Ellie Chowns MP: speeches 2026

Speeches

• 28 Apr 2026 · Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges · Hansard source

  More

  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 Prime Minister who promised to restore honesty and integrity to government. I agree with the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome), who said powerfully that our constituents do care about honesty, truth, trust and integrity. It is well known that I have many criticisms of the Prime Minister and this Government, as do constituents across the country. Yes, he has repeatedly shown poor judgment. Yes, he has betrayed the hopes of those who voted for real change in 2024. Yes, I am deeply frustrated that we are having to spend so much time debating these issues, when our constituents face pressing daily concerns and a cost of living crisis to which we should be giving more attention. Yes, I think the Prime Minister should resign. However, that is not what we are here to discuss today. Our decision is not even on whether the Prime Minister misled the House, still less to judge whether it was an intentional or reckless misleading—our decision today is whether the Prime Minister has a case to answer on whether he may have misled the House, and it is absolutely clear that he does. Looking at the detail of the motion, it cites three quotes from the Prime Minister’s own words. The first is his assurance about “full due process” being followed in the appointment of Peter Mandelson. Just this morning, we heard yet more evidence from Sir Philip Barton, the primary civil servant in the Foreign Office at the time. He was categorical that the normal process is that vetting comes first and appointment comes later, but it was the opposite way round in this case. The Prime Minister, as the motion says, made it clear that his position was that Mandelson’s position was “subject to developed vetting”, and that, “No pressure existed whatsoever in relation to this case.” —[ Official Report , 22 April 2026; Vol. 784, c. 316.] That is clearly not a tenable position. Some colleagues on the Government Benches are asking us to believe, although it is perfectly clear that considerable pressure was put on the timescale—within the context of the already announced appointment of Peter Mandelson, within the context of there being no contingency plan if the vetting process failed him, and within the context that it would have been a complete foreign affairs crisis for that vetting process to have failed him—that there was still no pressure whatsoever on the process.

• 28 Apr 2026 · Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 28 Apr 2026 · Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Member give way?

• 28 Apr 2026 · Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges · Hansard source

  More

  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 an already announced decision where there was no contingency plan, had no impact on pressure on the content of that decision—

• 28 Apr 2026 · Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges · Hansard source

  More

  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 could and should refer himself to that Committee. It would clearly save a great deal of heartache within the Labour party. If he will not do that, all of us—whatever our party—owe it to our consciences and to our constituents to refer him to the Privileges Committee and to vote for this motion.

• 28 Apr 2026 · Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 28 Apr 2026 · Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 22 Apr 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  The Prime Minister appointed Mandelson in a desperate and doomed attempt to pander to Donald Trump, despite knowing about Mandelson’s friendship with the paedophile Epstein, and his links to foreign states. The Prime Minister resisted vetting, and then took a “dismissive” and extraordinarily incurious attitude to it, compromising national security, and now he has thrown a civil servant under the bus to save his own skin. All this from a Prime Minister who pledged to restore trust and integrity in Government, but who has repeatedly betrayed the trust of voters and let the country down. Does the Prime Minister not recognise that the best thing that he can do to restore trust and integrity is to take true responsibility and resign?

• 21 Apr 2026 · West Bank: Illegal Settlements · Hansard source

  More

  Israel is acting illegally in supporting settlement expansion, in committing genocide in Gaza, and in attacking Lebanon and Iran. As the Secretary of State says, all those actions are flagrant violations of international law. She says that we must “put pressure” on Israel, but she is doing nothing. Time and again, she and her Ministers come to the Chamber to condemn, but take no action. When will she ban settlement trade? When will she stop all military co-operation with Israel, which is conducting these illegal attacks? When will she take action?

• 21 Apr 2026 · Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Member give way?

