Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

Tulip Siddiq Excerpts

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)]

It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for South Shields (Emma Lewell), who made a very powerful speech. I think Members on all sides of the House listened to it, and I hope her colleagues on the Government Benches think about it carefully during the debate.

The Prime Minister called this motion a “stunt”. That is not why I put my name to it. [Interruption.] I was just checking whether they were awake, Mr Speaker. It is funny, though, because “stunt” is exactly the same word Boris Johnson used about the motion that the Prime Minister and I tabled four years ago, referring Boris Johnson to the Privileges Committee. Ironic? Alanis Morissette could probably write a whole album about it. It was not a stunt then, and it is not a stunt today. It is, as the Prime Minister said back then, a motion that

“seeks to defend the simple principle that honesty, integrity and telling the truth matter in our politics.”—[Official Report, 21 April 2022; Vol. 712, c. 352.]

Honesty, integrity, telling the truth—these things matter in our nation’s Parliament perhaps more than anywhere else.

When I hear the Prime Minister complain that we have tabled this motion just over a week before important elections, I find myself transported back to that debate four years ago, seven days before crucial local elections. At that time, Conservative MP after Conservative MP made exactly the same bogus argument in defence of Boris Johnson. Although there are differences in the whipping arrangements, I find it hard to take some of the sanctimony from the leader of the Conservative party seriously. She and her Conservative colleagues propped up Boris Johnson back then. She called him a great Prime Minister. Even after the game was up and Johnson was gone, she dismissed the partygate scandal and called it “overblown”. It does seem that there is quite a lot of hypocrisy to go around.

I want to try to be consistent, so I looked back in Hansard at what I said then, and I was struck that I can use exactly the same words today. I said that

“with families facing the deepest fall in their living standards since the 1950s, with the pain of energy bills and rising food prices compounded by the Government’s unfair tax rises, we know that our constituents are facing real hardship. It is not just a cost of living crisis; it is a cost of living emergency. At such a time, the country needs a Government that will be focused on tackling that economic emergency. Crucially, it needs a Government that it can trust”.—[Official Report, 21 April 2022; Vol. 712, c. 372.]

Labour Members agreed with me back then; I hope they will still agree with those words now.

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)]

The right hon. Member has mentioned Boris Johnson a few times, so I just wanted to remind the House that Boris Johnson misled the Foreign Affairs Committee. His words about my constituent, Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, meant that she spent six extra years in jail for a crime she did not commit. He had multiple opportunities to apologise, including when he saw Nazanin face to face. Does the right hon. Member think that when someone has made a mistake, especially someone in a position of power, they should apologise?

[Ed Davey]

Mr Speaker, I can see from your restlessness in the Chair that you do not necessarily want me to go down that particular avenue, but I hope I speak for others when I reflect on how incredibly depressing it is that nothing has really changed.

The British people are facing a cost of living emergency. They need a Government focused on tackling it and a Government they can trust, but instead this is what we have. We have a Prime Minister who promised to be different, who promised to turn the page and who promised, above everything else, change. He has now mired this Government in the same endless cycle of chaos and scandal as the last one. He is a Prime Minister who appointed Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United States, even though his links to Jeffrey Epstein had been widely reported, even though those reports had been brought directly to the Prime Minister’s attention and even though the Cabinet Secretary had advised him that security clearance should be acquired before the choice was confirmed. He is a Prime Minister who, despite all that, still told the House repeatedly that “full due process” was followed. He is a Prime Minister who says that “No pressure existed whatsoever” to appoint Mandelson, despite all the evidence we have heard to the contrary, as the right hon. Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch) set out in her speech. We have a Prime Minister who desperately claims that he would not have appointed Mandelson if he had known about UK Security Vetting’s recommendation.

The Prime Minister said that we would find what he told us to be “incredible”, and we do, but that last part is the most incredible of all. Does he really expect us to believe that after all of that—ignoring the clear warnings from the propriety and ethics team, ignoring the advice of his then Cabinet Secretary to get the security vetting done first, and ignoring everything we already knew about Peter Mandelson and announcing his appointment to the world before the vetting had been done—if he had been given the same recommendation as Olly Robbins received that it was a borderline case, he would have cancelled the appointment? Do Members on the Government Benches really believe that is what would have happened? That claim is all that is left of the Prime Minister’s case for the defence, and I am afraid that it just does not stand up.

I will finish not with my own words, but with those of another Member four years ago—the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner). I know that her words carry a lot of weight on the Labour Benches. She said that

“the only way to get to the bottom of this issue and regain public confidence in our democracy is by respecting the processes that have been created to enshrine the rules of our Parliament. I point out that the process we are following today is in place only because the Prime Minister has failed to do the decent thing and resign. I repeat: honesty, integrity and the truth matter in our politics. Today, MPs across the House have the opportunity to defend those principles and to vote to support our democracy.”—[Official Report, 21 April 2022; Vol. 712, c. 425.]

The right hon. Lady was right back then. That is the opportunity before MPs today, and I urge us all to take it.