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·Graham Stuart

   Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

   As so often, the hon. Gentleman does two things brilliantly: he reinforces his merit with the Whips when it comes to a future position, yet makes our case for us. The Prime Minister was dragged before the House. It is not just me—Mr Speaker was falling out with him and he is a former Labour MP. This is the frustration of a whole nation at a man who promised that he would be open and transparent but who cannot, ever, just give a straightforward answer. It has got to the point where if he was asked whether he would like mash or new potatoes, he would start talking to his wife about pork chops. He just cannot answer the question. I say to the hon. Member for Rugby that when the Prime Minister was dragged here—this is the issue today—he misled this House. We have gone over that; Members will be deeply relieved to hear that I will not go over it again. But he said that due process had been followed. We have evidence today: Morgan McSweeney said he did the interview. He is an old pal of Mandelson’s—the man pushing for his appointment. He is the guy who asked Mandelson the questions. Then, whoa—“Let’s review the answers that McSweeney got and get Lord Doyle”—another pal of them both—“to provide the independent review.” That is what the Prime Minister presided over, all to deliver what McSweeney also made clear today was absolutely the Prime Minister’s decision. The Prime Minister made the decision. He got his mates in this crony boys’ club to sit around, review each other and put Mandelson into place. Then he came here—this is the point—and said that due process was followed. Due process was not followed. Only because of the Humble Address have we found out that the Cabinet Secretary’s official advice to the Prime Minister was that vetting must be done before the announcement of a political appointee—and again, the Government had to give way halfway through the debate as they could see the direction it was going in. That advice was not in the public domain when Chris Wormald, who will have to answer for his own judgments, came out and said that all due process had been followed. But anyone who could read the advice and see what happened can clearly see that it was not followed. Chris Wormald’s letter was false and wrong. I do not see how it can be squared as the great defence of the Prime Minister. We have had no answers to that point. We have so many questions—even before we get to last week, when, as the hon. Member for Rugby said, the Prime Minister was here. Under questioning from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, who does a brilliant job of keeping her temper while he evades and seeks not to answer, the Prime Minister said that there had been no pressure whatsoever. That is clearly not true, given that Olly Robbins repeatedly said how much pressure there was. There are plenty of reasons to believe that the Prime Minister, who said that he was going to set a higher standard, has misled this House. That is all we need; as Mr Speaker said, we are not judge and jury today when it comes to whether he actually misled the House. That is why we have the Privileges Committee to look at the matter. It is dominated by Labour MPs, but such is the lack of confidence in No. 10—perhaps in the Whips Office and certainly in the Cabinet—that not only does the Prime Minister not trust the Labour MPs on the Privileges Committee; he does not even trust all the other Labour Members, who are being dragooned by a three-line Whip into voting for something, when no such Whip should ever have been applied.

   Hansard source
2. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·Esther McVey

   Park Home Owners

   I thank the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for bringing this debate to Westminster Hall and for setting the scene so clearly about the many issues faced by people living in park homes. Time is short, so I will speak only about the 10% commission. Back in 2022, I presented a petition to the House calling for annual pitch fee increases for park homes to be linked to consumer price inflation rather than retail price inflation. The petition was signed by 165 residents of Ashwood Park in Wincham, with the support of the Park Home Owners Justice Campaign and my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), and I was pleased that the previous Government enacted that change. It was a simple but meaningful adjustment, as the change to the 10% commission would be. We know that 160,000 people live in park homes. Many of them are retired, and they moved there for affordability, security and a sense of community, but that is not what they are getting. The commission was lowered in 1983 from 15% to 10%, so let me ask the Minister the following questions, because it could be changed again. Who is the call for evidence open to? Are all park home residents able to make a submission? What is the timeline for a decision once the call for evidence has been closed? What assurances can the Minister provide that the decision on reforming the commission charge will be made in a timely way? And is this matter a top priority for the Minister and his Department?

   Hansard source
3. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·Esther McVey

   Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

   Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Prime Minister is pursuing a scorched-earth policy? Adviser after civil servant has been chucked under the bus to save his skin, and now it is the turn of his own MPs. If the Prime Minister has not misled the House, the correct path is to go to the Privileges Committee so that he can clear his name.