• 21 Apr 2026 · Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment · Hansard source

  More

  Before I begin my remarks on the appointment of Peter Mandelson as UK ambassador to the US, I want to stress my profound respect for the victims and survivors of the disgusting child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. I very much hope that they are in the minds of all of us in the Chamber as we have the debate. We should remain mindful that the chain of events that has brought us to this point stems from their bravery in standing up and speaking out to expose Epstein’s crimes. What is at stake here is the future of the Prime Minister; there are certainly questions about the Prime Minister’s judgment. The Prime Minister’s sole defence appears to be that he just was not told, but it is clear that he did not understand the security vetting process, and actually he did not want to understand it. He did not want to do the security vetting process in the first place. He created a culture of political pressure that overrode that process. Finally, he has thrown a civil servant under the bus for failures that should be placed clearly at his own door. The Prime Minister did not clearly understand the process. There was a process of UKSV doing the developed vetting and then of the Foreign Office considering that. We have had Sir Olly Robbins giving evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee today, saying that there was a degree of grey area and that the case was borderline. He said that he only had a verbal briefing—he did not even see the piece of paper that made it clear that UKSV felt that Mandelson should not pass developed vetting—and that he decided that mitigations could be put in place in that system. It is clearly a process that the Prime Minister did not understand, despite the fact that at least one hon. Member has said today that this was very clearly notified to him in advance. The Prime Minister did not even want to do the process. Again, it is clear from Olly Robbins’s testimony that, even before he took up his position, there was a tussle between No. 10 and the Foreign Office about whether to undertake the vetting at all, with No. 10 just wanting to rush through the appointment and the previous permanent secretary having to dig his heels in to insist that the vetting was done. The FCDO was subsequently hassled by No. 10 to get the appointment done before Trump’s inauguration, without any curiosity or caveats about whether the vetting was passed. The Prime Minister asked no questions. He displayed terminal professional incuriosity and wilful ignorance. That is totally unacceptable. It is clear that no value was placed on the vetting process by No. 10, despite the PM now claiming that he is completely staggered that he was not told about it. Indeed, Olly Robbins today said that No. 10 had a “dismissive attitude” towards the vetting, putting in place a culture that established “a very, very strong expectation” that vetting would be passed. There was no culture of paying attention to due process; there was simply a culture of getting a political appointee in post as quickly as possible with minimal scrutiny. That did not apply just to Mandelson, either. Again, as we heard today from Olly Robbins, it applied to Matthew Doyle, with a request coming from No. 10 to put him into a position without even informing the Foreign Secretary. Now, the PM has a temper tantrum and sacks the civil servant because he is furious about that. The country is furious with the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has previously said that he takes responsibility for mistakes made in his team, but there is no accountability on show today. There is no responsibility taken by the Prime Minister. This is just one of numerous errors of judgment by the Prime Minister. He should resign.

• 21 Apr 2026 · Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment · Hansard source

  More

  In reference to the point that the hon. Member has just made, is she familiar with the YouGov poll that regularly asks the UK population how well they think Keir Starmer is doing as Prime Minister? Is she aware that the latest data shows that 70% of the UK population think that he is doing badly?

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  The Prime Minister says it is “staggering” and “unforgiveable” that he was not told about the vetting, but what is really staggering and unforgiveable is that he appointed Peter Mandelson before the vetting—that he appointed Peter Mandelson knowing about his friendship with the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein. What is unforgiveable is that the Prime Minister was more concerned with pandering to Donald Trump than with standing with the victims and survivors. The Prime Minister has not accepted a simple “sorry” from his civil servant—he thinks that is inadequate. The country thinks that a simple “sorry” is inadequate from him. Will he take personal responsibility for his staggering and unforgiveable errors of judgment—and resign?

