Standards in Public Life

Neil O'Brien Excerpts

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.

Lord Mandelson

Neil O'Brien Excerpts

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?

[Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)]

There is a fourth point, which is that there is likely to be a sizeable volume of documents for the ISC to review. Will the Minister reassure this House that the ISC will be given the resources it needs to do its job?

[Neil O’Brien]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point—he is completely correct.

Today, I actually feel quite a lot of sympathy for Labour Back Benchers. Once again, they have been put in a totally impossible position by the Prime Minister and his adviser Morgan McSweeney. The Government wanted the same people who had appointed Mandelson in the first place to be able to control the release of information about the extraordinary way in which that appointment was made. I feel for Labour Back Benchers, because those people in Downing Street are the same people who told them they had to vote to cut the winter fuel payment because there would be a run on the pound if they did not. They are the same people in No. 10 who told Labour Back Benchers that they would not change their position on the family farm tax, and then—after people had killed themselves—changed their position on it. They are the same people who got Labour Back Benchers to vote against an inquiry into grooming gangs. That is telling, because that was another occasion on which this weak Prime Minister put his own political interests ahead of respecting victims.

Today, we learned a little bit more about the character of our Prime Minister. As a result, it is clear from listening to the debate today that even some Labour MPs are asking themselves the same question as the public out there: doesn’t this country deserve better?

Official Secrets Act Case: Witness Statements

Neil O'Brien Excerpts

Thursday 16th October 2025 Commons Chamber

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

(Urgent Question): To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the three witness statements in relation to the alleged breach of the Official Secrets Act on behalf of China.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Ward)]

I thank the hon. Member for the question and for the opportunity to respond to it today. I appreciate how serious and personal this is for the hon. Member, who, like other Members of this House, is sanctioned by China and/or named in the witness statements.

Following the Security Minister’s statement to the House on Monday, the Prime Minister updated Parliament yesterday, following the Crown Prosecution Service’s clarification that the Government were able to publish the witness statements of the deputy National Security Adviser. As the Prime Minister said in the House, he carefully considered this matter and, following legal advice, decided to disclose the witness statements unredacted and in full.

I reiterate that, as the Prime Minister said yesterday, under this Government no Minister or special adviser played any role in the provision of evidence. The Prime Minister cannot say whether that was the case under the previous Government, but I once again invite the Conservative party to clarify that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Ward]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Having now had the opportunity to read the statements, Members will be able to confirm for themselves what the Prime Minister and other members of the Government have stated repeatedly: the DNSA faithfully, and with full integrity, set out the position of the previous UK Government and the various threats posed by the Chinese state to the UK, and did so in order to try to support a successful prosecution.

The first and most substantive witness statement is from December 2023, under the last Government. The second and third, which are both much shorter, are from February and August 2025 respectively. It is clear from these statements that the substantive case and evidence submitted by the DNSA does not change materially throughout, and that all three documents clearly articulate the very serious threats posed by China. The second witness statement, in particular, highlights the specific details of some of the cyber-threats that we face, and emphasises that China is the “biggest state-based threat” to the UK’s national security. The third statement goes on to state that the Chinese intelligence services are

“highly capable and conduct large scale espionage operations against the UK to advance the Chinese state’s interests and harm the…security of the UK.”

It is clear from this evidence, which all can now see, that the DNSA took significant strides to articulate the threat from China in support of the prosecution. The decision on whether to proceed, as the Prime Minister made clear yesterday, was taken purely by the CPS. It is also clear that the three statements are constrained by the position of the Conservative Government on China at the time of the alleged offences.

As the Prime Minister said yesterday and the Security Minister said on Monday, this Government’s first priority will always be national security and keeping this country safe. We wanted this case to proceed. I am sure all Members of the House did, and I know you did too, Mr Speaker. We are all profoundly disappointed that it did not.