   Hansard source
4. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

   Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

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

   Hansard source
5. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

   Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

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

   Hansard source
6. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

   Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

   I usually come to this House to represent the people of Hinckley and Bosworth, and occasionally other people across the nation, by raising and debating pertinent issues. Today, however, my speech is aimed at Labour Back Benchers, because at the end of the day, regardless of what is said here, it is their decision. When there are 400 of them, it is they who will decide what happens in this debate. I therefore gently highlight two points: the standards that have been set, and doubt. The Prime Minister has set very clear standards since he has been in Parliament. It reminds me of the famous fable of the fox and the stork. Those familiar with it will know that the fox invites the stork in to have dinner. The fox serves soup but mischievously does so on a flat plate and, of course, the stork cannot eat it. The stork, not losing its temper, reciprocates and invites the fox back to have soup at its house. When the stork serves the soup, it serves it in a long, thin glass. Of course, the fox cannot get to it and loses its temper. The moral of the story is to treat others as you wish to be treated. The process that the Prime Minister is going through is due process by the standard he himself set, happening in retort to himself. We only have to look at some of the tweets that he put out. In January 2022, he said: “The Prime Minister is a national distraction. Millions of people are struggling to pay the bills, but Boris Johnson and his government are spending the whole time mopping up their own rule-breaking, sleaze and deceit. He’s got to go.” He followed that up by saying to Boris Johnson at the Dispatch Box: “There are only two possible explanations. Either the Prime Minister is trashing the ministerial code, or he is claiming he was repeatedly lied to by his own advisers and did not know what was going on in his…own office. Come off it!”—[Official Report, 30 March 2022; Vol. 711, c. 807.] That is the standard he set himself before he became Prime Minister. Is he following that standard? We only have to look at his actions since he was elected to see that he is not. He gave a donor a pass to No. 10, he took suits, he took glasses, he appointed a donor as the football regulator and, of course, he was the MP who took the most freebies in the last Parliament—more than even the three or four below him in the list combined. He set his own standard but he does not seem to meet it. That fits with the way in which the Prime Minister came into Parliament. He talked about change, but he changed his promises. He said he would do things differently, and this is where I agree. When it came to the standards debate, the last Government said that it was House business and did not whip it. This Government have made a change: they are whipping it. The question is why. That leads me on to my next point. I have talked about standards, and now I will talk about doubt. I have heard today that some Labour MPs have no doubt in their mind about the Prime Minister, but I have equally heard that other Labour MPs do. That is really important. If they have no doubt, that is fine—they can vote against the motion. They will have to explain to their constituents the decision they make and why, and they will have to live with that. That is what an MP does, and it is what an MP should do. But the Prime Minister himself clearly has doubts about his Back Benchers, because he is whipping the vote tonight. If he was so confident that so many of them would come to the conclusion that there was nothing to see here, he would not need to whip it. We know the real reason: there are so many unanswered questions. Labour MPs might say there is no chink of doubt and that no question is unanswered, but how can they explain the inconsistencies from civil servants? Why has it taken months to get this sorted? Why has it required Humble Addresses and emergency debates, yet we are still having these debates nine months on? Why were comments in the PM’s box notes left empty? I do not believe that Labour MPs will show the same lack of curiosity that the Prime Minister showed when appointing Peter Mandelson, because they know they have a duty to their constituents to make sure they get it right. How do I know all this? Because my party has been here before. Many of us on the Conservative Benches are the remnants of what our party had to go through—we have seen it. I have spoken before about the sword of hypocrisy, which cuts both ways, but as we learned, it is the infection that gets you. Here we are, nine months on since I made that speech, and the infection is turning into sepsis. The patient is in real trouble. Labour MPs could learn from the Opposition, or they will share the same fate. The Conservative party is effectively a mirror to the Labour party that Labour Members did not ask for but would be wise to study. If they do not believe me, maybe they will listen to the Prime Minister, who closed his speech back in the debate on 21 April 2022 by saying: “if we do not pass this motion and take this opportunity to restate the principles, we are all complicit in allowing the standards to slip. We are all complicit in allowing the public to think that we are all the same, that nobody tells the truth and that there are alternative sets of facts.”—[Official Report, 21 April 2022; Vol. 712, c. 355.] That is what Labour MPs have to wrestle with, so I hope they listen to the words the Prime Minister said back then.

   Hansard source
7. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

   Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eleventh sitting)

   I wish to make some brief remarks. I am keen to see suggestions of alternative approaches, but we have to be careful when it comes to discounts for guilty pleas, because there is a balance to be struck from the perspective of victims and complainants. We do not want to be in a situation where they feel that justice is undermined, particularly given the many other things the Government are doing to reduce the punitive element of the justice system. I am sure the Committee will know that thousands of serious violent sexual offenders will be getting reductions in their prison time. For example, two thirds of those sent to prison every year for rape will have their prison time reduced, and more than 90% of those sentenced for child grooming offences and similar offences will have their prison time reduced to one third. We are already seeing appalling erosions of the punitive element of the justice system by the Labour Government; I would be wary about doing anything that adds to that.

   Hansard source
8. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

   Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eleventh sitting)

   It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. We are all here because we recognise that the current state of our criminal courts is untenable. Complainants and defendants alike are facing unacceptable delays, and victims and innocent defendants are suffering as a result. The Government’s response, as set out in the Bill, is a radical restructuring of our trial processes, most notably in the removal of the right to a jury in a vast number of cases—around half, in fact. We believe there is a strong obligation on the Government to institute a more targeted, and potentially more effective, way to address the specific delays that they most frequently cite, through the establishment of specialist courts for rape and serious sexual offences. The Minister herself raised this issue in the Chamber on 7 January. When talking about jury trial reforms, she said: “Does it make sense that the queue of the victim of rape or of a homicide is shared with someone who has stolen a bottle of whisky”?—[Official Report, 7 January 2026; Vol. 778, c. 278.] In December, the Deputy Prime Minister and Lord Chancellor said: “if someone is charged with an offence such as theft of a bicycle, theft from a vehicle or employee theft, they can opt for a trial that, by necessity, goes into the system and will delay a rape trial”.—[Official Report, 2 December 2025; Vol. 776, c. 807.] That point has been made by a number of Labour MPs, including the hon. Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet). The Opposition have been clear that that is an oversimplification of how the listing process works, and that some of those examples are extremely unlikely to be in the queue in the Crown court, except for in specific circumstances. Nevertheless, the Government have been advancing that case. A commitment to introduce specialist courts was actually in the Government’s manifesto. By fulfilling the promises made to the electorate, the Government can deliver swifter justice for a group of victims they have centred in the debate, without dismantling the constitutional right to elect for jury trial. The Government’s proposals to halve the number of jury trials was not in the Labour party manifesto, but on page 67 there was a commitment to “fast-track rape cases, with specialist courts at every Crown Court location in England and Wales.” It could therefore be argued that—as much as we can debate what in an entire manifesto the public vote for—the public voted for a system that would prioritise these types of cases through specialisation and resourcing, and did not vote for a system that would instead prioritise administrative throughput by removing the right to elect to be judged by one’s peers. Sometimes, Governments do things that were not in their manifesto one way or another, or were not touched on in any way, but it would be difficult for people to argue that the public had a specific idea that they were not going to get certain things. However, if a Government put in their manifesto a particular element of direct relevance, as they did in relation to specialist courts, the public would have every right to be aggrieved if something entirely different, and significantly so, appeared as Government policy instead of what was in the manifesto. Opposition new clause 25 asks the Government to return to their original vision. It is similar to the other new clauses tabled by the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chichester, and by the hon. Member for Warrington North. They are crafted in different ways—for example, new clause 2, tabled by the hon. Member for Warrington North, is more prescriptive about how the courts would operate—but the intention and outcome are essentially the same. Specialist courts equipped with trauma-informed training and access to independent sexual violence advisers would recognise the unique complexity of these cases in a way that a simple bench division cannot. As I have said, the Government frequently refer to the experience of rape victims waiting years for justice as a significant justification for restricting jury trials. They argue that moving towards judge-led trials in 50% of cases will streamline the process and reduce the backlog, but the evidence for the broader claims of efficiency is highly contested. Independent analysis by the Institute for Government suggests that judge-only trials in the Crown court might save as little as 1.5% to 2.5%—[Interruption.] The Minister is right to say, and I do not mind accepting, that the saving is higher for the broader package—that has never been a point of dispute—but we are less concerned about the broader package, and there are things in it that we agree with. We are concerned about the much smaller saving that the IFG has pointed out. The Criminal Bar Association has pointed out that the Government’s modelling assumes that the trials will be completed twice as fast as is realistic. We must ask whether the trade-off is proportionate, especially when there is another option.

