Neil O'Brien
MP for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston · Conservative · United Kingdom
“Following is the full text of the petition: [ The petition of residents of the constituency of Harborough, Oadby & Wigston, Declares that the petitioners oppose any proposal to extend the boundaries of Leicester City Council in a manner that would incorporate the communities of Great Glen, Wistow, Newton Harcourt and Little Stretton into…”
“In the Government’s own consultation about the expansion of Leicester, nine out of 10 people said that they were against it. Now, with millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money wasted so far, Ministers are having to do a complete reworking of this whole chaotic, undemocratic process, amid accusations of gerrymandering.”
“The petition states: “The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to halt and reconsider any proposals for the expansion of Leicester City Council's boundaries, and to ensure that the views of local residents are fully considered before any changes are implemented, thereby protecting the character, ide…”
“The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to halt and reconsider any proposals for the expansion of Leicester City Council's boundaries, and to ensure that the views of local residents are fully considered before any changes are implemented, thereby protecting the character, identity and independence…”
“In the Government’s own consultation on whether to expand Leicester, nine out of 10 people said no. Tens of thousands of people signed petitions against it, yet until Ministers hit this legal snag they tried to press on anyway.”
“Eleven thousand people in Oadby, Wigston and Great Glen recently voted in a referendum against joining the city of Leicester. Ministers know that people do not want this locally, and yet they are forcing it on them anyway.”
The complete record
Every one of 600 lines we hold for Neil O'Brien, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 12.
“The midland main line is in crisis. More than a quarter of our trains are being cancelled or are crazily late, and we find that even if people can get on, they will have to stand because so many are short form. The trains are falling apart; the air conditioning, toilets and doors do not work, and the windows are blown. We need a debate on this, because this happened because Department for Transport officials allowed our trains to be sent somewhere else in the country, even though they knew that our new trains were not going to arrive on time. My constituents want to know when the compensation will come, and whether they will get trains over the summer to stop this crisis getting worse, because at the moment, the Department is in denial. We need some proper answers.”
“Eleven thousand people in Oadby, Wigston and Great Glen recently voted in a referendum against joining the city of Leicester. Ministers know that people do not want this locally, and yet they are forcing it on them anyway. People in the rest of Harborough are losing their local council, to be replaced by a giant, remote, doughnut-shaped council for the whole county. Ministers are doing this on their last day in office. They think they know best, and have the arrogance to inflict this on a community they know nothing about. I want to know whether the Minister will publish all the advice and correspondence he had before making this decision so that we can see that the only person he has listened to is the Labour Mayor of Leicester, and the rest of us can just get stuffed.”
“On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This morning, the Department arranged an official briefing for Members about what was going to happen to their communities, but Leicestershire Conservative MPs were not invited. I have seen the schedule, and we are not on the list. I thought it was a rule of this House that MPs should be told everything at the same time, yet some appear to be more equal than others. Can you advise, Madam Deputy Speaker, on what redress we can seek?”
“Great Glen has its own history. It has a beautiful church, which was quite badly damaged by parliamentarians who were camping there during the civil war—I suppose that, as a parliamentarian myself, I should apologise for that. These are places with their own strong history, and their desire to hold on to that local accountability and identity is seen as ridiculous by local officials.”
“Oadby and Wigston have always been separate from the city of Leicester. Wigston is in the Domesday Book—in fact, it had been around for about 500 years even then. It has two beautiful medieval churches and is known for their two spires. South Wigston is very different. It is a Victorian model town, built by a visionary industrialist called Orson Wright, who built the whole place with his own brickworks. That red brick character can still be seen driving up the Blaby Road. Oadby, as the name implies—there are lots of “by’s” around Leicestershire—has Viking origins. It has its own quirks and history, too. For example, of the 114 livery companies in this country, all are in the City of London apart from one, which is in Oadby, in the beautiful hall and alms-houses created by the Framework Knitters. I could go on and on.”
