5,731 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

1. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

   English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

   With this it will be convenient to consider the following Government motions: That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their Amendments 36, 90 and 155, insists on its amendments 155A to 155F and 155H to the words so restored to the Bill by that disagreement with Amendment 155, and proposes amendment (a) to the words so restored to the Bill by that disagreement. That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their Amendments 85 and 86, 97 to 116, 120, 121 and 123, insists on its amendments 123C to 123H and 123J to 123K in lieu, and proposes amendments (a) to (e) in lieu.

   Hansard source
2. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

   English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

   I know the hon. Member is diligent in getting answers on behalf of his constituents and will no doubt explore every avenue to get that answer. I say to Members on the Treasury Bench that it is only appropriate that Back-Bench MPs are able to get responses in due time on behalf of their constituents—no doubt that they have heard that. The hon. Member has got his words on the record.

   Hansard source
3. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

   Business without Debate

   With the leave of the House, I will put motions 5 to 9 together. Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)), Income Tax That the draft Major Sporting Events (Income Tax Exemption) (Glasgow 2026 Commonwealth Games) Regulations 2026, which were laid before this House on 23 February, be approved. Retained EU Law Reform That the draft Chemicals (Health and Safety) (Amendment, Consequential and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026, which were laid before this House on 24 February, be approved. Energy That the draft Conservation of Habitats and Species (Offshore Wind) (Amendment etc.) Regulations 2026, which were laid before this House on 26 February, be approved. Financial Services and Markets That the draft Capital Requirements Regulation (Market Risk Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026, which were laid before this House on 4 March, be approved. That the draft Credit Institutions and Investment Firms (Miscellaneous Definitions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026, which were laid before this House on 4 March, be approved.—(Taiwo Owatemi.) Question agreed to. Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)), Retained EU Law Reform That the draft Asylum Seekers (Reception Conditions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026, which were laid before this House on 5 March, be approved.—(Taiwo Owatemi.)

   Hansard source
4. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·Mrs Kemi Badenoch

   Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

   I beg to move, That this House (1) notes the Rt hon Member for Holborn and St Pancras’s assurances on the floor of the House about “full due process” being followed in the appointment of Peter Mandelson as Ambassador to the United States of America, in particular (but not limited to) answers given on 10 September 2025, 4 February and 22 April 2026, further notes his assertion on 20 April 2026 that he “had made it clear that my position was that the position was subject to developed vetting” and his assertions that “Sir Olly Robbins was absolutely clear that nobody put pressure on him to make this appointment” and that “No pressure existed whatsoever in relation to this case” on 22 April 2026; and (2) accordingly orders that these matters be referred to the Committee of Privileges to consider whether, in making these and other related statements, the Rt hon Member may have misled the House, and whether such conduct amounts to a contempt of the House, bearing in mind the standards expected of Ministers as set out in the House’s own resolution on Ministerial Accountability and the Ministerial Code. Shall we pick up where we left off last Tuesday, when we had an emergency debate about the Government’s accountability to Parliament over Peter Mandelson’s appointment as our ambassador to the United States? The very next day at Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister read out selective quotes from Sir Olly Robbins’ evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee, and deliberately left out critical sections to make it seem as if that evidence had exonerated him. The Prime Minister told the House that “No pressure existed whatsoever in relation to this case.”—[Official Report, 22 April 2026; Vol. 784, c. 316.] That is not what the record shows. Let me read Sir Olly Robbins’ exact quote: “Throughout January…my office and the Foreign Secretary’s office were under constant pressure. There was an atmosphere of constant chasing”. So how can the Prime Minister tell us that Sir Olly Robbins said “No pressure existed whatsoever”? Everybody heard what Olly Robbins said; we are not here to test whether Members have good hearing. People can look in Hansard. As Mr Speaker said, the question today is whether this matter should be referred to the Privileges Committee. It is a question of whether this House and Labour MPs really believe in full due process, and whether Labour MPs have the integrity to refer the Prime Minister to the Privileges Committee, knowing what we all know and can all read in Hansard. The ministerial code is very clear that Ministers who mislead the House must correct the record “at the earliest opportunity”. It is very obvious that what the Prime Minister said at the Dispatch Box was not correct—it is clear that full due process was not followed. If Labour MPs allow the Whips to force them to block the consequences of those decisions, it will degrade not just them, but this House. The question is what kind of people they are. Are they people who will live up to the promises they made about standards and the rules mattering, or are they people who abandon their promises in order to be complicit in a cover-up?