   Hansard source
9. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

   Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eleventh sitting)

   The Minister is in danger—there is a bit of a pattern here—of wanting to have things both ways. She is suggesting that waiting for Brian Leveson’s review, and the parliamentary time and effort going into the legislation, has had no impact or delay on the measures regarding specialist rape courts, which were in the Government’s manifesto and they could have just got on with from day one. That really stretches credibility. The Government must accept the consequences of their decisions. If they have decided that the erosion of jury trials is the way forward, they should just say that and accept that there has been a negative consequence on their manifesto commitment to introduce rape courts. The Minister cannot say, “We’re pretty much doing what we would have done anyway, and this is all fantastic from both sides of the paper.” It is really not.

   Hansard source
10. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eleventh sitting)

    Thank you, Sir John. I just want to make a simple point. The Minister said that what the Government want to do does not require primary legislation, but in the same speech referred to primary legislation that we are considering today as part of introducing specialist rape courts. It is obvious to anybody that there is a requirement for primary legislation. We waited a year for Brian Leveson and we are two years into the Parliament. There are uncontroversial clauses that we have not opposed; the Government could have got on with those and passed them within six months, and they would be operating right now. I just do not think the Minister’s argument that nothing has been lost from progress on these issues because of the jury trial reforms stands up to scrutiny.

    Hansard source
11. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eleventh sitting)

