Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

Sam Rushworth Excerpts

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

rose—

[Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mrs Badenoch]

Oh, we have a second one. I am going to take the intervention from the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), and then I will come to the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth).

[Mrs Badenoch]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. I completely agree with him, and in fact, I will make that case in due course.

[Sam Rushworth]

A moment ago, the Leader of the Opposition talked about selective quoting. I am sure that she would not want to selectively quote Sir Olly Robbins herself, so could she tell us what the rest of that quote was? When he talked about pressure, was he talking about pressure to deliver a decision in time for President Trump’s inauguration, or was he saying that he felt pressure to materially change what the decision would be? That is quite an important distinction, is it not?

[Mrs Badenoch]

It is quite important, and if that was the distinction, why did the Prime Minister not say so last week? Why did he say, “No pressure existed whatsoever”? The hon. Gentleman should go and read Hansard.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Badenoch]

Perhaps the hon. Lady should have just taken the Whips’ questions instead of messing that one up. She raises an interesting point about the Foreign Affairs Committee. It is looking only at Mandelson and not into the issue of the Prime Minister misleading the House. Let us stop pretending that the Committee is carrying out a massive inquiry. It really is not.

[Sam Rushworth]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Are you sure it is a point of order?

[Sam Rushworth]

I believe so, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Let’s hear it.

[Sam Rushworth]

A moment ago, the Leader of the Opposition described the statement read out by the Prime Minister as “doctored”. That is akin to saying that it was dishonest and that he was lying. Is that not unparliamentary language, Mr Speaker?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

As others have said, it is important that when we speak in this place we reflect the feelings of those we represent, and I think that if they see anything at all in all of this, they will be thinking about Epstein’s victims. As someone who knows more about sexual abuse than I would like to, I want to be absolutely clear, before I make any other remarks, that I think that it was wrong to appoint Peter Mandelson, even knowing what the Prime Minister knew at the time. But I will also say this: the Prime Minister has acknowledged as much. He has acknowledged it at the Dispatch Box, he has acknowledged it to the parliamentary Labour party and he has acknowledged it to Epstein’s victims, who he has apologised to on multiple occasions. I speak with ordinary people, like my auntie who voted for Brexit and did not vote Labour at the last election. She told me that she thinks the public are sick and tired of hearing about this, because we are not addressing the bread-and-butter issues of their lives. None the less, this is the motion before the House today.

I also want to say a word about pressure. Many people have alluded to this being a whipped vote. In many ways, I wish it was not, because it would not change the way that I will vote. I intend to vote against the motion before us, and I would do so based on my conscience and how I read this situation. I am a Back Bencher with nothing to lose and nothing greatly to gain from loyalty to the Government. I have looked at the merits of the case, and I think it is really important that we have a robust system of standards in this place, and that we do not make a mockery of it. When we have politically motivated charges such as those that have been brought today, it risks making a mockery of the Privileges Committee and the process.

[Graham Stuart]

What does the hon. Gentleman say to his colleagues, the hon. Members for South Shields (Emma Lewell), for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) and for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome)? They do not see this as some politically motivated thing. This is a serious issue. It is a House issue. He has already said that he regrets that the vote is whipped. Surely he needs to see beyond whatever the Whips have told him.

[Sam Rushworth]

The Whips have not told me very much, but I will address the right hon. Gentleman’s question as I make progress in my speech and he will see why I have drawn my conclusions.

The question is this: has the Prime Minister deliberately or recklessly misled the House, sufficient to make a referral to the Privileges Committee? As I said a moment ago, it is important that we treat that question properly, because we should not treat the Committee lightly; we should not mock it. If we made political referrals every time a Member said anything where someone could twist or misconstrue their words, we would always be making referrals.

It seems to me, from listening to the Leader of the Opposition, that there are two principal claims. One is regarding whether due process was followed; the other is regarding pressure. I have been watching the evidence sessions in the Foreign Affairs Committee, as we all have, and I have been listening carefully. We are still awaiting many of the documents, including more than 300 that have been referred to the Intelligence and Security Committee. We are waiting to see what those documents say, but nothing that has come out so far has done anything other than corroborate what the Prime Minister has told us.

[Peter Fortune]

I just want to make sure that I can follow the hon. Gentleman’s logical structure. When he said that the Prime Minister said that there was no pressure whatever, he meant that there was no pressure whatever apart from the various types of pressure—is that right?

[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.

[Peter Fortune]

I am genuinely listening to the hon. Member’s logical process as he ratiocinates through it. I humbly say that we could set this evidence out in the Privileges Committee. In terms of no pressure whatsoever being exerted—and he is talking about the kinds of pressure exerted that that did not include—could he give examples of the kind of pressures that were not exerted?