   Hansard source
5. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·Mrs Kemi Badenoch

   Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

   That is an excellent question. We asked for the release of documents, and then when the evidence came, showing what the Cabinet Secretary said in November 2024 about what full due process was, it was very clear that those instructions had not been followed. We also know that the latest information about the problems with the security vetting did not come from the Humble Address; it came from a leak to The Guardian. Why should we wait for a never-never process that is clearly not happening? In last week’s Standing Order No. 24 debate, even members of the Intelligence and Security Committee said that there were delays to the release of the documents. Labour Members want to pretend that this motion is something that only one party is backing. I remind them that it is a cross-party motion, supported by Members from across this House—by independents, the Lib Dems, the DUP and the SNP. Calling this a stunt is disrespecting this House and disrespecting Mr Speaker. From listening to the media and seeing Labour Members’ tweets, it is very obvious that they have all been told to come to the Chamber today and tell everybody that this motion is a stunt. Why are they acting like sheep? They should be better than that. By the way, we will count how many times in this debate Labour Members stand up and say that this is a stunt. Some people might even be shouting “Bingo!”. We are looking forward to it.

   Hansard source
6. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·Mrs Kemi Badenoch

   Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

   I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention, and I will do my best to be kind. He is right: there are more people in the Chamber today than there were last time, so the Whips have really been working hard over the past seven days. Last week, not a single Labour MP bothered to intervene on me.

   Hansard source
7. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·Mrs Kemi Badenoch

   Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

   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).

   Hansard source
8. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·Mrs Kemi Badenoch

   Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

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

   Hansard source
9. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·Mrs Kemi Badenoch

   Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

   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.

   Hansard source
10. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·Mrs Kemi Badenoch

    Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

    It is extraordinary, and the evidence that we have heard from the Foreign Affairs Committee this morning is only making this matter worse for the Prime Minister, so it is very wrong for Labour Members to be talking about a stunt. This is about the integrity of this House. Why is the Privileges Committee a political stunt only when Labour is in the dock? Do Labour MPs still believe that honesty and accountability matter when the person in question is one of their own? Do they believe that Labour Prime Ministers should be held to the exact same standards that they held Conservative Prime Ministers to, or do they believe that there should be an honesty discount because the Prime Minister is Labour? The fact that there are so few Cabinet Ministers sitting on the Front Bench—that the Government have had to dig deep to the bottom of the barrel for junior Ministers to sit there—shows that they are struggling to get support for their position.

    Hansard source
11. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·Mrs Kemi Badenoch

    Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

    I am going to make some progress. I say gently to Labour MPs—and kindly, as I have been asked to—that if they vote against today’s motion, they are admitting that Labour has lower standards, and should be held to a lower standard than everyone else. When they were elected, they promised their constituents integrity and higher standards, and I am sure that most of them meant it at the time. This country is the mother of all Parliaments, and today’s vote is about Parliament. It is not about the Labour party; it is about the Prime Minister being held to account. To those who are saying that this is a stunt, I say that it is about whether the Prime Minister is accountable, not just to the Opposition but to Labour MPs and their constituents. Labour Members may believe that the Prime Minister is telling the truth. As Mr Speaker said, they are not being asked whether the Prime Minister is telling the truth; they are being asked whether the Privileges Committee should investigate whether the Prime Minister told the truth. That is a different thing. The question is whether there is a case to answer that he misled this House and has failed to correct the record.