    I rise to speak in support of amendments 59, 35 and 36 tabled in my name, and the amendments outlined by the hon. Member for Chichester, all of which enjoy our support. Our amendments seek to ensure that efficiencies and improvements to the system are made, increasing the maximum of sitting days to 130,000 and, in a different way, addressing the issue of sitting hours. We are debating the fundamental restructuring of our criminal justice system, and the Government’s central argument—the Minister has admitted that it is not the sole argument; even though most of the rest of the Government talk about this as a necessity, she thinks it should be done anyway—is that the Crown court is in a state of emergency with the backlog that we all agree is causing much distress to victims and innocent defendants alike. Amendment 59 asks the Government to take all reasonable steps to increase Crown court sitting days and address the other challenges in the system that are limiting our ability to tackle the backlog—the avoidable operational failures currently crippling our courts. We must remember that Sir Brian Leveson acknowledged that jury trials are the gold standard of our justice system. The Minister herself accepted that there was something special about them. Juries are not just a step in a trial; they are a democratic barrier between the individual and the overreach of authority. They are an important way in which citizens participate in our justice system. The Deputy Prime Minister has been one of the biggest cheerleaders of the value and importance of jury trials, describing them as a “success story” and comparing them less favourably with the magistrates courts—although I am sure he respects and understands the benefit of magistrates courts—because of the ability of 12 citizens to look at a case uniquely and without prejudice. Productivity in the Crown court has fallen significantly, and analysis shows that courts are hearing approximately 20% fewer hours per sitting day than they were less than a decade ago. In evidence to us, the Bar Council shared analysis showing that the average for which each Crown court judge sits in court each day has fallen to 3.2 hours. That is due to inefficiencies such as technological breakdown, prisoner transport delays and difficulties with interpreter services. Just getting back to the 2016-17 level of 3.8 hours would be an 18% improvement, far outstripping the much debated, but we think much fairer, figure of a 1% to 2% improvement in relation to the reforms to jury trials. If the Government were serious about efficiency, they would start by addressing the low-hanging fruit in respect of the logistical problems. Members will remember the evidence from the HMCTS civil servant tasked with running the system, asking for it to operate efficiently. He talked about listing, prison transport and sitting days as his priorities, and none of the things that he felt would make a significant impact required any changes to jury trials. Prisoner escort and custody services, as they are known, have been a strong theme of concern from a wide variety of witnesses. The figures that I have show that there were 713 ineffective trials in 2023 solely because the prison escort service failed to deliver a defendant to court on time. Reports from barristers indicate that, in a quarter of cases, their clients were brought to court more than five hours late, meaning that the trial day could not start on time or was lost entirely. That grit in the system causes thousands of hours of delays across our courts, yet the Government’s priority is to remove the jury trial rather than fix the transport contract. Another major drain on efficiency is the timing of guilty pleas. Sir Brian Leveson noted that defendants used to plead guilty at their first or second appearance, but we now see many examples of guilty pleas occurring at the fifth or sixth occasion. The Minister is right to raise that, and we accept that one element is delays in the court system that reduce the incentive for a guilty plea. We have heard evidence that defendants would say, “I just want to hold off my guilty plea until I have a last Christmas,” but that has now become, “I want another two Christmases.” So we understand the delays, but they are not the only reason and are not an insurmountable problem. Instead of removing the right to a jury, the Government should focus on improving access to early legal advice, which we know can make a big difference. We can also learn from courts such as Liverpool Crown court that have a laser focus on an approach to listing, which encourages early engagement by defendants and legal representatives alike. That has produced results with their Crown court backlogs that are nothing like the national figure. They are not alone in showing what can be done without the need to erode our jury trial rights. The Bar Council points to other successes in the system and says that blitz courts, established by Crown courts such as Preston, Liverpool, Nottingham and others, are effective. Preston Crown court’s listing of domestic abuse cases from the autumn of 2024 until this year has reduced the time between plea and trial preparation hearing, listing and trial by 16%. Ipswich Crown court’s backlog is down 28% since January 2024, and Derby Crown court’s fast-track courts are being run with a specific focus on cases with allegations of domestic abuse. That scheme has been successful, with those cases now being listed for trial sooner than when they might have been otherwise. We also received evidence that the circuit in Wales does not have a backlog that is anything like the rest of the country, which shows what can be done. The Government promise that judge-only trials will be 20% faster, but that figure is based on highly uncertain assumptions and anecdotal evidence. We have made the argument in Committee that there might be savings up front, but we could lose those savings in the time taken by judges to deliberate and provide their summation, which we should also weigh up. Amendment 59 relates to all the things that could be done to improve efficiency without necessarily having an increase in sitting days, but we cannot support the removal of constitutional rights while we have not even hit the maximum sitting days target that Sir Brian Leveson recommended. Amendment 35 would require the Government to demonstrate that they have funded at least 130,000 Crown court sitting days before they can commence their reforms. That figure is the target number that Sir Brian says the Government should seek to achieve if they want to bring down the backlog. Our amendment would require HMCTS to assess that those sitting days have, as far as possible, been fully utilised, and that ties in with amendment 59. It is no good the Government funding, in theory, a maximum number of sitting days if they are not able to utilise them for various reasons, some of which I have covered. Amendment 35 would also require the Lord Chancellor to make a statement to the House confirming that, even after those steps have been taken, the number of cases pending trial has not been reduced compared with the start of the financial year. We are essentially putting forward a litmus test. If the Government want to say that they have no other options and that there is no other way to do this, they should at least take the steps recommended by Sir Brian in terms of efficiencies, reforming how the system operates and having the maximum number of sitting days, which they have to get to at some point anyway if they want to argue in support of Sir Brian Leveson’s report as a litmus test for what is sufficient. If the Government are confident in their analysis, they should have no difficulty meeting that test. I know the Minister will talk about the time it will take to reach that point, but the dial can be pushed both ways. I do not think the Government are seriously suggesting that the jury trial element of the reforms will make a drastic difference to the backlog in the next one or two years. As we have discussed, the time saving of the jury trial element on its own is not that significant. Amendment 36 has a different approach, but seeks to make the same point as new clause 4, tabled the hon. Member for Chichester, which relates to having two court sittings a day. Our amendment 36 asks the Government to approach another possible alternative reform of the operating hours of our courts—specifically, the potential for extending court sitting hours and introducing weekend sittings. If we are in a state of emergency, as the Government claim, our response should focus on maximising the use of our existing infrastructure, rather than dismantling the rights of the citizen. At present, our Crown courts often operate typically between 10 am and 4.30 pm. It is difficult to justify a policy that removes the right to a jury trial—a move estimated to save perhaps as little as 1.5% to 2.5% of court time—when we are leaving so many hours of the working day and the entirety of the weekend completely unutilised. Working normal business hours such as 9 to 5, or even utilising Saturdays for specific types of hearings, could provide a far more substantial reduction in the backlog than the structural reforms proposed in the Bill. We recognise that a possible move towards extended or weekend hours must be handled with extreme care. That is why we proposed amendment 36, which would require the Lord Chancellor to undertake a comprehensive consultation on the potential introduction of extended sitting hours before the reforms can commence. Operational changes of this magnitude cannot be mandated from a desk in Whitehall without understanding the impact on the human beings who keep the system running. The consultation would address the practical realities that will determine whether such a system is viable and sustainable, including the availability and wellbeing of HMCTS staff, who are already under significant pressure; the level of fees and remuneration required for legal professionals and court staff to work non-standard hours; and the impact on legal aid practitioners, many of whom, as we have discussed, find the challenges of working in criminal legal aid difficult. We must ensure that those who would be asked to work in this way—judges, barristers, solicitors and court staff—believe that any such plans are appropriate and supported by proper resourcing. To impose extended hours without their consent and without addressing the current crisis in retention and recruitment would potentially be counterproductive, rather than a benefit. Where could we look for an example of how this can be done in a way that is welcomed by staff who want to increase their income in a fair way? I was glad that the Minister raised the example of the NHS, which has an equivalent issue with waiting lists as we do with Crown court waiting times. The NHS uses weekend operating as a core part of its elective recovery strategy. To be clear, the NHS has always been a 24 hours a day, seven days a week service for urgent and emergency care, but it specifically uses additional, elective, planned operations. By opening facilities 7 days a week, the health service aims to maximise the use of expensive equipment and theatre space that would otherwise sit idle. I am sure that every Committee member can see the direct read-across. The Crown court is an expensive space with expensive equipment that sits empty and unutilised in what the Government describes as a crisis. A national programme in 50 hospitals runs what is called a weekend hitlist once a month. That approach focuses on one type of procedure a day, such as 24 endometriosis surgeries in a single weekend. It was pioneered by Guy’s and St Thomas’ foundation trust—the trust that looks after many of us when we are not well—and it is now being scaled up nationwide. The approach uses high staffing levels, rigorous pre-op assessment and enhanced theatre utilisation. Again, the read-across could not be more direct. We could have courts with trained staff to consider particular types of cases that had been assessed in advance as suitable for such sessions. Those courts could be set up to make the most of that, whether it is a Saturday or an evening. It is not just in those approaches that we see the Government and the NHS thinking more innovatively about how to make use of resources. Many of us now have community diagnostic centres in our constituencies. I know from when I was a junior doctor that, previously, it was extremely difficult to organise certain types of scans out of hours. The NHS have reformed the whole approach so that such tests, which had typically been restricted to just the working day, can now take place seven days a week to maximise capacity.

    Hansard source
12. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eleventh sitting)

    The Minister is correct. That is the only time I have referred to it more broadly; I have been consistent throughout in saying that it is a system with significantly less access to jury rights than there is at present. There is a third way: to take the path towards operational excellence and better placed resourcing. We should not trade a centuries-old right for a 1.5% efficiency gain on a Government spreadsheet.

    Hansard source
13. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eleventh sitting)

    It is all very well for the Minister to make that statement. Why does she think that?

    Hansard source
14. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eleventh sitting)

    I intervened when the Minister said she thought that extending sitting hours would make things worse. When I asked her to explain that, she then said that she thought the benefit would be minimal. That is a different point. Given that we have said there should be an extensive consultation to figure out all those things, so that it appeals to people, such that that they will want to take part in these extended sitting hours, why would it make things worse? If people are willing to do it, I just do not see the logic of that point.

    Hansard source
15. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Courts and Tribunals Bill (Twelfth sitting)

    Interestingly, we have been told all along that this is about the complexity of cases, yet the evidence is that the number of hours that things have been looked at has shrunk. To me, that is a much bigger issue. If we have fewer hours in a day to operate, of course it is going to take longer to get through complex cases.

