Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Badenoch]

No, she does not want to—shame! We got our U-turn. Labour Members have to sit there looking embarrassed at every decision they have to row back on. The Prime Minister has led them up and down so many hills. He sends them out to defend the indefensible even this afternoon, and it is a great effort by the Whips, I must say.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

Of course, the Leader of the Opposition is right that the Conservatives had a free vote on the partygate scandal. She chose to abstain, which is an absolute disgrace. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order.

[Dr Arthur]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The bigger disgrace is that she voted against taking action on Owen Paterson. An utter disgrace—she was whipped.

[Mrs Badenoch]

I actually feel bad at having to give this explanation. [Interruption.] I say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness that I am trying to be kind, but there was no vote, so there was no abstention, because not a single one of us voted to block the investigation. That is a clear example—

[Dr Arthur]

rose—

[Mrs Badenoch]

Sit down. No, I will not give way; he has had his chance.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Davis]

My right hon. Friend is exactly right. Indeed, it is worse than that, because this post is the nexus of the entire Five Eyes intelligence co-operation. Our service is not like that of the Americans. In the American embassy, the CIA is freestanding; the ambassador does not matter. In our service, the ambassador runs the local secret service element, as it were, so he or she is entirely responsible and has entire access. That is an issue with the Americans in particular, because they are incredibly sensitive about the corruption, or the undermining in any way, of the security of that arrangement, so we could actually have put the whole Five Eyes co-operation arrangement at risk—but my right hon. Friend has led me off on a completely different tangent.

I come back to the general point. Sir Philip Barton was asked this morning about delay, attitude and pressure; when asked at the Foreign Affairs Committee if he recalled “any dismissiveness in No. 10 about the importance” of Mandelson’s vetting, Sir Philip—Sir Olly Robbins’ predecessor—described No. 10 as “uninterested” in his security clearance. The evidence that Sir Olly Robbins gave was that, throughout January, there was “constant pressure” and an “atmosphere of constant chasing”. Yesterday, Ian Collard, the former head of the Foreign Office security team, corroborated Sir Olly Robbins’s account. Just this morning, again, Sir Philip Barton repeatedly emphasised that there was pressure to secure Mandelson’s vetting clearance within a “very compressed timescale”, yet the Prime Minister told this House only a week ago that “no pressure existed whatsoever”. If that was the only issue, it would justify being referred to the Committee of Privileges—in order to resolve what the exact truth was—but it was not the only issue. Plainly, if the Foreign Office is right, the Prime Minister is wrong—and, on that timetable, actually, deliberately wrong.

Let us take some other occasions. On 4 February this year, the Prime Minister gave an unambiguous impression, when asked about Epstein’s coverage in the security clearance, that he had seen Peter Mandelson’s security vetting file, but in April he told the House that on 14 April he

“found out for the first time”

that Mandelson had been granted

“developed vetting clearance, against the specific recommendation of the United Kingdom Security Vetting that developed vetting clearance should be denied.”—[Official Report, 20 April 2026; Vol. 784, c. 23.]

Those two statements are incompatible—again, a free-standing failure of the rules.

What is more, that chaotic clash of opinions reinforces the impression that, far from “following due process”, as the Prime Minister has maintained on a number of occasions, No. 10 was effectively making it up as it went along. As we have already heard from the Leader of the Opposition, the then Cabinet Secretary, Simon Case, issued explicit advice on 11 November 2024: secure the

“necessary security clearances…before confirming your choice.”

That was reinforced this morning by Sir Philip Barton, who said of the correct process:

“The normal order is vetting and then announcement.”

Normal due process was clear, but the Prime Minister did the opposite. Claims that this was normal defy common sense.

For career ambassadors, developed vetting happens for every new post. If someone goes to become the ambassador in Tehran, they are DV-ed. If they then go to become ambassador in Washington, they are DV-ed again—but at that point, the vetting is an update, so it is lower risk. By definition, our ambassadors are, generally speaking, low-risk security personnel anyway. That is plainly not the case for a high-risk figure like Peter Mandelson. Indeed, frankly, it is hard to imagine a higher-risk appointment to a post that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) said, is of the utmost sensitivity. To appoint first and vet later is not due process, and it is certainly not prudent. It is a gamble with national security and a risk to our single most important alliance.

There are three instances where the Prime Minister made questionable statements: his insistence that there was no pressure, when there evidently was; the two versions he gave of when he saw the vetting file; and his assertion that due process was followed, when it clearly was at odds with the process described by both the Cabinet Secretary and the permanent secretary for the Foreign Office.

