April 2026

May I begin by saying that the hon. Member’s speech—not least the beginning, when he visibly enjoyed his jokes more than the rest of the House—shows that, for the Conservative party, this is purely a joking matter? The Government take this seriously, however, so I will speak to the substance and the motivations behind the motion. Before I do so, I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions to the debate. I thank in particular hon. Friends and Members who reminded us, as they s

I will not—[Interruption.] I will happily give way in due course, but I want to turn to the substance of the motion first. In recent weeks, some have accused the Prime Minister of dishonesty, saying that there was no way that Foreign Office officials would have given Peter Mandelson clearance against the vetting agency’s recommendation, let alone without checking with the Prime Minister himself. The Leader of the Opposition herself on BBC Radio 4 said, “He knew”, and that “I know he is lying”. H

I think we have heard enough of the ranting incoherence of the Leader of the Opposition. Let us take the specific allegations in turn. First, as to whether the Prime Minister was correct when he said “full due process” was followed, yesterday the Government deposited a letter from the then Cabinet Secretary, Sir Chris Wormald, in the Library of the House. In that letter, it is clear that he was specifically asked by the Prime Minister to review whether due process was followed in the appointment

rose—

rose—

Is it due process to make a public announcement of an appointment before vetting is completed? Is it not the case that having made a public announcement, the Government created pressure on the process?

The hon. Gentleman has said a lot today, and there are others still waiting to speak. It is clear that there is a case to answer here. The decision we have to make is not whether we are definitively certain that the Prime Minister misled the House, but whether we feel that there is a case to be answered, and therefore whether this matter should be referred to the body that is in existence to deal with these issues: the Privileges Committee. As many Members have commented, the Prime Minister coul

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

Will the hon. Member give way?

rose—

Having recognised that, as Sir Philip Barton said this morning, there cannot be any doubt that there was pressure to get this “done as quickly as possible”—that is, to jump through all the hoops, to confirm an announcement that had already been made that Mandelson was appointed as ambassador—[Interruption.] That first bit is a quote; the next part of the sentence is my words. It simply stretches the bounds of reason to breaking point to suggest that pressure on timeframe, within the context of a

No, I will not give way; I think we need to make progress. The effect of using the word “whatsoever”, I think, was that the Prime Minister probably inadvertently misled himself. I am being generous, but what I am really saying to Labour Members is: “Watch out. You are probably working very well together to bring down the downfall of this Prime Minister.” My constituents would be delighted if there was a general election and a chance to change the Government, but the last thing they want is to ge

It is a pleasure to participate in this very important debate. I am going to add a perspective from someone who has never been in the Whips Office, but who has witnessed the dark arts of the Whips during his time in this place. I can see that what is happening today is that the Prime Minister has been persuaded by his Whips to issue a demand that all his troops should support him in voting down this motion, the consequence of which is that he will be even more unpopular, the results for Labour i

When the Minister kindly came to the APPG on park homes, he heard from Nat Slade, the environmental health officer for Arun district council, about the issues he faces and the need for urgent action on complex ownership structures, which was first promised in 2017. Where is that on the Minister’s agenda?

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I have been involved with the park homes issue for the best part of 30 years; I have 2,000 people in my constituency living in park homes, and I am much concerned by the abuses so many of them have suffered—not just in my constituency, but across the country. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for York Outer (Mr Charters), who referred to my private Member’s Bill, the Mobile Homes (Pitch Fees) Act 2023, which changed the pitch

The right hon. Gentleman should listen to my speech. I have just said that Catherine Little, Sir Chris Wormald and Sir Olly Robbins all agree on the point that due process was followed. When the Prime Minister received new information about the UKSV process this month, he immediately asked for the full facts to be established and he then come to this House on 20 April. On the statement that Peter Mandelson’s appointment was “subject to developed vetting”, the Prime Minister has always been clear

I am not going to answer silly questions. Next, on the question of pressure—[Interruption.] Many hon. Members have asked questions today about a general pressure, a specific pressure or a variety of different pressures, so they may want to listen to the answer. It is important to be clear about this, because there is pressure to get stuff done every day across every area of government, as we work hard to deliver for the British people. The Leader of the Opposition and other Members who have prev

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for bringing the voice of park home owners to Parliament. For many people, choosing a park home is not just a housing decision; it is about investing in the next chapter of their lives. It is a choice for peace and a slower, gentler pace of life. People sell their brick-and-mortar homes and invest their life savings. They are not chasing luxury; they are seeking a bit of security. Sir Alec, you will know that in York and North Yorksh

I am trying my best, but I have answered both those questions already from the Dispatch Box. I refer the hon. Lady to my comments.

I present a petition on behalf of residents of my constituency of Southgate and Wood Green who are concerned about illegal activities in shops on local high streets. It has been well documented in both national and local media that shops are being used for illegal activities, including in my constituency, and that is causing harm to the local community. Residents have expressed to me their concerns that the local authority has limited power to tackle the illegality, and that efforts to do so are