• 16 Apr 2026 · Representation of the People Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 30 Cap on political donations “(1) Part 4 of PPERA 2000 (control of donations to registered parties and their members etc) is amended as follows. (2) After section 54B (Declaration as to whether residence etc condition satisfied) insert— ‘54C Power to set cap on political donations (1) A registered party must not accept a donation from a person if the value of donations from that person during the course of that calendar year exceeds the maximum amount specified by regulations made under subsection (3). (2) Where a registered party receives a donation which would cause the limit for the purposes of subsection (1) to be exceeded, the amount by which the limit is exceeded is to be treated for the purposes of this Act as a donation received from a person who is not a permissible donor. (3) The Secretary of State must by regulations specify the donation limit for the purposes of subsection (1) within three months of the day on which this act is passed. (4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament. (5) Before laying a draft statutory instrument containing regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must commission an independent review of the level of the cap on political donations. (6) The review must consider and make recommendations on the level of the cap in light of— (a) the prevailing economic conditions; (b) the effect of the cap on democratic participation and political competition; and (c) any other matters the Secretary of State considers relevant. (7) The Secretary of State must appoint an independent person or panel with relevant experience to conduct the review. (8) The person or panel appointed under subsection (7) must— (a) consult the Electoral Commission and any other persons the person or panel considers relevant; and (b) prepare and publish a report of its findings. (9) The Secretary of State must lay the report under subsection (9)(b) before both Houses of Parliament as soon as practicable after receiving it. (10) No later than three years after a report under subsection (10) has been laid the Secretary of State must commission a new review under subsection (5) for the purposes of determining whether the cap under subsection (1) should be amended.’”— (Zöe Franklin.) This new clause requires the Secretary of State to set an annual cap on permissible political donations from a person, following an independent review to be conduct every three years. Brought up, and read the First time.

• 16 Apr 2026 · Representation of the People Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

• 16 Apr 2026 · Representation of the People Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely do—indeed, that is what the next two amendments are specifically about. That clearly should be the next step; the provision was put in place in the Equality Act, so it is just about commencing something already there under section 106 that would apply to reporting on diversity with a range of protected characteristics, not just in relation to disability. I completely agree that our politics should be representative of our population as a whole; we should all be challenging ourselves constantly, as individuals and as parties, to ensure that we are doing everything possible to address under-representation of certain groups. The lack of representation of women is particularly brought into focus by the fact that it is now nearly 100 years since the franchise was fully extended, yet women are still seriously under-represented in this House—and even more under-represented in local politics nationally. But there are many other dimensions of under-representation; while the first amendment relates specifically to support for disabled candidates, the next two amendments relate to that much wider spectrum. That is crucially important.

• 16 Apr 2026 · Representation of the People Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Ballot secrecy is extremely important. The shadow Minister has talked about family voting. I am deeply disappointed and concerned by the implicitly discriminatory accusations made by some parties in relation to family voting in recent weeks. I wish we saw as much passion about the far greater threat to our democracy posed by the skewing effect of huge donations. Conservative members of the Committee made no contribution in the discussion on caps on donations or limits on expenditure earlier this afternoon, but have devoted considerable airtime to this particular topic. I ask all of us to consider: what is the greatest threat to the integrity of our political system?

• 16 Apr 2026 · Representation of the People Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I will speak very briefly in support of the three amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Guildford, which highlight really important issues. It seems extraordinary, really, that we have such inequality between England, Wales and Scotland in relation to support for disabled candidates. Clearly, with such huge levels of under-representation of disabled people in our politics, it is imperative that support is put in place to try to rectify that. I fully support the call for the reinstatement of the access to elected office fund.

• 16 Apr 2026 · Representation of the People Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Not the hon. Gentleman’s integrity—his judgment.

• 16 Apr 2026 · Representation of the People Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. New clause, by leave, withdrawn .