The Prime Minister made a deeply questionable decision. We cannot know for certain whether it was due to cronyism, a misunderstanding of the role or excessive leniency towards a member of his own party—something he would never have tolerated, and quite rightly, from any other party. Whatever the explanation, the conclusion is unavoidable: the decision was wrong. To implement it, established procedures were bent out of shape. The civil service was placed under extreme pressure to deliver outcomes that sat on the margins of propriety. When concerns were raised, they were not confronted but sidestepped. As usual in No. 10, an attempt was made to place the blame on somebody else.

Even in this week’s New Statesman, which is traditionally a banner carrier for the Prime Minister, there is a quote—I think it is in Tom McTague’s article—from a senior Government official who goes on at length against the Prime Minister and ends by saying:

“Ask Chris. Ask Sue. Ask Morgan. Ask Olly. He will say he takes responsibility, but then he makes everyone else pay.”

That is what we are looking at.

Rather than addressing concerns directly, the Prime Minister proceeded regardless, and only later sought to justify his decision with answers that were, I am afraid, frequently misleading. As a former Director of Public Prosecutions, he should have known better. What began as a mistake evolved into something more serious. A failure turned into a defence, a problem became a pattern and, ultimately, the situation now looks like a cover-up. But as we have already heard from my Front Benchers and a number of other speakers, today is not about determining guilt; it is about determining whether there is a case to answer. Finding the truth and adjudicating guilt is the task of the Committee of Privileges, which has both the time and the access required to examine the evidence in full.

Much has been made of Boris Johnson’s appearance before the Committee of Privileges, and I am famously a fan of Boris Johnson. When a similar motion was brought to this House on whether the matter should go to that Committee, it was clearly recognised at the time that we were not delivering a verdict, but deciding whether there was a case to be answered. At the time, I made it very plain to our Whips Office that I would not countenance any attempt to block a proper investigation into a House of Commons matter. I was by no means alone; a number of other colleagues made the same argument. As a result, the Government of the day accepted that it was a House of Commons matter. It is improper for the Government to intervene in such a matter to try to guide the House. Accordingly, the motion passed without a Whip, and without a Division. Interestingly, the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) thought otherwise.

[Dr Arthur]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[David Davis]

In a debate about misleading the House, it makes me wonder when Members of this House accuse others of not voting on a motion that did not lead to a vote, so I will not take an intervention. I will certainly not take an intervention from the hon. Gentleman. He is a noise maker, not a truth issuer.

On the evidence before us today—contradictions, procedural failures and an emerging pattern of conduct—there is plainly a case for referral. Where doubt exists, it should be resolved through proper scrutiny. Where a case exists, it should be tested. This case should go to the Committee of Privileges, and go today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Kane (Stirling and Strathallan) (Lab)]

A referral to the Privileges Committee, particularly involving a Prime Minister, should be rare. The bar should be high, because we have so many other processes available to us in this place, and with this issue, many of those processes are already in action. The Foreign Affairs Committee, excellently chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), is taking evidence and will report in due course. The Humble Address from this House has put a process in place to ensure transparency, and the Government are complying with it.

Then there is attendance in this Chamber. I have no doubt that the Prime Minister will continue to make himself available here, as he has done in recent weeks through statements and at Prime Minister’s questions, both because it is right and because the processes of this House require it. Let us be honest about the timing. Bringing this motion forward one week before elections is political. I do not criticise that—it is part of the system we operate in—but we should be clear about it.

I have been reflecting this week on the concept of pressure. We have heard from senior civil servants that there was pressure to proceed with the appointment of Peter Mandelson before vetting had concluded. They have not said that the pressure was inappropriate; they have said simply that it existed. For his part, the Prime Minister has been clear: he has said that this was the kind of pressure that exists in any high-performing environment where decisions need to be made and progress needs to happen. That is very different from pressure to do something that you are not comfortable with. I suppose the truth is that my experience of pressure is not the same as the Prime Minister’s—a degree of recalibration is required on my part.

I am a member of the Public Accounts Committee, and we apply pressure to senior civil servants every week. We expect them to account for their decisions, often in difficult circumstances and under public scrutiny. Time and again, I am struck by their professionalism and ability to handle that pressure, and I am equally struck by the Prime Minister’s ability to do the same. Whether it is at Prime Minister’s questions or in extended sessions such as the one we held last week, when the Prime Minister answered questions for more than two hours, that level of scrutiny is constant and unrelenting.