“If the Minister decides to push ahead with plans to expand the city, Ministers must know that they are doing so in the face of total and overwhelming local opposition. When I talk to local people, they give me different reasons why they do not want to be part of the city. One factor is higher council tax. A typical band D property in the city pays £122 more than a property in Oadby and Wigston, and £139 more than a property in Harborough. Obviously, a bigger property pays even more: a band H property pays £244 more in the city than in Oadby and Wigston, and £278 more than in Harborough. But it is not just the cost that is driving the opposition; people do not want to lose local accountability and their local identity. All these places have their own strong local character.”
“Around that area, 1,035 people voted, of whom 1,013 voted against being part of the city—98% of people do not want to join the city. If we take all those together—Oadby and Wigston and the area around Great Glen—that is 11,423 people who have voted against joining the city, which is an incredible number in quite a small area. I have not balloted other places nearby in quite the same detail, but I suspect that if I gave a vote to people in Kibworth, Burton Overy, Gaulby or King’s Norton, they would say exactly the same. People do not want to be part of the city, yet so far the Labour Government have refused to listen and have not wanted to give people a say. They must now start listening to the wishes of the people. Next month, we will find out what the Government have decided to do.”
“In fact, 97% of people—10,410—voted against it, so it could not be clearer that people in Oadby and Wigston do not want to be swallowed up by the city. But that is not all. The plan put forward by the Mayor of Leicester would see him taking over other areas as well, such as part of the Harborough district including Great Glen, Newton Harcourt and the area around the Strettons. The bid he has put into Government would see him swallowing up all of the Harborough district, including Market Harborough. We have no idea how the Government will respond to that. We know that the mayor definitely wants to take over the area around Great Glen, but people there are also very strongly opposed to this. I sent out 2,000 ballot papers there.”
“Because the Government will not give people a vote, I have given my constituents a vote. Over recent weeks, I have been balloting people in the affected area about whether they want to be part of the city of Leicester. I sent every household in the area a ballot paper asking, in a completely neutral way, “Do you want to become part of the city or not?” The result has been surprising and overwhelming. I knew that people felt very strongly. It turns out they feel very, very strongly about this issue. I sent a ballot paper to all 22,000 households in Oadby and Wigston, and 10,774 have responded—about half, which is an incredible response to an informal local referendum. Of those who have voted, almost all are opposed to Oadby and Wigston being swallowed up by the city.”
“All of this came completely out of the blue—it had not been mentioned in the general election—and the Government did not start by asking people what they might want; instead, they simply told them what was going to happen. Right from the start, it was clear to me from speaking to people in Leicestershire that there was very strong opposition to this plan. Right from the start, I have said to Ministers on the Floor of the Commons, “If you believe this is the right thing, and if you believe this is what local people want, why don’t you let us have a vote on it? Why don’t you give people a say?” But Ministers treated the idea of giving people a vote as ridiculous—“What an absurd idea! Why would we ask people what they want?”—and said no to allowing us a local referendum.”
“I beg to move, That this House has considered local government reform. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I would particularly like to thank Mr Speaker for granting me exceptional permission to speak from the Back Benches on an issue that many of my constituents feel very strongly about. One day, not long after the new Labour Government came into office, they suddenly announced that they were going to abolish every district and borough council in this country and also change the boundaries of many cities. Following that, a proposal was swiftly put forward by the Labour Mayor of Leicester to expand the boundaries of the city, to swallow up many surrounding areas.”
“If mega-councils are so efficient and wonderful, why are they much more expensive? Why are local residents not feeling the benefit of the efficiency? The truth is, of course, that the gains are not there. The reorganisation, and the chaos that will come with all this, will actually cost us lots of money, and we will end up with something that is remote but not more efficient.”