    Hansard source
16. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Courts and Tribunals Bill (Twelfth sitting)

    I wish to speak briefly in support of the principle that different approaches to case management and ways of working are making a difference in a number of areas. The Committee has had extensive back and forth about the fact that backlogs are actually coming down in certain locations. There has been debate about whether that is just a seasonal trend that we see at some points in the year; we will have to wait to see whether that is the case. We have also spoken about the approach to case management in Liverpool, and this morning I read out various statistics from other courts that are bringing the backlogs down. I think new clause 7 drives at the same point; other measures are already showing benefits before the passage of this legislation, and we should prioritise them.

    Hansard source
17. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Courts and Tribunals Bill (Twelfth sitting)

    I rise to speak briefly in support of the new clause. Whenever we talk about narrowed elements of a transcript, I always think to myself that, in giving these remarks, the judge will hopefully have written them down and not be doing these sorts of things off the top of their head. That is why I struggle to understand why these more limited elements are not more meaningful and easily available. If a judge does not happen to write these sorts of things down, I do not think it will be much to ask them to do so and to make it so that the transcript can be quickly and easily checked. I appreciate that the hon. Member for Chichester will not press the new clause to a vote, but as she mentioned, in any opportunity we get we should push the issue of transcripts. It is particularly important in relation to, as we will come to talk about, the unduly lenient sentence scheme, because all these things would help somebody, in theory, to give an appeal a shot. If they do not have that sort of thing, it is much more difficult.

    Hansard source
18. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Courts and Tribunals Bill (Twelfth sitting)

    My new clause 24 and new clause 18 in the name of the hon. Member for Chichester seek to achieve a similar outcome. Although there is broad agreement that the backlog is a challenging issue that must be addressed, we believe that any measure that curtails jury trial rights in such a significant—and, I would say, unprecedented—way should be proportionate to the problem it seeks to solve and be used only for as long as absolutely necessary while we are presented with this problem. Therefore, we propose a sunset clause to ensure that the powers expire once the court backlog has returned to pre-pandemic levels for a sustained period. A sunset clause is a measure in a statute that provides for a law or specific provisions to cease to be effective after a predetermined date, or once a specific condition is met, unless Parliament takes further action to renew them. Although they have experienced a resurgence in recent decades as a tool for managing extraordinary or controversial measures, sunset clauses have been employed by Parliament since at least 1500. Historically and in contemporary practice, they serve vital democratic functions. They are used to facilitate the passage of controversial legislation by assuring critics and the public that the measures are temporary, rather than a permanent erosion. They act as a safeguard for democracy, particularly when emergency legislation is required, by preventing the normalisation of extraordinary powers. Furthermore, sunset clauses create a more formal trigger for post-legislative scrutiny, forcing both the Executive and the legislature to revisit their assumptions and evaluate whether a law has been effective before deciding whether to prolong its life. The Terrorism Act 2006 and the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 both utilise sunsetting or recurring renewal requirements to ensure ongoing parliamentary oversight. More recently, sunset clauses were used in covid-19 legislation to ensure that restrictive measures did not extend longer than necessary. The UK Coronavirus Act 2020 contained a two-year sunset clause and a requirement for six-monthly reviews to determine whether temporary provisions should expire early. When considering radical changes to our trial system during a time of crisis, we should look to our history for a more direct precedent. During world war two, a period when our continued existence as a free nation was genuinely uncertain, the Government of the day did not choose to radically cut down the use of jury trials or erode the right of the citizen to elect to be judged by their peers. Instead, they reduced the number of jurors from 12 to seven. Importantly, that was a temporary adjustment. As soon as the Nazi threat was defeated, the Government of the day restored the number of jurors to 12. That demonstrates a principled understanding that emergency measures taken in response to a temporary crisis should be reversed once that crisis is resolved. In contrast, the measures before us today regarding the erosion of jury trials and the abolition of the right to elect are drafted as permanent changes to our statute book, with no built-in mechanism for their reversal once the backlog is managed again. As I have said, that is a significant departure from the most closely related historical example of what we did during even the darkest days of the 1940s. Our sunset clause would tie the duration of these reforms to the very problem they are intended to fix. The Government’s case is that these are necessary, backlog-driven measures, and it is entirely consistent to state that they should expire once that backlog is brought down to a more historically normal level, which we define as the pre-pandemic level—a level that the system was able to manage sufficiently, if not perfectly, without the need for structural erosion of the right to a jury.

    Hansard source
19. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Courts and Tribunals Bill (Twelfth sitting)

