I call the shadow Leader of the House.

I thank the Leader of the House very much for that business update and for the news of the debate on Wednesday. That will be an opportunity for Back-Bench Members to put matters on the record—but for scrutiny of the Government, actually, by far the best way is through the questions that will follow the next statement, although I am afraid that the Mandelson files were released publicly only at 2 pm and, at 1,500 pages, no Back-Bench Member can be expected to have mastered them. The Leader of the House recognises the importance of parliamentary scrutiny. Since those files could have been put in the public domain at 9.30 this morning, could I register with him that we are all owed a slightly higher quality of scrutiny than this has received?

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

I rise only to pass on the frustrations from the Liberal Democrat Benches and from my residents that the important legislation planned for Wednesday will now be delayed, and that the incredibly important improvements to rail services that our residents are calling out for will be further delayed. Parkinson’s law suggests that work expands to fill the space available for its completion. May I suggest Mandelson’s law—that, when he is appointed to a Government, his scandals will expand to fill the time available for their discussion? Does the Leader of the House agree that this scandal will be the defining legacy of the Starmer premiership, and that it shows clearly how the change and service agenda promised after the scandal and sleaze of the last Tory Government were as much empty words as the suggestion that proper process was followed in Mandelson’s appointment?