    Hansard source
12. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·Mrs Kemi Badenoch

    Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

    I agree that this is a matter of trust with the public. We have to show that we do things properly here. As I was saying, the question is whether there is a case to answer that the Prime Minister misled this House and failed to correct the record. If there is a credible case that he did, this matter should be referred to the Committee of Privileges—those are the rules of the House. I will quickly run through the facts to make sure that every Labour MP hears them. The Prime Minister appointed Peter Mandelson before security vetting was granted, in direct contravention of the advice given to him on 11 November 2024 by the then Cabinet Secretary—that is not due process. The Prime Minister’s own National Security Adviser described the appointment and due diligence as “weirdly rushed”, and the Foreign Office was not asked to feed in—that is not due process. [Interruption.] The chair of the Labour party has a lot to say, so I will give way and let her say what she wants to say.

    Hansard source
13. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·Mrs Kemi Badenoch

    Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

    We have another Minister coming to the Dispatch Box to say something quite different. Simon Case, the then Cabinet Secretary, set out what the full due process was. A note from the Cabinet Secretary a year after the appointment—after Peter Mandelson had been sacked and after I had asked questions at the Dispatch Box—is not an exoneration. It is part of the cover-up. We have been told by Sir Olly Robbins, the former permanent secretary of the Foreign Office, that the Government showed a “dismissive attitude” to vetting and even argued that Peter Mandelson did not need any vetting—that is not due process. We have been told that No. 10 put “constant pressure” on the Foreign Office to approve the application—that is not due process. Sir Philip Barton, the former permanent secretary of the Foreign Office, said this morning that he was “presented with a decision… There was no space for dialogue”. He also confirmed that the normal order is vetting and then announcement, but in this case the announcement was before the vetting—that is not due process.

    Hansard source
14. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·Mrs Kemi Badenoch

    Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

    I am concerned about the Prime Minister’s judgment on all manner of issues, not just the one we are discussing today. This morning, we even heard the Prime Minister’s former chief of staff say that it should not have been him doing the due diligence, and that what he got back from Mandelson was not the full truth, but the Prime Minister appointed Peter Mandelson anyway—that is Morgan McSweeney saying that it was not full due process. On several counts, it is clear that full due process was, in fact, not followed in this appointment.

    Hansard source
15. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·Mrs Kemi Badenoch

    Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

    Labour Members should not worry. I will give way because I want them to have every opportunity to make fools of themselves—just be patient. Even the Prime Minister’s current position contains a glaring logical inconsistency. How can he say that full process was followed while, at the same time, firing Sir Olly Robbins for not following process? It would be fantastic if the hon. Gentleman answered that question.

    Hansard source
16. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·Mrs Kemi Badenoch

    Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

    I think the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) would like his ministerial job back, as that is the only explanation for asking that question. I asked why, if full due process was followed, Sir Olly Robbins was sacked. No answer. The Privileges Committee is clear that “misleading intentionally or recklessly, refusing to answer legitimate questions, or failing to correct misleading statements, impedes or frustrates the functioning of the House and is a contempt.” The Prime Minister has not answered legitimate questions on this appointment. Labour Members were all there at PMQs when I asked him about six times whether he spoke to Peter Mandelson before the appointment, and the Prime Minister refused to answer—that is contempt. This is no longer just about the appointment of Peter Mandelson, or about the convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein. This is about whether or not the Prime Minister should be referred for contempt of Parliament. I do not know if he is in the Chamber, but the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) said last week that “the Prime Minister is a man of the utmost decency who would never, ever lie”.—[Official Report, 21 April 2026; Vol. 784, c. 197.] If that is the case, Labour Members should welcome this chance to prove it. If they really believe that statement, they would not have to be whipped to block an investigation.