In my time in this House, I have never known the Prime Minister to act in anything other than good faith. He is focused, serious and determined to deliver in extraordinarily difficult circumstances. Is he perfect? Of course not—none of us is. His is an almost impossible job in turbulent times, but that is the nature of government. The public elect a Government and give them time to govern. That requires consistency, judgment and, at times, the ability to change course as circumstances demand. It does not require abandoning the course entirely at the first sign that another ship looks to be sailing more smoothly.

We are quite clearly in the middle of a storm. It is not a passing squall, but sustained, difficult conditions—economic pressure, global instability and challenges at home that have been building for years. In those circumstances, what matters is not whether the sea is calm, but whether the vessel is seaworthy and whether the person at the helm knows how to navigate. No ship is perfect—there will always be repairs to make, adjustments to take and decisions that, with hindsight, might have been handled differently—but abandoning a ship mid-storm or trying to sink it is a risk. We may find another ship that is sailing in different waters and under different conditions, but let us be honest: the same storm is heading its way. The real question is not whether things are perfect, but whether we have a vessel that can withstand the conditions and a captain who can steer it.

When I look across the Chamber, I do not see credible alternatives ready to take us through what lies ahead. On one side, we have a Conservative approach that too often feels like a ship designed for a different age—a wooden ship that is not equipped for the realities of the world we now live in. It is a vision that looks backward, rather than forward. On the other side, I see the SNP. If it cannot reliably build and run the ferries that connect its own communities, that raises serious questions about its readiness to navigate a much bigger journey. The SNP’s is less of a fully equipped vessel and more like something assembled for the appearance of movement, rather than the reality.

[Dr Arthur]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it appears the SNP does not have a ship right now? It must have—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I think hon. Members will find that this debate is not about the SNP. Perhaps we all ought to confine our remarks to the subject we are actually debating.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

The motion to refer the Prime Minister to the Privileges Committee revolves around two words. Pressure is the first. The other, which is vital, is process. Of course, the Prime Minister is the master of process. He bangs on about it all the time. He is the king of process here in the Commons. He says that “full due process” was followed, yet we have already heard from other hon. Members that Sir Simon Case, the then Cabinet Secretary, gave the Prime Minister due process in November 2024. Sir Simon said that the vetting and due diligence should be carried out before confirming the choice of ambassador. The Prime Minister chose to avoid that due process.

There is a second key element of due process that has not been properly teased out so far this afternoon, and it relates to the timing of the decision on vetting through January 2025. If full due process was being followed, the security authorities and the vetting authorities should have been allowed to take whatever time they deemed necessary to make their judgment. With Mandelson—goodness me—there was a lot to go through to check that clearance. We have heard from a number of senior civil servants that they were not allowed to carry out full due process and to take as long as they determined was necessary, even if that took them beyond the inauguration of the President of the United States—no, no.

I shall move on to the second work, which is whether any pressure whatsoever was applied. We have heard from not one, not two, but three separate senior civil servants that the pressure was not on the decision itself, but on the speed of the decision, because the decision had already been taken by due process not being followed. We have heard Sir Olly Robbins confirm that pressure was felt to get on with the decision; we heard yesterday from Ian Collard that pressure was applied for that decision to be made; and we have, of course, heard from Sir Philip Barton that—again—the pressure was to “get on with it.” There was “no space” in the decision. In other words, due process was not followed.

[Dr Arthur]

Did we not hear last week, in the Foreign Affairs Committee, that while there was pressure, it had no impact on the decision? It was a marginal decision, and it was felt that that the risks could be managed. I feel that the hon. Gentleman is missing that part out in his story.

[Richard Tice]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, but let me remind him what the Prime Minister said during Prime Minister’s questions just last week: “No pressure existed whatsoever”. “Whatsoever” is the critical word, and that is the flaw in the hon. Gentleman’s argument.

We now know that not only did the Prime Minister inadvertently mislead the House with regard to “full due process”, but he has misled the House a second time with regard to whether or not any pressure existed “whatsoever”. The evidence is in; while this is a Prime Minister who prides himself on process, anecdotally it seems that that is a culture that does not exist around him or perhaps within him. For example, we now know that those in the Cabinet Office questioned whether there should be any vetting at all. In other words, they did not want full due process. We now know, too, that in respect of the decision on whether to retain Sir Olly Robbins or fire him, full due process was not followed. As for the issue of whether or not a decision to refer any Member of the House to the Privileges Committee should be whipped, precedent clearly shows that it should not. I would argue that precedent is a process, and that in this instance, the process of not whipping a vote of this kind is not being followed. I therefore urge all Members to ignore the whipping, to follow their conscience, and to follow the evidence. The evidence is in: the Prime Minister inadvertently misled the House of Commons.