[Neil O’Brien]

I should declare an interest as I am named in the witness statements. As someone sanctioned by China, I was shocked to learn that the Prime Minister knew that this case was about to collapse several days beforehand, but chose to do nothing. We now know that the CPS was not far short of what it needed. The Director of Public Prosecutions told MPs yesterday that it was something like 5% short. However, we do not know exactly what the CPS was asking for—what that 5% was. We do not know why the Government would not go that bit further when they were asked to. That is what we need hear from the Minister today: why did the Government not give the CPS what it was asking for?

Nobody is disputing that there is plenty of evidence. The witness statements are shocking. They tell us that China is conducting “large scale espionage operations”. Cash is said to have told Berry in a message,

“you’re in spy territory now”.

Yesterday, Government sources briefed The Guardian that the “civil service decided” that decisions

“should be done independently of ministers”.

No, no, no, Mr Speaker. The civil service does not get to decide anything; Ministers decide. The Prime Minister was not some helpless captive, unable to make sure that the CPS had what it needed. He knew, and he decided not to help. Why?

Let us come back to the evidence that was provided. The Prime Minister said yesterday that he was utterly constrained by the position of the previous Government, and every expert had already contradicted the PM on this. However, we can now see that the two witness statements from this year did state the position of the current Labour Government—a direct contradiction of what the Prime Minister said yesterday. The evidence includes lines from Labour’s manifesto, and they weaken the case. They make it less clear that China is a threat to our national security. That is one of the things that changed.

The Sunday Times reported on a meeting convened by Jonathan Powell with the permanent secretary of the Foreign Office to discuss this case. Until yesterday, the Government said that that was just made up. Now they admit that it happened, but they still will not come clean about what happened in that meeting, or any other meeting.

In conclusion, this House needs to know what was asked for by the CPS and why it was refused, and we must see all the correspondence and the minutes. If the Government will not publish the China files, people will ask: what have this Government got to hide?

[Chris Ward]

I thank the shadow Minister for that and, as I say, I do recognise how personally important this matter is to him and to many Members of the House.

On transparency, the Security Minister has given two statements to this House. The Prime Minister gave what I think we can all agree was a rather lengthy statement yesterday, and he used the pretty unusual process of publishing the evidence in full yesterday, so transparency is something the Government are trying to provide.

The key point the shadow Minister made was about why the Prime Minister or Ministers did not interfere or try to do so. As the Prime Minister made clear yesterday, this was a matter for the CPS independently, and an important principle of this Government—[Interruption.] Evidence was provided independently by the deputy National Security Adviser. The Prime Minister made it clear, and this is the bit I find confusing—[Interruption.]

Security Update: Official Secrets Act Case

Neil O'Brien Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

On the hon. Gentleman’s final question, I have taken every opportunity to try to provide the Government’s response. I was not entirely clear about his critique of taking a long-term strategic approach and whether he thinks that is a good thing to do or not. I think it is a good thing that Governments think carefully and strategically about their role in the world and the nature of their relationships with countries like China. Yes, we have to be clear-eyed, and have to always defend our national security, but we also have to look for opportunities for economic growth as well.

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

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Is it to do with this statement?

[Neil O’Brien]

Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker. Like you, I am one of the parliamentarians sanctioned by China. Like many Members of this House, I am left wondering whether it was not just our offices that were spied on, but our families, our homes and our children, and in the absence of a trial, I have no way of finding out what happened.

The Minister has been asked multiple times whether he will publish the minutes of the meetings in which this case was discussed. We know from the DPP that, over months and months, the CPS asked again and again for evidence that was not forthcoming. However, without the minutes of those meetings, we are not able to find out what was asked for, why it was refused or who made that decision. What means are available to this House to get hold of the minutes of those meetings, which the Government do not want to publish? What parliamentary means do we have to get hold of the minutes of meetings in which this issue was discussed and these decisions were made, so that we can find out the truth?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving some notice of that point of order. He is absolutely correct that he and I are two of the four sitting MPs who are sanctioned by China. I have been advised to say that he should seek advice from the Table Office as a first step to see how these documents can be published. The Minister has said repeatedly in responses to Members from across the House that some material may or could be made public at some point. I am not sure what that material will be, or what format it would be in, but I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will seek advice from the Table Office, to make sure that the information is made available, if it can be. Unless the Minister wishes to respond to that point of order, I will let the matter fall.

