Lord Mandelson

Debate between Luke Evans and Neil O'Brien

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)]

This has been an absolutely extraordinary day in British politics. It is not often that there is an audible intake of breath in this Chamber, but we all heard it earlier—that gasp when the Prime Minister admitted that, yes, he had known that Peter Mandelson had had an ongoing relationship with Jeffrey Epstein when he appointed him as our ambassador to Washington. It was a truly extraordinary admission.

The argument that the Prime Minister is now making, which is quite incredible, is that he knew, but he did not know the depth and extent. That implies that there is some reasonable extent to which a person can be in a long-term relationship with the world’s most famous paedophile and still be appointed our ambassador to Washington. It implies that a person can, to a certain reasonable depth, be involved with the world’s most corrupt man and still be appointed His Majesty’s ambassador. The Prime Minister is now asking to be taken on trust. Well, after this whole sordid affair, I am afraid that is just not good enough any more.

The Prime Minister knew that Mandelson had stayed in Epstein’s house while he was in jail for child prostitution. Did that not set some alarm bells ringing in the Prime Minister’s mind, or is that not deep enough a relationship to have worried him? My right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith) told the House earlier that the British Government were warned by one of our closest international allies about their deep concerns before Mandelson’s appointment. Did that not set some alarm bells ringing in the Prime Minister’s mind? No, instead he appointed a man who twice had to resign over corruption, and now—unbelievably—his argument is, “If only there had been some sign that Peter Mandelson was like this?” It is unbelievable, and this may be just the beginning.

We now really need the Minister to answer a specific point that Ministers ducked and refused to address earlier—the whole House will hear if he does not answer. Will the Government agree to a full investigation into Mandelson’s behaviour while he was our ambassador in Washington? On 27 February last year, Mandelson arranged for the Prime Minister to meet Palantir—a client of Mandelson’s company, Global Counsel. That meeting was not recorded in the PM’s register of meetings and emerged only later. 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?

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. 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. 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. 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. 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?

[Dr Luke Evans]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is really important that we get clarity from the Government on that point, because there could be individual documents, as opposed to a report? The independent committee can produce a report, but we need to know whether individual documents that could be challenged could be put out if the committee felt it was correct to do so.

[Neil O’Brien]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and I want to know whether the Minister agrees that the ISC should be able to give the gist of documents, even if they are not fully released.

Thirdly on this hastily proposed manuscript amendment, can we be reassured that we will not be waiting for months—that this will not turn out like the grooming gangs, where nothing happens in the end? Can we have an assurance that we will not be waiting for ages, and that there will be a clear and short timeframe for getting the documents published and to the ISC?

Mental Health Treatment and Support

Debate between Luke Evans and Neil O'Brien

Wednesday 7th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Neil O’Brien]

I was just coming to that, but on the point about prevention and the social origins of these things, we are in agreement about tackling the origins of these things. In terms of financial security, that is why we are providing financial help worth £3,300 per household, one of the most dramatically generous packages anywhere in Europe. The question of good housing was raised earlier. We have the Social Housing (Regulation) Bill and we are taking action to extend the decent homes standard to the private rented sector.

[Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)]

Is it not the case that we have to be really careful about what we are talking about? There is a difference between mental wellbeing and mental health. We all suffer with our mental wellbeing but we do not all suffer with our mental health, and we therefore need to have the support that is appropriate. Social prescribing, for example, has a fundamental ability to help people who suffer with their mental wellbeing. Are the Government doing anything more to drive up social prescribing, so that GPs and allied professions can get the support from the third sector and other voluntary organisations that people so desperately need for their mental wellbeing?

[Neil O’Brien]

My hon. Friend, as an experienced clinician, makes an important and thoughtful point. This is exactly why we have so dramatically increased the number of social prescribers in primary care. An example in Britain is the parkrun practices initiative, which is connecting people to sporting and cultural activities that can improve mental wellbeing as well as mental health. My hon. Friend is completely right, and that is why this is a priority for us.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Luke Evans and Neil O'Brien

Tuesday 6th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Neil O’Brien]

At every stage, we are taking action to get more dentists doing NHS work. There are 6.5% more dentists doing NHS work than in 2010. The hon. Gentleman has an important idea. We are doing other things to retain NHS dentists, such as the important reforms that we made to pensions, which have helped both GPs and NHS dentists.

[Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)]

13. What progress he has made on improving hospital facilities.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Luke Evans and Neil O'Brien

Tuesday 24th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)]

I declare an interest as a GP and the immediate family of a GP and doctors. GPs are working incredibly hard in tough times. It is true that supply has gone up, but so too has demand. Change needs to happen in primary care, but one of the bedrocks is the GP partnership model. Does this Government agree?

[Neil O’Brien]

Unlike the Opposition, we do not regard GPs’ finances as murky and we do not want to go back to Labour’s policy of 1934 by trying to finish off the business that even Nye Bevan thought was too left-wing. We do not believe in nationalising GPs; we believe in the current model. [Interruption.] We do not believe that people with a problem should immediately go to hospital, driving up costs and undoing the good work of cross-party consensus in the last 30 years. A plan that was supposed to cause a splash has belly-flopped.