April 2026

As others have said, it is important that when we speak in this place we reflect the feelings of those we represent, and I think that if they see anything at all in all of this, they will be thinking about Epstein’s victims. As someone who knows more about sexual abuse than I would like to, I want to be absolutely clear, before I make any other remarks, that I think that it was wrong to appoint Peter Mandelson, even knowing what the Prime Minister knew at the time. But I will also say this: the

A moment ago, the Leader of the Opposition described the statement read out by the Prime Minister as “doctored”. That is akin to saying that it was dishonest and that he was lying. Is that not unparliamentary language, Mr Speaker?

I believe so, Mr Speaker.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

A moment ago, the Leader of the Opposition talked about selective quoting. I am sure that she would not want to selectively quote Sir Olly Robbins herself, so could she tell us what the rest of that quote was? When he talked about pressure, was he talking about pressure to deliver a decision in time for President Trump’s inauguration, or was he saying that he felt pressure to materially change what the decision would be? That is quite an important distinction, is it not?

rose—

Dorset and Wiltshire Fire and Rescue Service’s core spending power is going up over the three years only because of the increase in local taxpayers. The actual amount being provided is going down, not just in real terms but in actual cash terms. We simply do not have enough money to keep our fire stations open. Will the Minister commit to meet us again to look at reforming our funding formula for Dorset and Wiltshire?

Parliamentary appearance by Andrew Pakes

Will the Minister give way?

Last week in the emergency debate I spoke about the appointment of Peter Mandelson, the approach taken by the Prime Minister as details have become available, and the vetting process overall. Today, I want to address the motion and why I feel it is premature. In doing so, I believe that three principles of this House are key to our considerations today: transparency, due process and proportionality. A privilege motion is a serious matter and a tool available for Parliament to use in such circums

My point is about our consideration of the motion. The fact that Mr Speaker made the decision means we are here discussing it. I am putting a case forward about why I think it is premature to vote on the motion today. Just because the Leader of the Opposition and others have decided to table it does not make it right; it is clearly a political and partisan process. I am clear that any allegations or concerns must be addressed, and it is clear that the Prime Minister is of that view, too. It is w

The right hon. Gentleman should understand that we are here today only because of things that have been determined, whether from the release of papers through the Humble Address or from evidence people have given to the Foreign Affairs Committee. For him to say that those processes have no relevance is wrong; they absolutely have full relevance. My whole case is that we should let those processes complete in their entirety. That is why I believe this motion is premature. Given that those process

I am a humble Back Bencher, and I would not disagree with my Chief Whip in respect of his decisions on how to apply the whip. That is a matter for him. All the inquiries that I have mentioned are ongoing, and are being robustly pursued. I fear, therefore, that the motion risks setting an unhealthy precedent, namely that unproven allegations alone are sufficient to utilise one of Parliament’s most serious procedures. That is not something with which any of us should be comfortable. The naked poli

Parliamentary appearance by Sarah Edwards

The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent point in advocating for his area. Does he agree that sometimes cuts can inadvertently have a damaging effect on neighbouring areas? In my county of Berkshire, where there is an excellent fire service, cuts proposed in neighbouring Oxfordshire would have meant appliances in Reading having to travel up to 25 miles outside Reading to serve and cover for colleagues, leaving Reading exposed. Does he agree that that is not a great way to address these problems

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

To finish my metaphor—not about the SNP—we must hold steady, make the adjustments needed and focus on getting safely to better conditions. That is the task in front of us, and that is why I will support the Prime Minister to continue doing the job that he was elected to do, keep a steady hand on the tiller and guide the country through challenging times. I urge colleagues to do the same. In the end, this is about stability, seriousness and leadership, and that is what this country needs. Today’s

rose—

I will finish this point; I might then give way if I am feeling generous. That conduct was so grave that it resulted in a damning report, which I think the Leader of the Opposition abstained on, rather than voting in favour of it. Of course, that is quite aside from the fact that it also involved a criminal conviction. There is no equivalence—none—between those cases and what is before us today. If there was, there would have been a genuine attempt at a cross-party piece of persuasion. Instead,

No, I am going to make some progress. At most, what we are dealing with is an argument about, as I said, a deeply flawed appointment, a deeply flawed process and the judgments around it. Those are matters for political debate, for scrutiny and for challenge across the Chamber, but they are not in themselves grounds for alleging contempt of Parliament. If they were, the Privileges Committee would be constantly in session. That brings me to the question of consistency. In recent years, the House h