Why I abstained on yesterday’s vote
Some weeks ago, a motion on a Humble Address asked the Government to release all papers relating to the appointment of Peter Mandelson as Ambassador to the United States. That process is now underway.
A number of documents have already been released, although some remain outstanding while a police investigation is ongoing. Once that investigation is complete, those papers will be made available to the Intelligence and Security Committee. Separately, the Foreign Affairs Committee has launched its own investigation and is actively hearing evidence but has not yet reached any conclusions.
This means that scrutiny is happening, but it is not finished.
Yesterday, I did not have access to the full facts, and until I do, I am not in a position to make a judgment about whether the Prime Minister has a case to answer before the Privileges Committee. That is why I abstained.
I spent my career as a barrister. I would never advise a client, reach a verdict, or form a view on a serious matter without first having all of the evidence in front of me. The same principle applies here. Parliament deserves proper scrutiny, not a rushed vote called before the relevant investigations have had time to report.
When the full picture is available, I will consider it carefully and act accordingly.