“I am very sorry to hear that. I was just about to make that point: as well as the loss of local accountability and identity, the argument is just wrong. Ministers believe that big is always better—that big is beautiful—but the evidence does not support that. If big were beautiful, Birmingham city council, which is the biggest unitary in the country, would be our best council. Is it our best council? No, it is not; we have bins piling up in the streets. It is not just that one anecdote; the point can be expressed in lots of different ways. The Local Councils Network found that, for mega-councils with populations of over half a million, which was the Government’s original target for this reorganisation, the average council tax is £2,009, but for councils below that size, it is £250 a year cheaper.”
“I can see why Labour politicians find that idea attractive but it is wrong, particularly in Leicestershire. In Manchester, the places that were derelict mills when I was a teenager are now trendy flats and coffee bars with flat whites, and it is all very cool. In Leicester, all those derelict mills are still just derelict mills. The city is in desperate need of urban regeneration and needs new life and younger people to move in, but that is not being generated. Instead, there is a desire— not just with this proposal, but with prior moves by the mayor—to dump housing need into areas around him and not do the difficult things to fix the city itself.”
“My right hon. Friend is quite right, and he has also pre-empted something I was about to say. The Government are pressing on with “big is beautiful”—they have expanded Norwich, Ipswich, Portsmouth, Southampton, and so forth—but we can see that bigger councils are not more efficient. One motive on the part of officials is the belief that making those cities bigger will cause more housing to be built. I do not think that is right, but the logic is this: a bigger council will be more remote from people, so will be less likely to listen to local opposition and more able to ride roughshod over it. In particular for Labour, there is a belief that expanding cities makes it easier for those often Labour-run urban councils to move the housing need on to the outskirts, and not to have to ruffle any feathers in the city.”
“I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman, who is absolutely right. The local nature of local government is critical. The other problem with these giant councils is how remote they will be. In Oadby and Wigston at the moment, everyone can walk to the council offices, or take a maximum five-minute drive. Harborough is a little bigger, but is still very local. If we get a giant council, my constituents will have to drive 40 minutes up the M1 motorway to see council officers. The whole thing will feel more remote and local government will be less local. The point of local government is to be truly local and to care about the things that a big, remote authority will not necessarily care about.”
“I can see the upside for him, but I cannot see what is in it for my constituents, and nor can they. They do not want this, as is clear and indisputable. The Government cannot pretend for a second that this is in any sense what local people want. The Minister here today does not live in our area, which is not her fault, but she has asked people what they think. Now that she has heard, I hope she will start to listen to local people as she makes her decisions.”
“I am very sorry to hear that. It is bad when people feel that the goalposts are being moved because it erodes trust in the process even further. Crucially, nobody asked for this. People email me every day about all kinds of things they want sorted out locally, but nobody ever emailed me to say they wanted their councils to be abolished and replaced with something bigger and more remote. No one emailed me to say they wanted to be part of the city of Leicester. It is a bad idea, being done for the wrong reasons and in an undemocratic way. I can see why the Mayor of Leicester wants to expand. He wants a bigger city and will get all the council tax and business rate revenues from the areas moved in. He would have a place to dump all the housing need without ruffling any feathers in the city.”
“Thank you for your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. The irony of all this is that the Minister’s only argument is that we must avoid a two-tier system, but what the Government want is to replace one two-tier system with a completely different two-tier system that has a mayor and unitary authority. It is an exercise in the utmost futility. Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).”
“Labour Members voted for a cover-up when they voted against referring the Prime Minister to the Privileges Committee over this matter. [Interruption.] They do not like it, but it is true. This House, and the people of this country, deserve better than yet another cover-up.”
“Again and again, as soon as attention moves elsewhere, the Government start backsliding. We now expect the Government to discuss their approach to the Humble Address constructively, and we would welcome such discussions. Let me therefore ask the Minister some questions. Now that the ISC has reviewed all the documents, when will the Government release all the rest of the Mandelson files? The Minister has said “after Whitsun”; when after Whitsun? Will the Government return to the House to ask permission for the redactions that they clearly wish to make which go beyond the scope of the Humble Address? Will the Minister brief Opposition Members, on Privy Council terms, about the broader redactions that the Government clearly wish to make?”