    Hansard source
17. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·Mrs Kemi Badenoch

    Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

    That is an excellent question, and I can confirm that our side was not whipped. I can also confirm that the then Chair of the Privileges Committee was a former acting leader of the Labour party. We trusted this House to do the right thing. Why can they not do the same—why? The Privileges Committee is mostly made up of Labour MPs. Are Labour Members saying that they do not believe that their own colleagues would give the Prime Minister a fair hearing? If this was just a bad decision for which he has apologised, surely the Privileges Committee will find him not guilty.

    Hansard source
18. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·Mrs Kemi Badenoch

    Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

    I agree with my right hon. Friend that this is a scorched-earth policy: Labour MPs are the earth, and I am afraid to say that they are being scorched. Let me ask Labour Members this: if the Prime Minister has nothing to hide, why is he whipping them to avoid scrutiny? They are being whipped today to exonerate him before the facts have even been tested. This is not the first time I have had to tell Labour MPs that they are being stitched up. This is a man who has led them up and down so many hills—[Interruption.] Oh, the Education Secretary wants to intervene. Would she like to talk about yesterday’s U-turn on social media?

    Hansard source
19. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·Mrs Kemi Badenoch

    Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

    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.

    Hansard source
20. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·Mrs Kemi Badenoch

    Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

    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—

    Hansard source
21. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·Mrs Kemi Badenoch

    Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

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

    Hansard source
22. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·Mrs Kemi Badenoch

    Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

    I know that a lot of Labour MPs have not been in this situation before. They are being stitched up. I am trying to be helpful. This man has led them up so many hills and down again, with U-turn after U-turn. I talked about banning social media for children; there was also a U-turn on pensions mandation. This is a Government that do not know what they are doing. I think it is very valiant of Labour MPs to come out to defend the Prime Minister, despite the fact that he took the Whip away from MPs who wanted to lift the two-child benefit cap—and then did it anyway. The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) had the Whip removed for opposing the two-child benefit cap, then the Prime Minister U-turned. The hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) had the Whip removed for voting against the Prime Minister’s welfare reforms, then he ditched the reforms. The hon. Member for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours) had the Whip removed for opposing the family farm tax. The Prime Minister has ditched that, but the hon. Member for Penrith and Solway still does not have the Whip back. This matters, Mr Speaker—

    Hansard source
23. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·Mrs Kemi Badenoch

    Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

    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.

    Hansard source
24. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·Mrs Kemi Badenoch

    Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

    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.

    Hansard source
25. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·Mrs Kemi Badenoch

    Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

    My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I trust the Privileges Committee to do the right thing, as I always have. I have some advice for Labour MPs: there is nothing wrong with giving their party leader the benefit of the doubt. As a Minister four years ago, I gave my party—[Laughter.] I do not know why they are laughing; I have not got to the punchline yet. Hang on; wait for it! As a Minister four years ago, I gave my party leader the benefit of the doubt, but I trusted the Privileges Committee to do the right thing, even when it was led by a former leader of the Labour party. We did not block the Privileges Committee from looking into things, and the minute that I was asked to go out and say something that was not true, I resigned. None of the Labour Members wants to do that. I will always be able to hold my head up high because I did the right thing. I do not understand why Labour MPs are quite happy to repeat things that are not true. We have all seen Hansard. That is the difference between them and us. When we get things wrong, we put our hands up and say so; they pretend that the wrong thing is actually the right thing. They pretend that the bad thing is actually a good thing because it is Labour MPs who are doing it. That is what they are being whipped to do today. It is the same way the Mandelson appointment happened—they thought that because they were appointing him, it must be a good thing—and that is what is happening again today. They are being whipped to do the wrong thing. If Labour MPs are telling the entire country that nothing matters except avoiding scrutiny of this Prime Minister, who will not answer questions at the Dispatch Box, they are telling people that the Labour party is not worth voting for. It does not exist. This is not the Labour party of Attlee, Bevan and Wilson. That Labour party no longer exists because they would never do this. They would never vote for someone who had stood at the Dispatch Box less than a week ago and read out doctored statements from the head of the Foreign Office, like the Prime Minister did.