[Sam Rushworth]

We have seen no evidence and, indeed, Sir Olly Robbins made it quite clear that he did not feel pressure to change his mind, that pressure was exerted on him with regard to the decision that he made. There was pressure exerted to make a decision. That is just part and parcel of the normal running of government, particularly when working to a timeline. Let me quote him:

“I walked into a situation”

where there was a

“strong expectation—you will have seen the papers, released…under the Humble Address—coming from No. 10, that he needed to be in post and in America as quickly as humanly possible, the very first formal communication…to my predecessor from the No. 10 private office being that they wanted all this done at pace and Mandelson in post before inauguration.”

That does not imply that there was some pressure to appoint him against the evidence that came forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Message received—I call Sam Rushworth.

[Sam Rushworth]

I simply disagree. Pressure to get things done is part and parcel of what we do in government all the time. I am always under pressure and under deadlines. On the central allegation that the Prime Minister somehow pressured them with regard to the decision, I am sorry but the evidence has not pointed to that in any shape or form.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

rose—

[Dr Chowns]

rose—

[Sam Rushworth]

I will not take any more interventions, because Madam Deputy Speaker is looking at her watch. The allegation simply has not been substantiated. There is pressure going on at the moment: documents are being released under the Humble Address and evidence is being given before the Foreign Affairs Committee. I have to wonder why the Opposition have not waited until that process has been concluded before writing to the Speaker requesting this motion.

I want to address a couple more points quickly, and I will not take any more interventions. I acknowledge that there are Members on the Government Benches, and indeed some Opposition Members, who have suggested that they are so confident that the Prime Minister has no case to answer that he should just refer himself to the Committee to prove it. I do not think that that is the way we should be using the Committee’s time. The onus is on this place to decide whether any evidence has yet come forward that suggests that there is a case to answer, and I do not think that anybody so far has shown any.

People have also referenced the former Prime Minister Boris Johnson. I remind the House that at the point he was referred to the Privileges Committee, it was not a case of what happened in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office beyond the Prime Minister’s knowledge. This was a case of him saying, “There were no parties in Downing Street,” of him then appearing photographed at parties, and there being a Metropolitan police investigation and a criminal conviction. I am simply not going to indulge the Opposition in their games. We all know what this is about. We all know that somewhere in Conservative headquarters right now, graphs are being prepared with our faces on them to try to play some narrative to our voters that we are all part of some big cover-up. When we behave like this, it does a disservice to all of us and to this place, and I am simply not going to play their games today.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)]

The motion does not attribute wrongdoing. It represents a simple choice and a decision: do we as a House support transparency, and do we think that truth in this place still matters? Peter Mandelson’s CV reads like an indictment—we all know that—and I do not need to rehearse the litany of appalling and heinous decisions and acts. For me, that leaves no question but that the Prime Minister’s judgment was absolutely found wanting in this situation. Given the seriousness of Mandelson’s actions and of this appointment, surely every Member of this House wants to know why he was appointed, how he was appointed and whether we and the British people have been given the full story of what happened.

I worked at the Foreign Office as a civil servant. If I, listening and reading every single detail, feel that something does not sit quite right; if I have former colleagues ringing me and saying, “That is not how the process works. It just doesn’t make sense—that is not right”; if we then have the Prime Minister saying that he had seen the vetting, “Oh no, I meant I’d seen something else. Sorry, I had not seen the security vetting; I had seen the due diligence. Oh, there was not any pressure put on” when others most clearly think there was pressure put on; and if the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) is genuinely suggesting that there is no such thing as abuse from those who have more power against those who have less, that politicians do not sometimes behave appallingly to civil servants and that, “Oh, we are all busy. It’s the same pressure”, then I say no. That is why we have specific laws.

[Sam Rushworth]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Alicia Kearns]

Let me finish this point and then I will happily take an intervention.

We have specific laws that when someone senior to you puts you under undue pressure or treats you in a certain way, they have to take far more responsibility, because they have the ability to exercise that responsibility and authority over you which you cannot challenge. If the hon. Gentleman wants to come back and argue that he does not believe that in hierarchies, particularly No. 10 political appointments versus civil servants, there is such an imbalance in power, I will happily have him make that case.

[Sam Rushworth]

I think the hon. Member knows that I have great affection for her, so I am disappointed in the way she has just made that point. In Sir Olly Robbins’s testimony, he said that No. 10 was repeatedly asking, “Has the vetting been completed?” That is inconsistent with the idea that No. 10 regarded the vetting as immaterial to its decision—quite the opposite. It demonstrates to me a No. 10 that felt that this was an important process that had to be followed. There was of course pressure to complete it quickly, but that does not mean that there was pressure to change the outcome. I am sorry but until somebody shows otherwise through evidence, there is no reason we should believe that.

[Alicia Kearns]

I am sorry but the idea that somebody just chasing an update—“Can I just check where we are with that? We really would like to get it done”—and that there is no concept of any bullying because someone is just asking for something to be done a bit quicker, is a foolhardy suggestion by the hon. Gentleman.