Official Secrets Act

Neil O'Brien Excerpts

Monday 15th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving me notice of her point of order. I believe that this is a matter for the Attorney General—who is responsible for the CPS—and as he sits in the other place, maybe we will have to use the Solicitor General as a way forward. In this case, I hope that a clear message has gone back to everybody that when we still have Members of Parliament who have sanctions, we cannot let this go in the way that seems to have been done.

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

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker, I am one of the MPs who is currently sanctioned by China, and as one of the founders of the China Research Group I am one of the MPs who was spied upon here. I find it astonishing not just that this case, which was a slam dunk last year, has now been dropped, but that we are not even being told why it has been dropped. The one bright spot in this whole process has been your leadership on the issue, Mr Speaker, and in particular your decision to ban the Chinese ambassador from this building for as long as Members of this House are sanctioned. I worry that certain people will now come to you with honeyed words. How can I put on the record our thanks to you for your leadership, and also our hope that you will continue to stand strong on behalf of Members of this House?

[Mr Speaker]

I think you have certainly put it on the record.

I take seriously the sanctions that have been laid. My worry is that we have foreign state actors who do not believe in democracy, and democracy within this House. We must defend our democracy; we must defend Members of Parliament. I have to say a big thank you to our head of security, who has worked very hard on this. I am sure—not that they would make this judgment—that we are all disappointed with the outcome, including the Minister.

Oral Answers to Questions

Neil O'Brien Excerpts

Wednesday 15th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Actually, this Government and previous Governments have a proud record in championing LGBT rights. It was this Government who introduced same-sex marriage. We will continue to ensure that everyone in our society can live with tolerance and compassion, and have every opportunity available to them. That is what we have delivered, and that is what we will continue to deliver.

[Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con)]

Last year, through the Homes for Ukraine scheme, my family and I welcomed a refugee family to our home. I am proud that this country has always offered refuge to those who need it. However, it is essential that we in this country decide who comes here. The Prime Minister has rightly said that he will do whatever it takes to stop the small boats and the evil trade around them, but is it not apparent after this morning’s ruling that what it will take is a new law to override the Human Rights Act and cut through the thicket of case law built up by judicial activism, so that we can bring back control of our borders and stop the small boats?

[The Prime Minister]

It is right that we go through the judgment carefully and properly. As I have said, the Government have already been working in advance on a new treaty with Rwanda to address the concerns that were raised previously and were raised by the Supreme Court, which also acknowledged that changes can be delivered to address those issues. Let me repeat, however, that if it becomes clear that our domestic legal frameworks, or indeed international conventions, are still frustrating plans after that point, I am prepared to change our laws and revisit those international relationships, because we are absolutely committed to stopping the boats.

Oral Answers to Questions

Neil O'Brien Excerpts

Wednesday 29th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)]

5. What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the potential economic impact of building two freeports in Scotland.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Neil O'Brien)]

The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and the Scotland Office are delighted that the UK Government’s freeport programme is being extended to Scotland. UK Government funding of up to £52 million for two new green freeports will boost Scotland’s economy by regenerating communities, creating high-quality jobs and supporting the transition to a net zero economy.

[Alexander Stafford]

The UK Government expect the existing confirmed freeports to add £24 billion to the UK economy. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is vital that all political parties get behind the green freeports initiative to maximise the benefits they will bring to Scotland and the whole UK, rather than a divisive, costly and unwanted referendum on Scottish separatism?

[Neil O'Brien]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have received five competitive bids for Scottish green freeports and the two Governments are working closely together to assess the proposals. I am confident that we will announce two outstanding winners that will create highly paid jobs, help to regenerate the areas around the ports and become global and national hubs of trade, innovation and investment.

[Mr Speaker]

I call shadow Minister Liz Twist.

[Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)]

There are five excellent bids from across Scotland for the two proposed green freeports. Each of the bids is of such high quality that it would be a great shame not to support the local economies in Inverness and Cromarty, Orkney, the Forth, the Clyde, and Aberdeen City and Peterhead. Will the Minister’s Department consider what support can be given to unsuccessful areas, and whether that support can be widened?

[Neil O'Brien]

We will certainly look at that. Of course there is intense competition for the freeports, which will create huge benefits not only for the local area, but for all of Scotland.

[Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)]

6. What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Transport on the effect of High Speed Rail 2 on Scotland.

Health and Social Care

Neil O'Brien Excerpts

Tuesday 7th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I think what the Labour party needs to do is come up with any type of plan at all. Every day in this country, plan beats no plan. We are putting record investment into the NHS. We have a plan to clear the backlogs—to reduce the backlogs as fast as we possibly can with this levy. What would Labour Members do? Answer comes there none: they have no plan.

[Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con)]

For years, people have come to my surgery with horror stories about the difficulties of accessing care and the frankly squalid conditions that their loved ones have to be in in residential care. Can the Prime Minister reassure me that, as well as protecting the things people have worked hard for all their lives, we will also protect people from having to put their loved ones into conditions that not one person in this House would ever want for their loved ones?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, because in addition to the caps and the floors that we are introducing to protect people from catastrophic costs, we are also introducing a fair cost of care.

Oral Answers to Questions

Neil O'Brien Excerpts

Wednesday 20th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

As the hon. Lady may know from what I said to the Liaison Committee several times, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Actually, there is more transit now taking place between Larne and Stranraer—Cairnryan, than there is between Holyhead and Dublin, because it is going so smoothly.

[Neil O'Brien (Harborough) (Con) [V]]

  It is excellent that we are leading Europe in vaccinations and it is excellent that we now have strong health borders, but, as the virus bounces around the world, there is a real risk that it will mutate and be able to dodge the vaccines or reduce their efficacy; there is concerning data from South Africa in that respect. Will the Government develop a new rapid pathway to allow the approval of new variations of the vaccines so that we can shut down any new strains quickly?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes indeed. My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point, and we have been talking intensively about that with the scientists over the past days and weeks and also in the past few hours. We are confident that the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency will be in a position to turn around new applications for new variants of vaccines, as may be required to deal with new variants of the virus.

Public Health

Neil O'Brien Excerpts

Tuesday 1st December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con)]

We all want to see only the minimum level of restrictions necessary to keep this virus under control and to support those suffering real hardship because of the virus. I welcome the extra support for the hospitality sector that the Prime Minister set out today. There is no question but that we have to keep this virus under control. So far this year, there have been nearly 80,000 excess deaths. It would take more than four months to read out the names of all those people one after another, because this is a killer virus and it can escalate very quickly.

During the second wave in Leicestershire, the numbers of people hospitalised by coronavirus escalated very quickly and remain above the level we saw even in the spring peak. However, after the national restrictions came in, we saw the infection rate turning around, and we are starting to see the hospitalisation rate turning around, too. The measures we took came just in time to allow life-and-death services such as cancer treatment to keep operating throughout the time we had gone through the peak. If we had waited or done nothing, doctors at our local hospitals are clear with me that those life or death services would have shut, so we took action just in time.

All developed countries have taken unprecedented measures to try to control the virus, and I am glad we are taking action earlier in our second wave than our neighbours in France. I am also glad that we have secured more access to vaccine shots than many of our neighbours, which will help us get back to normal faster next year. Things will get better next year, but with the vaccine so close now, people dying unnecessarily in the last days of the pandemic would be truly tragic. It seems to me that a tiered approach is the right one when we have the virus under control, making restrictions proportionate to the problem locally. Again, there is a contrast with France, where the Government have simply shut all restaurants until next year, and all bars are shut with no date to reopen.