• 16 Apr 2026 · Representation of the People Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The new clause, tabled by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer), proposes creating a new offence of misleading the public by candidates in a parliamentary election campaign. We are witnessing a proliferation of disinformation with a concurrent rise in distrust among the public. A recent survey by Ipsos MORI found that just 11% of the UK public trust politicians to tell the truth. That is clearly problematic and, unlike in advertising, finance or medicine, there is no legally enforceable standard of requiring truthfulness from those who hold or seek public office. Ministers are not allowed to lie, but, under the current situation, candidates can. This lack of accountability does, unfortunately, create an incentive to deceive. As the old saying goes, a lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes. This legal vacuum has, unfortunately, enabled far-right figures to weaponise disinformation. It has enabled foreign powers to covertly manipulate elections and policy, and manipulation of voters through false factual claims has changed the landscape of the nation. There are already examples of that, including Brexit and campaign tactics in previous elections. New clause 59 aims to protect voters from political deception by holding parliamentary candidates accountable for acts intentionally designed to mislead the public or manipulate voting in their favour. A similar measure is already provided for in the Government’s Public Office (Accountability) Bill. That creates a new offence of misleading the public, which will cover public officials. The parallel measure in new clause 59 will ensure that candidates are included in a similar provision and cannot use deliberate deception to win public office. As it happens, the Welsh Government have recently introduced equivalent legislation to create an offence of deliberate deception by candidates. Westminster would not be acting alone, and the new clause would provide consistency across Britain. This would not be a law to punish genuine mistakes, misspeaking and so forth, or to restrict legitimate political rhetoric. It would not cover manifestos, as a manifesto is a statement of intent. It would not create a new area of law, but merely extend it to plug the gaping loophole of political deception by applying existing legal principles. The new clause includes safeguards to ensure fairness, such as a high legal threshold for wrongdoing and a defence for those acting with reasonable excuse. Its phrasing ensures that the threshold for wrongdoing is high. It applies only to conduct that is “seriously improper,” so it targets deliberate misinformation campaigns, major false claims that could influence voters and manipulative or dishonest campaign tactics that are falsely used to steer voters towards a particular decision. There is overwhelming public support for this measure. A petition on this issue has more than 200,000 signatures, and polling by Opinium shows that 72% of voters support it. Further research by Survation found that a majority of voters in every single party is in favour of it. This measure would go some way to help repair trust in our politics, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response. I will briefly speak to new clauses 61 to 64, tabled by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders). New clause 61 would introduce a code of conduct for political campaigning and put that on a statutory footing. There is already widespread agreement that we need a code of conduct for political campaigning—that was a recommendation from the Speaker’s Conference last year. The Government have committed to establishing a code of conduct for campaigns following that recommendation, and the Electoral Commission has absolutely welcomed this. I draw colleagues’ attention to one of the evidence sessions at the Speaker’s Conference last year, in which Labour’s executive director of governance and legal highlighted the question of whether the code of conduct should be statutory. He said: “A code might be helpful in setting a public benchmark of acceptable behaviour…ultimately, you would probably want it to be enforceable in some way, and then the question would be, is it appropriate to put that on a statutory footing? Is there a possibility of agreeing something?” I ask the Minister to consider that we have an excellent opportunity to put it on a statutory footing in this Bill to ensure that that code of conduct, which is so widely recognised as being absolutely necessary as per the recommendations of the Speaker’s Conference, has the force of primary legislation behind it. New clause 62 is about an electoral advertising code of practice. We have already discussed issues relating to electoral advertising, and I have shared with the Committee my huge concerns about the regulation of online political advertising in particular and the urgent need for a real-time political adverts library. This new clause is more general. It is frankly unclear why ads for commercial products are held to greater account than ads that move votes and affect election outcomes. Fundamentally, that seems weird, unequal and deeply problematic. The organisation Reform Political Advertising has been campaigning very effectively, long and hard, in this area. In the 2024 London mayoral election, for example, it trailed a factual accuracy code, which seven London mayoral candidates, including Sadiq Khan and the Green and Liberal Democrat candidates, signed up to, and others supported. International precedent also exists. Regulation of factual claims in electoral advertising has been in place in New Zealand for several decades, with cross-party support.

• 16 Apr 2026 · Representation of the People Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 75 Power to make consequential provision Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

• 16 Apr 2026 · Representation of the People Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman seems to say that the making of any political argument that he disagrees with is exploitation. That is ridiculous. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

• 16 Apr 2026 · Representation of the People Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

• 16 Apr 2026 · Representation of the People Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.