The Prime Minister has come to the House many times, as hon. Members have said, but he has not answered the questions. The Prime Minister himself set the terms. Either he misled the House or he was reckless with the truth, and those are the terms that he set. Multiple people have lost their jobs over this Prime Minister’s decision to appoint Mandelson: two civil servants and two political appointments. For a man who said he would never sack his staff because of his own appointments, that is quite something. The Prime Minister’s judgment has also shown that he was happy to appoint people to Cabinet who had lied to the police, where he knew full well that they had done that, so there is a pattern.

Olly Robbins lost his job for implementing the wishes of the Prime Minister by the book. Either he followed due process and was sacked for doing so, or there was no due process and he was sacked because there was not. The Prime Minister’s position so far is that the former is true; it cannot be both, in which case Olly Robbins should never have been sacked. He did his job under immense pressure and was stripped of the agency to say no. As Mr Speaker set out at the start of the debate, this motion does not attribute guilt to anyone and the vote today is for an investigation by the Privileges Committee. That Committee is chaired by my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa), and I want to place on the record my total faith in his probity and professionalism.

Unfortunately, as we have seen in previous approaches and investigations, some people may seek to undermine individuals.

I appreciate that there are a range of views among Labour Members. Some of them seem genuinely to believe the Prime Minister’s version of events, while others share the concerns of Conservative Members, even if they are reticent to say so. I point out that at no point in this debate has there been more than nine Labour MPs sat on the Back Benches who were elected before 2024.

I was once a new MP, and I too went through this process. As I have said before, on the Owen Paterson vote, I voted in a way that I deeply regret. I had planned to vote against him, because, in watching the debate from the Government Benches, I was horrified by what I saw. Despite the enormous pressure from people around me, I thought, “Okay, I must do what is right,” and I decided to vote with those 13 brave Conservatives who did the right thing. I then went downstairs to breastfeed my daughter, who was very young at the time—she was just turning six months old—but when I came back upstairs there was only one minute remaining following the Division Bells. When I looked at the two voting Lobbies, I could not see those 13 friends who had gone the right way on the vote, so I stood there on my own, absolutely terrified about what to do, and saw everyone else going through the other Lobby. I will never, ever accept feeling that way ever again.

I say to the new intake that there is a reason why no other MPs from previous intakes are on the Labour Benches, and why MPs from previous intakes have said, “If your gut is telling you there’s a problem, there’s a problem.” They have given you their advice. They often tell us how dismissive you are of them, but—[Interruption.] Forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker—you would never be dismissive of anyone.

There is a reason, and you should take that time—

--- 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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

I will aim to be brief and to the point. I pay tribute to the moving, powerful and thoughtful speech by the hon. Member for South Shields (Emma Lewell) at the beginning of the debate. I do not underestimate the bravery that it takes to stand up and speak out, and I really welcome and value all Labour colleagues who resist the Whip with courage today. What is at stake today is trust, honesty and integrity—those issues go to the core of what our politics should be about—and the behaviour of a Prime Minister who promised to restore honesty and integrity to government. I agree with the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome), who said powerfully that our constituents do care about honesty, truth, trust and integrity.

It is well known that I have many criticisms of the Prime Minister and this Government, as do constituents across the country. Yes, he has repeatedly shown poor judgment. Yes, he has betrayed the hopes of those who voted for real change in 2024. Yes, I am deeply frustrated that we are having to spend so much time debating these issues, when our constituents face pressing daily concerns and a cost of living crisis to which we should be giving more attention. Yes, I think the Prime Minister should resign. However, that is not what we are here to discuss today. Our decision is not even on whether the Prime Minister misled the House, still less to judge whether it was an intentional or reckless misleading—our decision today is whether the Prime Minister has a case to answer on whether he may have misled the House, and it is absolutely clear that he does.

Looking at the detail of the motion, it cites three quotes from the Prime Minister’s own words. The first is his assurance about “full due process” being followed in the appointment of Peter Mandelson. Just this morning, we heard yet more evidence from Sir Philip Barton, the primary civil servant in the Foreign Office at the time. He was categorical that the normal process is that vetting comes first and appointment comes later, but it was the opposite way round in this case. The Prime Minister, as the motion says, made it clear that his position was that Mandelson’s position was “subject to developed vetting”, and that,

“No pressure existed whatsoever in relation to this case.”—[Official Report, 22 April 2026; Vol. 784, c. 316.]

That is clearly not a tenable position.

Some colleagues on the Government Benches are asking us to believe, although it is perfectly clear that considerable pressure was put on the timescale—within the context of the already announced appointment of Peter Mandelson, within the context of there being no contingency plan if the vetting process failed him, and within the context that it would have been a complete foreign affairs crisis for that vetting process to have failed him—that there was still no pressure whatsoever on the process.

[Sam Rushworth]

Will the hon. Member give way?