    Hansard source
26. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·Mrs Kemi Badenoch

    Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

    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.

    Hansard source
27. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·Mrs Kemi Badenoch

    Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

    Time and again throughout this debate, I have seen Labour MPs stand up and show that they do not understand what the rules are or what this is about. This is not about the specific statements; it is about whether or not there should be a referral to the Privileges Committee. They are moving the goalposts because they do not want to answer that simple question. They have come up with all sorts of excuses. It is not an excuse to say that there is a war on. The Prime Minister has said repeatedly that we are not in this war. He cannot have it both ways. At every turn, the Prime Minister has tried to deny the House full transparency over this appointment. The House voted for documents to be released, and yet we discover that documents are not being released. That is a contempt of this Parliament. Labour MPs supported that Humble Address because they knew that we needed to see the truth. Documents from that release show that due process was not followed. The ISC is complaining that the documents are being delayed. We only discovered that there were numerous problems with Mandelson’s vetting because of a leak to The Guardian. The truth is being covered up. Today’s vote is about whether Labour MPs want to be complicit in this cover-up. If they vote against an investigation by the Privileges Committee, they are in this together. This motion is supported across the House, including by Labour MPs, which is why they have to be whipped to vote against it. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) tweeted last week that he was calling for a referral to the Privileges Committee, before he deleted that tweet. This week he is calling it “a stunt”. Why? Who is twisting his arm? Why was it not a stunt last week when he was doing it, but it is a stunt this week when everybody else is doing it? May I remind those who are mindlessly repeating the lines the Labour Whips have given them that it is also their job to hold the Government to account and uphold the standards of our democracy? Appointing a known national security risk to be ambassador to the United States is a profound failure of government. Do they not think it is important that Prime Ministers tell the truth on a matter of national security, or do they think this is an internal Labour party matter that they can fix themselves? For those who believe that Andy Burnham is coming to rescue them, I just say that if they vote against this investigation, there will be so much contempt for Labour that there is no by-election on this planet that Andy Burnham will be able to win. This is not an internal Labour party matter. Do they believe that when something is wrong, we should look into it? This is about whether they believe that Prime Ministers should not destroy the careers of civil servants to cover up for their own failures. I know it is very difficult for Labour MPs to walk through the Lobby with Members from other parties, but let me be clear what they are saying if they vote against this motion. Would they rather be on the side of Peter Mandelson, of convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, of Morgan McSweeney and Matthew Doyle, and of the man who sacked Sir Chris Wormald, Sir Olly Robbins and Sue Gray? Is that what they came into Parliament for? Yesterday we read that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) said that Labour Members should back the Prime Minister so that she can pay off her new kitchen. Do they really want to tell their constituents that they voted against this inquiry because they are more concerned about their own personal finances than probity in public life? That is a shocking statement. Every MP voting on this motion today will need to examine their conscience. This is not a matter of party loyalty; it is a matter of what each and every one of us believes is right. Labour MPs are being asked to defend a man who has let the country down, who has let Parliament down, and—let’s be honest—who has let the Labour party down. I say to Labour MPs: you can defend the Prime Minister today, and there are enough of you to get the vote through, but you will be complicit in a shameful abandoning of promises made to the electorate—promises that every Labour MP stood on. It is up to them what kind of MP they choose to be. They can choose to live up to their promises on standards, to ensure proper scrutiny takes place and allow the Privileges Committee to get to the bottom of this, or they can choose to put party before country. Their vote will define them, and the public are watching. They say it is a stunt—then let the inquiry expose it. They say there is no evidence of misleading the House—then let the Committee test it. They say the Prime Minister has nothing to hide—then they should not vote to stop the Prime Minister being scrutinised. They do not have to defend this. They can still do the right thing. They can show that Parliament matters—it matters more than any party or any faction. They can vote to enhance Parliament, or they can prove the worst fears of people who think there is one rule for Labour and another rule for everyone else. I commend this motion to the House.