“There may be legitimate reasons why the Government do not want to place certain matters in the public domain, but if the Humble Address motion does not allow for redaction on those grounds, the Government cannot just unilaterally decide to ignore the will of the House. Sadly, this pattern of backsliding fits a pattern of behaviour. The Prime Minister’s chief of staff had to resign over the Mandelson scandal, but apparently he is already back and advising the Prime Minister. We forced the Government to hold an inquiry into the grooming gangs, but then they sabotaged it and dragged their feet for a whole year. We said that it needed to be harder to obtain indefinite leave to remain; the Home Secretary said she would do it, but Labour Back Benchers did not like it, and now it is not in the King’s Speech.”
“The House gave the Government a clear instruction that the only documents that could be redacted were those that might prejudice UK national security or international relations, and all those documents were to be referred to the Intelligence and Security Committee, so for my incredibly respected right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) to say that the Government have applied redactions to documents sent to the ISC, beyond the scope agreed by the House, and have also withheld documents entirely from the ISC, is an extremely serious matter that completely undermines what the House agreed.”
“The total volume of money owed by plan 2 students is increasing every year, even though no new loans are being taken out and they are paying back billions every year. Between the lower and upper interest rate threshold, for every additional £100 a graduate earns, they repay an extra £9, but their debt also accrues an additional £7.20 in interest. In fact, a plan 2 graduate who has £69,000 or more of debt—a doctor or someone like that—sees their debt increase faster as their earnings and repayments increase, because the interest effect outweighs the repayment effect. It is a totally perverse system.”
“Please continue to hold, and eventually perhaps we will do something about it.” This system was set up with the best of intentions, but I have been arguing against it for as long as I have been in this House. The above-inflation interest rates have long been recognised as a problem. That is why our 2022 reforms abolished real-terms interest rates for all future students, but now we need to go back and end these unfair challenges for past students too. There are lots of different ways to explain how unfair the current system is. Those on plan 2 are paying back far more than they ever borrowed. The typical plan 2 graduate needs to earn £66,000 a year just to keep track with the interest.”
“Actions speak louder than words. To get elected as Labour leader, the Prime Minister promised to abolish tuition fees. Instead, he has increased them. He used to say, “We need to end the scandal of spiralling student debt,” but now he is letting it spiral. When the Minister says, “We will look at it,” we are not reassured. I thought the best speech of the afternoon was from the hon. Member for Gloucester (Alex McIntyre), who said in plain terms that he would not prioritise fixing this problem and would spend the money on something else. That kind of blunt honesty is better than the line from the Chancellor, who says “Graduates, your call is very important to us.”
“In January, the Chancellor was saying that the student loans system was “fair and reasonable”. She now admits —as of yesterday—that it is broken. In one sense, we have won this debate even before it started. The Government say that they are looking at these issues, but they would not be looking at them if it were not for the Opposition raising them, and I do not find the promise to “look at these issues” very reassuring, given their track record. In the run-up to the last election, the Education Secretary promised: “Graduates, you will pay less under Labour”. Unbelievably, that is still up on her website. Instead, Labour has increased fees so that graduates are paying more, not less. On top of that, the Chancellor has cut the repayment threshold in real terms so that graduates are paying a further £250 a year.”
“Yes, and I am grateful for that question. Under our proposed reforms, four fifths—80%—of plan 2 graduates would benefit and pay less over their lifetime. The hon. Gentleman can look up all this stuff on the IFS website if he wants to check. There are so many personal stories here. The other day, one doctor was recounting how she graduated with £75,000 of debt, has worked hard for years and has paid off every year, but she now owes £90,000.”