Some people in this debate have supported making the areas more granular as we go through the reviews. I support that, and I want to see more rapid testing in my area to drive down the virus faster, but now that we are making progress, both nationally and locally, it would be tragic to throw that away. What is happening in Wales, where infections are now rising again, is a warning about loosening up too quickly.

There are many myths circulating at the moment. Covid is not just flu, and it is not just displacing flu. It is not the case, as some Members have claimed, that 90% of tests are false positives. In fact, the number is microscopic. Nor is it the case that those who have died would have done so anyway. In fact, a study by academics at Glasgow University suggested that on average, victims had 10 years left to live, and that is a lot. The relationship between protecting lives and helping the economy is not a simple trade-off. We can see that countries such as Sweden, which had a more liberal approach, had both a worse hit to their economy and a worse public health outcome, with more than 10 times the death rate of their near neighbours, yet we still see people online advocating that as a good way to go.

Arguably the best policy to control the virus is also the best policy to protect the economy. This has been a very tough year, but things will get better next year. Until then, we have to protect people’s health and protect lives, so I am supporting the measures we are taking tonight.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Wragg]

Absolutely right.

We are told that non-essential retail can reopen—hurrah! But I am not quite sure why we would express great surprise—

[Neil O’Brien]

rose—

[Mr Wragg]

I will give way again, very generously.

[Neil O’Brien]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. He is making light of some of these issues, which is amusing. However, there is a dangerous agenda behind some conspiracy theories. A lady was quoted in the Daily Mail yesterday, who, when one looks at her Facebook feed, is celebrating the burning down of Jewish-owned banks. She is presented as someone we should be listening to on public health. Does he think that is right?

[Mr Wragg]

Absolutely not. This has brought out the number of lunatics in the country, quite frankly.

Non-essential retail is to reopen. Why on earth was it closed in the first place? A Secretary of State beamed at us from the pages of The Daily Telegraph yesterday to say, “Rejoice! You can go out and shop around the clock.” We express surprise that so many of our high street retailers are going into administration. I was not particularly aware that the clothes rail at Dorothy Perkins was ever a particular vector of disease. This all links into the proportionality of the proposed measures.

Leaving aside my levity in opening, I have always believed the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 would have been a far better vehicle for implementing measures. We have talked about this huge statutory instrument before us and some of us have said that we are going to withhold our votes or vote against on the basis that we wish we could amend it. Well, we could amend it if it was done under the Civil Contingencies Act. Perhaps that is the reason why it was not used. That Act, of course, contains a 30-day review period, as opposed to a six-month period under the Coronavirus Act 2020. The Government have nothing to fear from greater scrutiny. Greater scrutiny leads to better government, and it should be accepted as it is proposed.

To come on to parochial matters relating to my own constituency and tiering decisions—to sound like a broken record, from what we have heard this afternoon so far—I strongly contend that Stockport should not be re-entering tier 3. It was in tier 3 before the lockdown, but it should more charitably be placed in tier 2, because its levels of covid per 100,000 population are now below that of Cheshire to its south, which was put into tier 2 last week.

Briefly, I am concerned about decision making and the so-called gold command. If one believes what one reads in The Sunday Times—sometimes a leap of faith in itself, but on this occasion I am minded to believe it—the decision on tiering for London was taken on the basis of 50,000 jobs being under threat if it was placed into tier 2, as opposed to 500,000 jobs if it was placed into tier 3. My constituents deserve exactly that consideration as well. I do not believe entirely in the north-south divide—a conspiracy theory that abounds in this House—but when we have such decisions, one cannot but help wonder if it might be true.

The Select Committee on Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs, which I have the pleasure of chairing, wrote to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster last week to ask for further evidence on the five tests. My concern is that the fifth of those tests—that is to say pressure on the NHS, including current and projected occupancy—will trump all other considerations. The data and information on that are not freely available, however, and no answer has yet been received to that letter.

If the measures are arbitrary and there is no exact science behind them, I would sooner that the Government admitted that, because at least it would be an honest approach. As they have not done so, I cannot support these measures this evening.