    Hansard source
28. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·Mrs Kemi Badenoch

    Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

    I asked the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister just one question in my speech. Will he repeat on the Floor of the House the exact words that the Prime Minister used at PMQs, in front of all of us: that no pressure “whatsoever” was put on the Foreign Office?

    Hansard source
29. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·Mr Mark Francois

    Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

    My right hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, but is it not true that the post of UK ambassador to Washington would be held by someone who would therefore have access to extremely sensitive intelligence, potentially including nuclear co-operation? Surely the fact that Mandelson had been found to have been working for a Russian company post the invasion of Ukraine should have completely barred him from the appointment, on that ground alone.

    Hansard source
30. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·Mr Gagan Mohindra

    Park Home Owners

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I, too, have been contacted by many of my constituents, throughout my six and a half years as the MP for South West Hertfordshire, with a wide range of complaints and concerns about park homes, particularly from residents of Long Pightle Park, Highview and Newlands Park. This debate is the result of excellent work by the Park Home Owners Justice Campaign, which is of course supported by several hon. Members in attendance at this debate. This issue is cross-party and cross-country, so I applaud all those hon. Members for their excellent efforts. I also make reference to Councillor Vicky Edwards and Councillor Ian Campbell in my constituency, who helped me with this speech. Park homes offer an affordable option for many people across the UK to relocate, often in retirement, and enjoy the beauty of our natural landscapes. That is something that I can definitely attest to in South West Hertfordshire. But park homes also leave residents vulnerable to many issues, including exploitative site operators, and the majority of park home owners are retirees or older people. As has been noted, the longest-running campaign, the PHOJC, is against the 10% commission that residents are still expected to pay to site owners during the purchase of their park home. That is especially damaging to elderly residents, who do not have excess capital and for whom the commission is a significant part of their retirement fund. It is important that the Government continue the existing inquiry—a continuation of the work of the previous Government—into the impact that a change in the maximum commission legislation would have on residents and on the industry as a whole. I know that my constituents will continue to support the work being done on that campaign. I still receive many complaints from park home owners in my constituency, mostly regarding poorly maintained landscapes, drainage facilities and fire hydrants, and regarding rubbish and debris being inappropriately stored and disposed of. Some of the figures bandied around for the works being done are three times the market value; they are excessive. I encourage the Government to continue the excellent work, to listen to the results of the consultation, and to implement the proposed measures as quickly as possible.

    Hansard source
31. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·Mr Gagan Mohindra

    Fuel Costs: Support for Motorists

    7. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of fuel duty on the cost of living.

    Hansard source
32. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·Mr Gagan Mohindra

    Fuel Costs: Support for Motorists

    If the increase in fuel prices rather than the Chancellor’s two disastrous Budgets is to blame for the stagnating economy, why does the Chancellor believe that raising fuel duty further in September will help to reduce the cost of living when in fact it will harm the economy more, and will deliver another direct hit to the pockets of my constituents?

    Hansard source
33. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·Mr Gagan Mohindra

    Houses in Multiple Occupation

    Does the hon. Gentleman agree that local authorities like the Liberal Democrat-controlled Three Rivers district council in my constituency should be issuing, for instance, article 4 directions to protect our areas from a proliferation of HMOs?

    Hansard source
34. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·Mr Gagan Mohindra

    Houses in Multiple Occupation

    I am well-versed with the Minister through our work on the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee. Will he consider looking at reducing the threshold from six individuals to four? I am finding in Three Rivers that several of the homes are probably inappropriate for six distinct individuals but may be appropriate for four. Unless the evidence threshold is there for an article 4 direction, I have communities that will be impacted significantly, unless we are able to change something here.