“Economic value is not the only value put on higher education, or any kind of education, but rather than simply pushing more young people towards courses that the Government’s own data show us do not benefit them—they do not help them, and they leave them feeling like they have been mis-sold and betrayed, with a lot of debt and nothing much to show for it—we need to have a rethink. The current approach is not working. Since the election, youth unemployment has risen to levels significantly above the eurozone’s for the first time in a generation. That is mainly as a result of the Government’s decision to target lower-paid people for tax increases and to increase regulation, but it is not helped by the Government’s unbalanced approach to skills, based on an endless expansion of university courses whether they are any good or not.”
“If the hon. Gentleman reads to the end of the IFS report, he will see that it costs our proposal in single-digit billions, and we have explained exactly how we will pay for it—I will come to that in a moment—so there is no gaping hole whatsoever. No wonder so many despair, with more broken promises from the Government and ever-rising debt, and no promise of action at any particular time. How we would pay for our proposal—this goes to the hon. Gentleman’s question—is equally important. Since the last Government created the longitudinal education outcomes dataset, we have had much better data on which degrees do—or do not—provide economic value for students and taxpayers.”
“Recent data shows that five years after finishing a course in 2018, the average level 4 apprentice was earning £32,000; by contrast, the average graduate was earning just £26,500 and the lower quartile of graduates were earning £19,000 or less. In many cases, a high-quality apprenticeship can be a better option than a low-value university course. That is why we would make that change.”
“To listen to Labour Members, anyone would think that there was not a single bad course, that every single course is totally brilliant and that there is no prospect of ever reducing spending on any single course. That is a fantasy world. We do not say about any other type of public service that every single instance of it is completely brilliant and there is no scope for improvement. We would use the savings from our proposal not just to abolish real interest rates on plan 2 loans but to double the number of apprenticeships for 18 to 21-year-olds so that quality apprenticeships are a real choice at age 18. Why would we do that?”
“Just one moment. Analysis by the IFS found that total returns on going to university will be negative for about 30% of both men and women—and that is based on the cohort from the noughties. The problem now is probably even bigger because the graduate premium has declined further. As a result, many graduates now earn so little that they will never fully repay their student loans, leaving the taxpayer to cover about £8 billion in losses every year. That is why we would restore the number controls that existed for 70 years and use that to reduce the number of people who are on courses that are not good value for the taxpayer and not helping the young people, either.”
“Let’s carry on shovelling money into something that is only working 4% of the time.” Other people would say, “We have to make choices, and we could use that money, which the Government continue to shovel into low-value courses, to fund more high-quality apprenticeships and cut repayments for betrayed plan 2 voters.” Let me be clear: the current system is unfair. The Government admit it is unfair. Like so many other things, they say they will look at it. This is a Prime Minister who we can always rely on to do the right thing once we have dragged him by the nose to do it. As the former Deputy Prime Minister says, time is running out for this Labour Government, and it is time for them to stop moaning, grow a pair and fix this problem that they have moaned about.”
“We have already talked about that. If the hon. Gentleman wants a full list, he can go on my Substack and see a whole bunch of different institutions with low returns. He can also do better than that: he can look on the DFE’s website and see that many courses lead to low earnings. [ Interruption. ] It is not my purpose here to single out individual courses. We have talked quite a lot about creative arts. The Institute for Fiscal Studies says that only 4.5% of those degrees represent a positive return to taxpayers. Some people will look at a statistic like that, say that it is only worth it for taxpayers 4% of the time and say, “That is not a problem.”
“On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. For the last 18 months, the Government have been sitting on the guidance relating to gender-questioning children in schools—a very controversial subject—which the Government keep saying is coming. It has become apparent in the last half an hour that they plan to publish this guidance at 4 pm today, just moments before the House goes into recess for a week. It is hard to see this as anything other than a deliberate attempt to avoid the scrutiny of this House on an important issue. What can we do to put this right?”
