. 10, he took suits, he took glasses, he appointed a donor as the football regulator and, of course, he was the MP who took the most freebies in the last Parliament—more than even the three or four below him in the list combined. He set his own standard but he does not seem to meet it.

That fits with the way in which the Prime Minister came into Parliament. He talked about change, but he changed his promises. He said he would do things differently, and this is where I agree. When it came to the standards debate, the last Government said that it was House business and did not whip it. This Government have made a change: they are whipping it. The question is why.

That leads me on to my next point. I have talked about standards, and now I will talk about doubt. I have heard today that some Labour MPs have no doubt in their mind about the Prime Minister, but I have equally heard that other Labour MPs do. That is really important. If they have no doubt, that is fine—they can vote against the motion. They will have to explain to their constituents the decision they make and why, and they will have to live with that. That is what an MP does, and it is what an MP should do. But the Prime Minister himself clearly has doubts about his Back Benchers, because he is whipping the vote tonight. If he was so confident that so many of them would come to the conclusion that there was nothing to see here, he would not need to whip it.

We know the real reason: there are so many unanswered questions. Labour MPs might say there is no chink of doubt and that no question is unanswered, but how can they explain the inconsistencies from civil servants? Why has it taken months to get this sorted? Why has it required Humble Addresses and emergency debates, yet we are still having these debates nine months on? Why were comments in the PM’s box notes left empty? I do not believe that Labour MPs will show the same lack of curiosity that the Prime Minister showed when appointing Peter Mandelson, because they know they have a duty to their constituents to make sure they get it right.

How do I know all this? Because my party has been here before. Many of us on the Conservative Benches are the remnants of what our party had to go through—we have seen it. I have spoken before about the sword of hypocrisy, which cuts both ways, but as we learned, it is the infection that gets you. Here we are, nine months on since I made that speech, and the infection is turning into sepsis. The patient is in real trouble.

Labour MPs could learn from the Opposition, or they will share the same fate. The Conservative party is effectively a mirror to the Labour party that Labour Members did not ask for but would be wise to study. If they do not believe me, maybe they will listen to the Prime Minister, who closed his speech back in the debate on 21 April 2022 by saying:

“if we do not pass this motion and take this opportunity to restate the principles, we are all complicit in allowing the standards to slip. We are all complicit in allowing the public to think that we are all the same, that nobody tells the truth and that there are alternative sets of facts.”—[Official Report, 21 April 2022; Vol. 712, c. 355.]

That is what Labour MPs have to wrestle with, so I hope they listen to the words the Prime Minister said back then.