It is a pleasure to take part in this debate. As many colleagues on the Opposition Benches have said, it brings a sense of déjà vu. I have a rather unpleasant chill up my spine when I recall being on the Government Benches and being pushed by the Whips to vote in a particular way.
We have a Prime Minister who promised to do things differently. He promised change, higher standards and transparency, and he is the ultimate arbiter and keeper of the ministerial code. Politics often involves a degree of deflection, but he goes beyond precedent in failing to answer questions. He drives Mr Speaker to frustration, to the point of altercations in the Chamber. That is the backdrop. He promised greater transparency, including a duty of candour law, which has been dropped. He promised higher standards, yet does not meet them.
The hon. Member for Rugby (John Slinger), who is the new trade envoy to the Republic of Korea, is in the Chamber. It is notable that loyalty can be rewarded. Members who back the Government, even when they should not, may find advancement. But if Members fail to follow their conscience when it matters, they will regret it.
There is a particular issue today, because a three-line Whip has been imposed on a matter relating to the House. Members have spoken in support of the Government line. The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) suggested that a three-line Whip was not appropriate, and others avoided addressing the point, but the question remains: who required it?
Labour Members have said that they will vote with their conscience, yet after intervention from the Whips, a three-line Whip was imposed. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) attributes that to the Whips. As a former Whip, I consider it more likely that the Whips performed their usual role, but that No. 10 insisted on total support. The Chief Whip would have pointed out that absolute certainty is unattainable, yet the instruction was clear: impose a three-line Whip. That is what has occurred.
I give way to the hon. Member for Rugby.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman suggested that the Prime Minister avoids answering questions. This is a Prime Minister who appeared before the House last Monday and answered questions for two and a half hours. He also spoke about transparency, yet we are dealing with a Government who are releasing documents to the House and the public. Those facts demonstrate that both transparency and accountability are being met.
Graham Stuart
The hon. Gentleman reinforces his standing with the Whips, but also strengthens the case against the Government. The Prime Minister was compelled to appear. It is not only my view; Mr Speaker has expressed frustration. The wider public share that frustration with a Prime Minister who does not give straightforward answers.
When the Prime Minister appeared, he misled the House. He said due process had been followed. Evidence now shows that Morgan McSweeney conducted the interview, and that Lord Mandelson’s appointment was reviewed by associates. This process was overseen by the Prime Minister. It was his decision.
He then told the House that due process had been followed. It had not. Only through the Humble Address has it emerged that the Cabinet Secretary advised that vetting must take place before announcing a political appointment. That advice was not followed. Chris Wormald’s subsequent statement that due process had been followed cannot be reconciled with the facts. No adequate explanation has been provided.
There are further issues. The Prime Minister stated under questioning that there had been no pressure. That is contradicted by evidence from Olly Robbins, who described repeated pressure.
There are therefore clear grounds to believe that the Prime Minister, who promised higher standards, has misled the House. As Mr Speaker has made clear, this is not for us to determine. That is why the matter should be referred to the Privileges Committee. Despite that, a three-line Whip has been imposed.
This reflects a lack of confidence at the centre of Government. The Prime Minister does not trust his own Members to reach a judgment without instruction, even on a matter of parliamentary standards. That is why Members are being required to support a position that should properly be considered independently.