“It seems like even in the Labour party, more and more people are now coming to the same conclusion as the public: this country deserves better.”
“The Prime Minister was warned about Mandelson—he knew, but he decided it was a risk worth taking. As the leader of the Scottish Labour party pointed out today, it is not just the Mandelson affair; time and again, the Prime Minister has got it wrong, from the winter fuel payment to the family farm tax. Just like with the grooming gangs inquiry, the Prime Minister has once again put his own political interest ahead of the interests of victims. At the start of his statement, the Chief Secretary said that the Prime Minister’s choices in this case go to the heart of who he is, and that is what we are worried about. The Prime Minister’s head of communications has resigned; the Prime Minister’s chief of staff has resigned; and the leader of the Scottish Labour party says that the Prime Minister should resign.”
“I ask the Chief Secretary to clarify that. Will he agree to publish all the documents relating to that appointment? Fourthly, the Chief Secretary told the House on 2 February that a review of the decision to appoint Mandelson was under way. What form will it take? Will a statement be laid before Parliament, and when? Will Mandelson be interviewed as part of that review? Will it include the potential involvement of hostile intelligence services? Finally, have the Government responded substantively to the ISC’s request for more resourcing so that it can do its job properly in reviewing the papers that are about to be released? No amount of process or fiddling about with procedures can compensate for a Prime Minister who lacked the judgment to act on the information put before him.”
“I make no criticism of Palantir. I simply ask: why was that not recorded? How many more such lobbyist meetings were there with the Prime Minister and what other inside information was being shared? Will the Chief Secretary agree, yes or no, to a full inquiry into Mandelson’s time as our ambassador? Thirdly, let me ask about another new Labour veteran put forward for a public office despite his known association with a paedophile. No. 10 has said that it investigated Matthew Doyle’s relationship with a convicted paedophile, Sean Morton. No. 10 gave Doyle, the Prime Minister’s former director of communications, a peerage after purportedly examining this matter, but it has never clarified whether their relationship continued after Morton’s conviction. If Doyle cut ties with Morton upon his conviction, why do the Government not just say so?”
“It has been reported that the golden goodbye was between £39,000 and £55,000, which is more than the average person earns in a year—that is grotesque. What steps are the Government taking to retrieve that incredible payment for resigning in disgrace? It sounded like the Chief Secretary was saying that he could not do it. I have to remind him that, at the moment at least, they are actually the Government. They can take action. Secondly, will the Government agree to a full investigation of Peter Mandelson’s behaviour while he was our ambassador? On 27 February, Mandelson arranged for the Prime Minister to meet Palantir, a client of Global Counsel—his own company. It was not recorded in the Prime Minister’s register of meetings; it emerged only later. Palantir was then directly awarded a £240 million contract by the Government.”
“His Transport Secretary, an ex-cop, had to resign over misleading the police. His anti-corruption Minister had to resign over corruption. His homelessness Minister had to resign for making people homeless. And then his Deputy Prime Minister and Housing Secretary had to resign over a £40,000 unpaid tax bill on her house. No wonder even the leader of the Scottish Labour party now says that the Prime Minister must go. Mr Sarwar says: “There have been too many mistakes” and that he has no choice but to be “honest about failure wherever I see it.” He is right. Let me turn to some specific questions. First, can the Chief Secretary confirm whether Peter Mandelson received a golden goodbye severance payment, signed off by the Government? Why have the Government refused to answer that question since September?”
“The Prime Minister did that despite knowing that Mandelson had stayed in Epstein’s house while he was in jail for child prostitution. The problem is not the structures or the processes—the information was there; the warnings were there. The problem is that the Prime Minister had all that before him and yet chose to ignore it. He cannot keep blaming others. He cannot blame the process. He must start taking personal responsibility. The record of this Government on standards is truly extraordinary. First, the Prime Minister was embroiled in the freebies scandal: £107,000 in gifts given to him since 2019 and a personal donor given a Downing Street pass. Then, the Prime Minister was reprimanded by his own ethics adviser over the appointment of a non-disclosed Labour donor to be the football regulator.”