    Hansard source
35. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·Mims Davies

    Compensation Following South East Water Outages

    I present a petition on behalf of 116 constituents from East Grinstead, Uckfield and the villages, and a further 87 online signatories. My constituents suffered unprecedented and unacceptable water outages in January. Although nothing will compensate them for a week without running water, there has at least been recompense for householders. That is not the case for local businesses, however, which have lost thousands of pounds in trade and income. I and the East Grinstead Business Association are clear that more must be done for our small businesses in the town and the affected villages. The petition states: The petition of residents of the constituency of East Grinstead, Uckfield and the villages, Declares that recent South East Water outages have had a particular impact on businesses in the constituency of East Grinstead, Uckfield and the villages; further declares that compensation offered to date is not adequate; and further declares that compensation can be paid to landlords in cases where landlords pay the water bill, but this does not reflect the end impact on businesses themselves of water outages. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take action to ensure that water companies are obliged to pay adequate compensation directly to affected businesses following outages such as the South East Water outage recently experienced in the constituency of East Grinstead and Uckfield. And the petitioners remain, etc. [P003195]

    Hansard source
36. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·Mike Wood

    English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

    On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Last week, I tabled a written question to the Foreign Secretary, asking whether Jonathan Powell was subject to scrutiny vetting before or after he was appointed as the Prime Minister’s special envoy on the Chagos negotiations. I have not yet received a response. Given that Morgan McSweeney appeared to tell the Foreign Affairs Committee this morning that the vetting process began only after Powell was later appointed as National Security Adviser, how can I secure an official answer from the Foreign Office to this basic question before Parliament prorogues?

    Hansard source
37. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·Matt Vickers

    Fire and Rescue Services: Funding

    I beg to move, That this House has considered funding for fire and rescue services. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. Our firefighters are heroes. They are the people who put their lives on the line to protect us all. While others run from danger, they run towards it. It is only right that we support them with the colleagues, equipment and funding that they need to do their jobs properly. I will use the debate to highlight the ongoing and serious challenges facing fire and rescue services, including Cleveland Fire Brigade, which serves my community in Stockton, as well as Hartlepool, Middlesbrough, and Redcar and Cleveland. I also want to take the opportunity to pay tribute to all the firefighters and support staff in fire brigades across the country, particularly those who work for the Cleveland and Durham fire brigades. I have met many of them on shadow shifts and seen at first hand their incredible skill, determination, commitment and bravery.

    Hansard source
38. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·Matt Vickers

    Fire and Rescue Services: Funding

    A lot of fire services across the country are facing huge challenges. The debate will draw out some of the challenges that are unique to rural and coastal communities. We want firefighters to be backed, for their safety and for the safety of the communities we serve. Our firefighters work tirelessly, day in, day out, to protect our community, and we all owe them our thanks. We should be incredibly proud of their work in challenging circumstances. Of course, it is right that efforts be made to ensure our public services are as efficient as possible, optimising outcomes and spending public money wisely.

    Hansard source
39. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·Matt Vickers

    Fire and Rescue Services: Funding

    It is hugely important that firefighters and communities are involved in those discussions, so that we can get the structure that works best for the communities involved. Over recent years, Cleveland Fire Brigade has achieved that. It has made difficult decisions, streamlining operations, managing workforce numbers and finding efficiencies wherever possible, but there comes a point at which continued pressure risks undermining resilience.

    Hansard source
40. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·Matt Vickers

    Fire and Rescue Services: Funding

    I am sure that the hon. Lady would also recognise that the situation is getting worse, not better. Across the country, despite the fact that we are paying record levels of tax, our fire services are under pressure. We might want to talk about the history of it, but I want to talk about what will happen in my community in the coming months, as the Government make hay with this horrendous settlement that could see the number of firefighters in my community reduced. That is why I am here today.

    Hansard source