    I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. If you will indulge me, Dr Huq, I want to congratulate the hon. Member for Rugby on the news that he has been appointed as a trade envoy. We can all recognise that he has put an enormous amount of work into that. The Opposition think that he is amazing at selling the unsellable; he does it all the time. If he has British products to sell, he will be amazing at it. He should just double check that he is going to the south of Korea, rather than the north. As we have said before, we are debating a Bill that represents one of the most significant reconfigurations of our criminal justice system in modern history, and it is therefore unsurprising that we feel that other contingent parts of the system need to be considered in that light and adjusted accordingly. As we expand the reach and punitive power of the magistrates courts, we must ensure that our procedural safeguards in both directions keep pace with that expansion. That is the core purpose of new clause 26, which proposes to extend the unduly lenient sentence scheme to triable either-way offences, which will now be increasingly retained and sentenced at the summary level. If we can trust magistrates with the power to deprive a citizen of their liberty for up to two years, the public must have the assurance that there is a mechanism to correct sentencing decisions that fall in the other direction by being unduly lenient. The Government have occasionally attempted to reframe their reforms as affecting only low-level or petty crimes such as shoplifting, but the reality of the triable either-way category is very different from that. As the Criminal Bar Association and JUSTICE have pointed out, some of the offences that will be almost exclusively in the jurisdiction of the magistrates courts include unlawful wounding, actual bodily harm and, as we have discussed, even some sexual assault cases. Those are offences where the impact on the victims can be very significant. For some time, I have been aware of dissatisfaction in many ways with the punitive element of our justice system, and whether it sufficiently punishes perpetrators in a way that victims and the wider public would consider to be justice. That is one of the reasons why the unduly lenient sentence scheme exists. In the Crown court, sentencing outcomes are subject to the oversight of the Attorney General’s office through the unduly lenient sentences scheme. It is an essential safety valve that helps contribute to public confidence by allowing the public—it has always been open to the public—and, most importantly for me, victims and family members to refer unduly lenient sentences for consideration by the Court of Appeal. As I have talked about previously, I have made it use of it and so have other Members of the House, so it is important. It would be illogical to allow offences with the same potential gap in public confidence in the outcome to be without this equivalent safeguard, simply because the Government have decided to change the likely venue of trial in so many of these cases. The need for the extension is further underscored by the evidence on the rate of appeal of sentences from the perspective of defendants. About 47% of appeals against sentences from the magistrates courts result in a change. Those figures are not marginal; they indicate that the lower courts fall into meaningful error in nearly half of the cases where they are challenged. That is from the perspective of the defendant—that is, the person found guilty—appealing the sentence. There is nothing to suggest that, if victims were given a similar opportunity to challenge sentences, no similar rate of error would be found from their perspective. That is, at the very least, of equal importance to someone who has campaigned significantly on behalf of victims in sentencing. For me, it is probably the more important of the two. Historically, one of the primary arguments against extending the ULS scheme to magistrates courts was a practical one: there was no comprehensive record of the proceedings and sentencing decisions were often delivered without the detailed recorded remarks that characterised the Crown court. However, the Bill fundamentally changes that landscape. Schedule 2 introduces proposed reforms to introduce a mandatory requirement for audio recording and the provision of transcripts in the magistrates court. The Government are making this change to support their new appeal model, recognising that a fair system cannot function without an accurate record of what was said and decided. This move towards digital transparency is a game changer for sentencing accountability for victims as well. As the Minister herself noted, sunshine is the best disinfectant. Once we have a reliable audio record of the sentencing remarks and the mitigations offered, the logistical barriers to reviewing a sentence for undue leniency from a victim’s perspective and that of the wider public falls away. We will, for the first time, have the infrastructure to allow the Office of the Attorney General to scrutinise sentences with the same precision applied to the Crown court. We should use this new capability to ensure that the sentencing code is applied fairly. Extended sentencing powers must be matched with extended accountability. If a magistrate is given power more akin to a judge, then they must be subject to the same oversight of their sentencing decisions. New clause 6 is not about creating more work for the Court of Appeal; it is about ensuring that, as we redraw the boundaries of our legal system, we do not leave victims of serious crime behind in a two-tier justice system where leniency cannot be corrected. In summary, the proposals to extend the ULS scheme to either-way offences is a necessary and proportionate response to the Government’s radical restructuring of the trial process. Magistrates will soon be passing sentence on much more serious offences where the interest of victims will be of even greater concern. The record is improving to allow this to happen at the same time and it is common sense that there is consistency. I do not think there is a rational basis for excluding more serious offences from the ULS scheme simply because of the venue. We should not wait for a high-profile case where a victim is concerned and able to seek redress in the way that they might in the Crown court. I ask the Minister to be proactive. I can understand that the Minister would perhaps argue for a more gradual approach—and perhaps not applying it to every single case might be a compromise that the Minister could bring forward. Perhaps it should be for the more serious of these less-serious, more-serious cases. However, I certainly think that we can have some kind of progress.

    Hansard source
20. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Courts and Tribunals Bill (Twelfth sitting)

    The Minister opened her remarks by saying that the scheme applies only to certain cases in the Crown court. The point that the Opposition make is that it will no longer apply to some of the cases to which it would apply now. The Minister has given figures. If the scheme is configured in the right way, and sufficiently constrained to just pick up those cases that are moving, it should not necessarily lead to any increase in the number of cases referred, so I do not accept her argument. I would not expect the Minister to know this—she has given a single set of figures—but I would be interested in the historical trend, and the number of applications in the preceding few years. It would be helpful if she could give those figures. I also want to make clear—I have been quite clear about this with other stuff that we have done on the ULS scheme—I think it is unusual that the scheme is available to absolutely anybody. I would be open to any expansion or modification being constrained just to victims and family members. I think that I have made that clear in relation to other reforms. That brings me to the Minister’s point about the Law Commission. That was the answer I was given repeatedly over very many months by the Victims Minister as to why the Government would not make reforms to the scheme, yet they accepted such reforms last week as a result of pressure. If the Minister insists that that is the route forward, I ask her to write to the commission. I point out the reforms that the Minister is making, which will not have been in the terms of reference for the Law Commission. At the point at which it started that work, the reforms were not even on the operating table, so it is important that the Government write to the commission and make clear that they would welcome it expanding the matters that it is considering to include this question, which would have been novel to them at the point of that undertaking. I have learned from our experience with the other element of the ULS that, I am afraid, one should just keep pushing and pushing on such issues, so I will put the new clause to a vote. However, I have given some points on which I ask the Minister to go away and reflect to determine whether there is a way forward that can be satisfactory to both sides of the House at some point in future proceedings. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

    Hansard source
21. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Courts and Tribunals Bill (Twelfth sitting)

    As I have alluded to several times, the Conservative party is considering more broadly how we tackle judicial accountability in all its different elements. It would be premature for us to settle on this new clause if, as the hon. Member for Chichester pointed out, it had to be necessarily narrow to fit in the Bill. On that basis we will not vote for it. We are not against it as an idea, but we need greater time to think about accountability and performance in the justice system in a more comprehensive way.

    Hansard source
22. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Courts and Tribunals Bill (Twelfth sitting)

    I have just one remark to make. I draw the Committee’s attention to the submission we received from the circuit in Wales. Clause 25 is about the territorial extent of the Bill, and the circuit pointed out that it feels the Welsh system has been unfairly caught up in these reforms, which it does not think are applicable in terms of the need to reduce waiting times. It is important that the Committee makes note of the evidence that was submitted to us. I join the Minister in thanking everybody for their time and deep concentration when listening to the exchanges throughout. I thank the Clerks who have assisted us over the many days, including during a late sitting. I thank the House staff in that regard, and I thank the Minister for the constructive manner in which she has engaged with feedback and proposals from this side of the House.