“I thank the Chief Secretary for advance sight of his statement. The Prime Minister’s authority is gone and his Government are starting to collapse. The Prime Minister’s decision to appoint Peter Mandelson raises massive questions about standards in public life—questions that the Chief Secretary’s statement today just does not answer. Advisers advise, but Ministers decide. On that basis, can the Chief Secretary explain why it was right for Morgan McSweeney to resign, but not right for the Prime Minister to resign? Morgan McSweeney might have provided the advice, but it was the Prime Minister who made the decision to appoint the best friend of the world’s most notorious paedophile to be His Majesty’s ambassador in Washington.”
“Member for Hayes and Harlington: if the ISC says that documents deemed sensitive by No. 10 can be released, will it be able to release them without any veto from No. 10?”
“Whatever people think of Gordon Brown, if they are choosing Peter Mandelson over him, they are making the wrong decision. I now come to the manuscript amendment that has been hastily produced by the Government. For the people watching at home, this is an amendment to an amendment—a U-turn on top of a U-turn. Given the chaos we have seen from the Government, we now need three clear assurances, and we will all be listening to the Minister when he comes to the Dispatch Box. First, we need an assurance that everything that people in No. 10 do not want to publish will be sent to the ISC in unredacted form. Secondly, we need an assurance that it will be the ISC, not No. 10, that determines the handling of those documents. This comes back to the very good question posed by the right hon.”
“He said again and again that he had full confidence in him, and I think many voters will be thinking, “Why on earth was the Prime Minister so deeply in hock to this man?” The truth is that Mandelson was not out on a limb over in Washington; he was a deeply embedded part of the Prime Minister’s operation. He was involved in the selection of some of the MPs who are in the Chamber today. He was involved in the Prime Minister’s reshuffle, and was part of the “toxic culture” in No. 10 that the Health Secretary—the Labour Health Secretary—has warned about. Most shamefully of all, a former Labour Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, tried to get documents about some of the things that Peter Mandelson had done and was rebuffed. Funnily enough, those documents could not be found.”
“Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker) actually said that she would be ashamed to vote for it, and she was totally right. All those Labour Back Benchers have shown their character today, but what a contrast with the Prime Minister’s behaviour. He is not here, and he has still not apologised for appointing Mandelson. A few hours ago he was telling this House that these documents could not be published—he said at PMQs that the Leader of the Opposition was outrageous and silly for even asking—yet here we are, just a few hours later, and the Government have had a total U-turn because they know that they cannot get their own people to vote for this shameful proposed cover-up. The Prime Minister has not been decisive—he only sacked Peter Mandelson because we forced him to.”
“Before I come to the manuscript amendment, let me say something positive about some of the contributions we have heard today from Labour Back Benchers. The hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Matt Bishop) gave a genuinely superb speech, in which he said that he would not be able to look victims in the eye if he voted for the Government’s amendment. It was a brave speech, but he was not completely alone. We also heard sensible comments from other Labour Back Benchers, including the hon. Members for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon), for Widnes and Halewood (Derek Twigg) and for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald), and the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), all of whom pointed out that the Government’s cover-up amendment was simply not going to fly. I think the hon.”
“Palantir was then awarded a £240 million contract by the Government as a direct award rather than through a competition. We need the Cabinet Secretary to examine the circumstances of that contract. Does the Minister agree—yes or no? Why was that prime ministerial meeting not recorded in the normal way? How many more such lobbyist meetings were there? What other inside information was shared with Mandelson’s clients? Will the Minister now agree to a full inquiry into Mandelson’s time as our ambassador—yes or no? Furthermore, can the Minister reassure the House that the proper process has been followed for all No. 10’s other recent appointments? Can he give the House that reassurance very clearly?”