Standards in Public Life

Debate between Neil O'Brien and Darren Jones

Monday 9th February 2026 Commons Chamber

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

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. 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. 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? 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. 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? 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. 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. 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.

[Darren Jones]

I remind the hon. Gentleman that the public had their say at the last general election, and they elected a landslide Labour majority, with the Conservatives suffering an historic defeat. In my view, one of the reasons the public booted that lot out of office was their repeated failings in standards and ethics, from the personal protective equipment contracts for dodgy friends to lying to Parliament and the sexual misconduct scandals. The hon. Gentleman asks me why it is that Ministers who have breached the code have resigned. It is because we fixed the system. The reason we have an independent ethics adviser who cannot be directed by the Prime Minister, as was the case under the previous Government, is that they are independent. When Ministers have been found to have broken the code, they have gone, because that should be the consequence for doing so.

The hon. Gentleman asks me what the Prime Minister knew at the time of Peter Mandelson’s appointment, but the Prime Minister has already answered that question repeatedly. The information that has come out since his appointment has made it clear that Peter lied to the Prime Minister about the state of his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. Had the Prime Minister known at the point of appointment what we all know now, with the privilege of hindsight, he would not have appointed him in the first place.

The hon. Gentleman asks me a number of questions about the process flowing from the Humble Address. As I have already informed the House, the Government are working with the leadership of the Intelligence and Security Committee to ensure that we can comply with the Humble Address and co-operate with transparency to release the documents as we have said we will, in compliance with the Met police investigation and other constraints that are currently being managed. We will ensure that the Intelligence and Security Committee is given all the available support it needs to be able to service the House effectively in line with the Humble Address.

Government Performance against Fiscal Rules

Debate between Neil O'Brien and Darren Jones

Monday 7th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

My hon. Friend is right. Whether it is investors, market traders or our constituents, they got sick to the back teeth of chaos under the Conservatives, whether it was the mess of Brexit or the change in Prime Minister and Chancellor every five minutes. Ultimately, that resulted in a Parliament in which people were worse off at the end of the Conservative Administration than they were at the start, and our mortgages and rents were higher as a cost of the loss of control in the public finances. This Labour Government will never let that happen again.

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

A £6 billion hole has been opened up because those on the Labour Front Bench cannot get those on the Labour Back Benches to vote for their own policies. As a result, No. 10 is today conspicuously refusing to rule out a wealth tax. If we tell business people and wealth creators that their money will get taxed if they leave it in this country, we drive even more investors away. Is it not the case that even if this measure is not ultimately put in place, over the next couple of months the speculation about a wealth tax itself will drive investment away from this country?

[Darren Jones]

The hon. Member knows that the Chancellor will set out any decisions on tax one way or the other in the Budget, which she will do in the autumn.

Public Finances: Borrowing Costs

Debate between Neil O'Brien and Darren Jones

Thursday 9th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

My hon. Friend is right to point out that the Government are in the service of working people. What does that mean? It means that people’s lives—the money they have in their pocket, and the ability to pay the bills, get a roof over their head and seek opportunity—are at the very heart of what it means to be in the Labour party and in this Labour Government. Conservative Members might not have suffered from higher mortgage bills or worried about the cost of living during their supermarket shop each month, but people across the country did, and they suffered as a consequence of the Conservatives’ behaviour. I welcome my hon. Friend’s comment that they should have a period of silence while they learn the lessons.

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

I think that I heard the Chief Secretary say that the Chancellor has not gone to China. Will he confirm first that she is still planning to go? Secondly, if she has not gone to China yet, why is she not here? Lots of people would like to hear from her. Thirdly, has the Chancellor talked to the Governor of the Bank of England about market turbulence at any point in the last seven days?

[Darren Jones]

The Chancellor is going to China, as has been well documented. Again, I am sorry that it disappoints the hon. Member that I am here. I refer him and his colleagues to the urgent question, which is about a statement on borrowing costs and public finances. He will know that I am the Minister for public finances, which is why I am here answering his questions.

Fiscal Rules

Debate between Neil O'Brien and Darren Jones

Monday 28th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

I will avoid the suggestion that we might go back to putting things on stone tablets if I may, but I will accept the invitation in my hon. Friend’s question, and say that after 14 years, we have seen the failure of the approach taken by the last Government. I noted in my statement that public sector investment would now have been at its lowest in 10 years, under the plans of the now Opposition. That has been a failure for the economy and for the British people, and this Government will rectify it.

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

Before the election, the Chancellor said that she would not change the measure of debt in order to borrow more, but now she is talking about doing exactly that. Before the election, she said that she would not increase national insurance, but now she is talking about doing exactly that. Before the election, Labour steered people away from the idea that the Government would cut the winter fuel payment, but they have already done exactly that. They said, before the election, that they would not increase taxes on working people, but now they are planning to do exactly that. Does the Minister understand why so many of my constituents feel that they were misled?

[Darren Jones]

The hon. Member’s constituents will note at the Budget on Wednesday that this party honours its promises—the promises, set out in its manifesto, to protect working people. He might want to reflect on the way that his party failed his constituents at the last election before trying to lecture this Government.