    Hansard source
23. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

    I refer the hon. Member to the words of Mr Speaker earlier. It is the Speaker who decides whether a privilege motion goes ahead. The hon. Member is criticising Mr Speaker for having allowed it.

    Hansard source
24. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·Dr Caroline Johnson

    Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

    My hon. Friend is, as usual, making an excellent speech. He is talking about the composition of the Privileges Committee. Is it right to say that a majority of its members are Labour Members? The Prime Minister would be asking his own colleagues, among others, to judge him.

    Hansard source
25. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·Dr Andrew Murrison

    Fire and Rescue Services: Funding

    I will call Matt Vickers to move the motion and then call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and from the Minister. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.

    Hansard source
26. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·Dr Andrew Murrison

    National Accident Prevention Strategy

    With a huge sense of trepidation, as he was not here for the openings—or at least not until the very end of them.

    Hansard source
27. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·David Simmonds

    English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

    I put on the record my thanks to the Minister and colleagues in her Department for the constructive spirit in which they have approached the negotiations around the Bill. It remains the official Opposition’s view that the Bill’s overall direction of travel is a centralising one: it brings into effect many new powers for the Secretary of State to direct the work of local authorities and, in particular, the new mayors and the strategic responsibilities that they undertake will all be subject to a degree of direct influence from Whitehall. However, it clearly is in the interests of all parties represented in the House to seek to reach agreement on those points that have remained in contention. I know that I share the Minister’s sense of delight at once again being here at the Dispatch Box discussing Lords amendments. Let me briefly address the Lords amendments in turn. The Minister set out clearly the Government’s agreement to step back from some of the directions which were included in the original legislation. That is one example of where the Opposition felt there was centralising power within the legislation. However, the Government have been constructive in the way they have approached that and have recognised that there is a degree of justification around that backstop power to avoid a situation where the whole country is covered by combined authorities but some councils are left outside of those boundaries. I know that many Members have expressed concern in the debates, both in Bill Committee and in the Chamber, at the impact that that would have, particularly on opportunities for economic development. Let me turn to the brownfield amendment. Opposition Members have been resolute from the outset in saying that whatever new arrangements the Government are determined to implement, we need to ensure that local communities can continue to stand up for and protect the green spaces they cherish, whether those are greenfield sites used for agriculture, or greenfield and green-belt sites used for leisure to provide that buffer around our cities and suburbs.

    Hansard source
28. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·David Simmonds

    English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

    My hon. Friend is absolutely spot on in what he says. Members across the Chamber have been surprised to hear Reform say that it wishes to tear up London’s green belt as part of the local election campaign. I am grateful to the Minister and her colleagues for recognising, in the fine tradition of many Labour councils, that we need to ensure that there are sufficient provisions in the legislation to ensure the protection of those vital green spaces for future generations. I am especially grateful to the Minister for making what may seem like a fairly technical change, but as she has just told us from the Dispatch Box, it establishes for the first time, after five rounds of ping-pong, a clear hierarchy in the legislation that sets out that the new mayors, in their spatial development strategies, will need to prioritise brownfield land for development. Many Members across the House expressed concerns when we debated local government reorganisation just a few weeks ago about the impact of housing targets being displaced. That will be more effectively managed under the amendments that have been agreed across the House tonight. That is a distinct step forward from all our perspectives. Finally, I will briefly touch on local authority governance. We recognise that there is a difference of opinion. It is the Opposition’s view that local authorities should be able to set up their structure of governance in a way that reflects their local circumstances. Although our strong view is that the leader and cabinet model is the most efficient and effective way to do that, people taking decisions with which we may disagree is the essence of local democracy. The Government’s agreement to pause the use of that requirement means that there will be a period in which local authorities can reflect on their governance arrangements and consult if they wish to do so, and the normal cycle of local elections can take place—of course, there will also be a parliamentary election. I think we all know that the matter of local government reorganisation never entirely stops; it merely starts again at a different point in each parliamentary cycle, so there will be further opportunities to reflect on it, but in the context of the Bill, about which we still have significant concerns, those agreements reflect progress in a direction that makes us much more comfortable. For those reasons, we do not propose to divide the House.

    Hansard source
29. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·David Davis

    Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

    Sometimes the wisdom of the House is crystallised in the comments of us ordinary Back Benchers. That was particularly evident today in the brave speech of the hon. Member for South Shields (Emma Lewell) and, indeed, the intervention of the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) on the Leader of the Opposition. Both Members said, in effect, that what we have lived through in the last several months is a tragedy—not just for the House, not just for the Government, not just for the Labour party, but for the trust in government, and in our democracy among ordinary people. At the risk of expulsion from my own party, I will admit to having hoped after the election that this Prime Minister would succeed, because it was in the interests of the country that he did so, but in some ways even more importantly, it was in the interests of our democracy. There is already extant throughout the western world a corrosion of belief in democracy; that goes on and on, and this will make it worse. We are here today for a simple reason. Statements made by the Prime Minister in this Chamber are at odds with those provided by the civil service on the material issue of Peter Mandelson. This matters. It is not a stunt. Honesty between Ministers and Parliament is fundamental to our democracy. Without it, scrutiny fails. Without it, accountability fails. Without it, trust fails. The responsibility for absolute honesty rests most heavily on the Prime Minister, so the standard that should be met by the Prime Minister is even higher than that applying to others. Recklessness with the truth from any Minister is unacceptable; from the Prime Minister, it is indefensible. All political parties have their inherent flaws—and I am not going to spend a whole day talking about mine—but the origins of this situation lie in a stance often taken by Labour MPs, which is that good intentions somehow justify bad decisions. It is a case of saying, “We mean well, so our mistakes do not matter” or, worse, “We mean well, so we should be forgiven for anything”, whether it is freebies or wrong appointments or whatever. That mindset, which I am afraid constitutes a sanctimonious arrogance sustained by a habit of believing their own propaganda, is precisely what led to the appointment of a deeply unsuitable individual as our ambassador to Washington: a man twice dismissed after scandal; a man now under formal investigation by the European Union’s anti-fraud office; a man who had an extraordinary relationship with a convicted paedophile; a man driven, above all, by a pursuit of glamour, money and status; a man who turned amorality into an art form—and, in addition to that, a man plainly compromised by over-close relationships with the proxies of both the Russian and the Chinese Governments. Together, those facts should have made this appointment unthinkable, yet the concerns were brushed aside. The head of the diplomatic service, as we heard this morning in the Foreign Affairs Committee, was not even consulted. Why? Because within the London establishment, a ludicrous self-deception had taken hold—that the peculiarities of the Trump Administration could be countered by the peculiarities of Peter Mandelson.

    Hansard source
30. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·David Davis

    Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

    That is entirely true, and in fact, the current Trump Administration made the same point to the Government before the nomination of Peter Mandelson. That perverse logic led to the most obviously unwise public appointment in modern times, and the implied message, unfortunately, was clear: “Government appointments rest on networks of patronage; great offices of state are perks to be handed out to friends.” It is systemic. They even tried to secure an ambassadorial appointment for Lord Doyle, a man so unsuitable that he has even had the Whip withdrawn. Mandelson’s unsuitability was evident before vetting began. It would have been surprising had the vetting service not found grounds to reject the appointment. I suspect that No. 10 knew that, and leant on the Foreign Office to ensure that the outcome was secured quickly and without question. One Member—I cannot remember his name, or see him in the Chamber—tried to suggest earlier that pressure on time was different from pressure on outcome, but when vetting is involved, it is not. My first positive vetting took six months. Now, I know I have unreliable friends, but I have fewer, I think, than Lord Mandelson. It would have taken quite a long time to get to the bottom of all the issues relating to Lord Mandelson. Saying “You’ve got to do it quickly” is the same as saying “You’ve got to do it shoddily.” Let us not lose sight of that.

    Hansard source
31. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·David Davis

    Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

    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.

    Hansard source
32. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·David Davis

    Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

    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.

    Hansard source
33. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·Charlie Dewhirst

    Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

    I am mindful of Mr Speaker’s advice about repetition. I will keep my remarks short and to the point. We have had a number of speeches in which Labour Members have debated whether the threshold for referring this matter to the Privileges Committee has been met. If we look at the evidence, there are clearly some very concerning issues arising from the documents that have been released into the public domain, and from what has been said on the Floor of this House and what has not. Let us take the advice given by Simon Case in November 2024, when he was Cabinet Secretary. It is clear from that document, which was released following the Humble Address motion, that the Prime Minister was advised that if he wanted to make a political appointment, vetting should be done before the appointment was made. We now know that did not happen. We can also take the letter that Chris Wormald, as Cabinet Secretary, sent to the Prime Minister in September 2025, asserting that the process that was followed was in line with the advice given by Simon Case to the Prime Minister. That is important, because the Prime Minister has referred back to that letter as a reason to accept that due process was followed, yet that letter seems, on the face of it, to be inaccurate. We in this House need to investigate that. We then come to the Prime Minister’s answer at Prime Minister’s questions on 22 April, in which he replaced the word “that” with “any”; he implied that there had not been “any” pressure, instead of saying “that pressure”. When that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) at Cabinet Office questions last Thursday, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster asserted on the Floor of the House: “I think the difference between the words ‘that’ and ‘any’ is not of material relevance”.—[Official Report, 23 April 2026; Vol. 784, c. 420.] Anyone with a basic grasp of English, having heard the testimony of Olly Robbins and the Prime Minister’s answer, would clearly say that the Prime Minister has tried, at least in my view, to misrepresent what Mr Robbins told the Foreign Affairs Committee. That, too, is an extremely powerful reason why this matter needs to be referred. I come to the matter of the unanswered questions, or the evidence that we do not have. I refer again to Simon Case’s advice to the Prime Minister back in 2024. What was released following the Humble Address motion is just Mr Case’s evidence; the box for the Prime Minister’s comments remains blank. Are we expected to believe that the Prime Minister did not respond to the advice given to him by the Cabinet Secretary, or has that advice been withheld from this House? I think that question needs to be answered. There are other matters, such as the evidence regarding Peter Mandelson that the Prime Minister did see; he confirmed to the House at Prime Minister’s questions that he did see some of it, regarding Jeffrey Epstein. However, he has refused to say whether he was aware of Mr Mandelson’s business links, particularly with Russia, and his directorship of Sistema, even after Russia invaded Ukraine. Then there is the matter of documents of which the Government are unwilling to confirm even the existence, such as Mr Mandelson’s declaration of interests. We have asked repeatedly whether that document exists—we are not asking whether it will be published in full at this point—and we have not received answers. Then today we find Morgan McSweeney giving evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee and confirming that the first meeting regarding the potential appointment of Mr Mandelson as ambassador to the United States took place in December. The Cabinet Office has said that it has no record of the meeting. Were there no minutes taken of that meeting? If not, why not? Or have those minutes somehow vanished? All those are very good reasons why this matter needs to be referred.

    Hansard source
34. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·Charlie Dewhirst

    Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

    I could not agree more with my right hon. Friend. It is absolutely astonishing that the decision to appoint an individual to the most important ambassadorial role that we can offer took place in a meeting of which there now appears to be no record. We have three clear issues: a discrepancy in the documents that have been published; an inaccurate recollection of events in response to questions in this House, whether inadvertent or deliberate; and a failure to provide full transparency in relation to this sorry saga. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) said, the Prime Minister is losing in the court of public opinion, and therefore the best route for him now is to refer himself to the Privileges Committee to make his case and perhaps clear his name. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) said, it is not always the cock-up—and we know in this case that the decision to appoint Peter Mandelson was a cock-up—that brings you down but the conspiracy.

    Hansard source
35. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

    Order. May I remind the hon. Lady that much of her speech has been addressed to me, but I am not speaking or voting this afternoon?

    Hansard source
36. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

    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.

    Hansard source
37. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

    Order. I have made the point previously, but please will Members confine themselves to debating the issue at hand and not get into fighting the local election campaign?

    Hansard source
38. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

    Order. I am going to make this point again: we are debating privilege, not the Government’s record and actions.

    Hansard source
39. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Select Committees

    I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order. She will know that that is not a matter for the Chair, but she has put that correction on the record.

    Hansard source
40. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·Bradley Thomas

    Retail, Hospitality and Leisure: Business Rates

    16. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of changes to business rates announced in the autumn Budget 2025 on the retail, hospitality and leisure sector.

    Hansard source