Darren Jones
MP for Bristol North West · Labour · United Kingdom
“I wonder where the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) is? [ Interruption. ] Not in Clacton, I am told, Mr Speaker. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) for his question, and his continued support for the Government’s efforts to improve ethics and integrity in public life.”
“I begin by thanking my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for the dedicated work that he has undertaken since becoming leader of the Labour party. Following the crushing defeat that we experienced in 2019, he led our party to a landslide historic victory in 2024.”
“It is not necessarily for me to give advice to the hon. Gentleman, but I would not always believe the reporting in the Daily Mail . On which documents the Metropolitan police have requested, as I have said repeatedly from the Dispatch Box, I have been advised not to detail or itemise those requests, but instead to refer to the categories…”
“I see that the House has been waiting for me. I am starting to prepare myself for a quieter life, and it was nice to have the opportunity to start that this morning. On 11 March and 1 June, the Government published two tranches of documents.”
“We have established a Cabinet Sub-Committee called the Middle East Response Committee, chaired by the Prime Minister, which has met weekly. I, as Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, have chaired senior ministerial groups underpinning that work to ensure we have a clear understanding of the impact of the conflict in the middle east on t…”
“I thank the hon. Member for his question. Of course, the House notes the conclusion of the criminal investigation and the judgment that was laid down in this case of embezzlement by SNP officials.”
The complete record
Every one of 600 lines we hold for Darren Jones, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 12.
“I see that the House has been waiting for me. I am starting to prepare myself for a quieter life, and it was nice to have the opportunity to start that this morning. On 11 March and 1 June, the Government published two tranches of documents. Since the motion has passed, we have been in the House to discuss this matter on 11 occasions, including most recently on 3 June. The Government therefore consider themselves to have discharged their duties to this House in relation to the motion. The exception is the material withheld at the request of the Metropolitan police; we will publish that, once we have been informed that doing so is no longer prejudicial to the Met’s criminal investigation.”
“Gentleman knows—and he probably agrees with this—the Government do not want to do anything to jeopardise the Metropolitan police’s criminal investigation, and we continue to hold that position.”
“It is not necessarily for me to give advice to the hon. Gentleman, but I would not always believe the reporting in the Daily Mail . On which documents the Metropolitan police have requested, as I have said repeatedly from the Dispatch Box, I have been advised not to detail or itemise those requests, but instead to refer to the categories of documentation requested, and I have spoken to that point on a number of occasions at the Dispatch Box. The House has asked questions previously about whether we could list the documents, and we have been advised that that would make the work of the Metropolitan police harder as they bring together their case, in terms of criminal consequences. As the hon.”
“All the documentation that the Government hold has been published in the first two tranches, except for the documentation that the Metropolitan police have asked for, which we have given to them as part of their investigation. The only remaining documentation that will be published in future is therefore the documents that the Metropolitan police hold.”
“I begin by thanking my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for the dedicated work that he has undertaken since becoming leader of the Labour party. Following the crushing defeat that we experienced in 2019, he led our party to a landslide historic victory in 2024. Since coming into office, he has taken the right decisions to get our country back on track after 14 years of Conservative failure. NHS waiting lists have fallen by 400,000—the largest fall in 17 years. We have put an extra 3,000 neighbourhood police officers back on the beat, and we will lift 450,000 children out of poverty. I am proud to have served the Prime Minister as his Chief Secretary, and I know that my team and colleagues have been proud to serve him as well, and we wish his successor well.”
“I am afraid that it is in the interests of the public, and he needs to answer questions about it. If he is acting on behalf of donors and asking questions in return for money, there should be consequences.”
“I wonder where the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) is? [ Interruption. ] Not in Clacton, I am told, Mr Speaker. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) for his question, and his continued support for the Government’s efforts to improve ethics and integrity in public life. The House knows that trust in politics is important, and that we have more work to do. That is why we have important rules about conflicts of interest, and why we must declare those conflicts of interest on the record, and then not lobby on behalf of donors or others who have sought to put money into our campaigns or other personal interests. The leader of Reform UK has said, “it’s literally none of your business” in answer to questions about the £5 million crypto-donation.”
“I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind comments. He says that this might be our last time together at the Dispatch Box; I do not know where he is planning on going, but I hope to be back here in due course. He asks a very pertinent question. I know that any Prime Minister takes their responsibilities to the House seriously, and I am sure that the next Prime Minister will be at the Dispatch Box at the earliest opportunity.”
“I understand the premise of the hon. Gentleman’s question, and I am sure the new Prime Minister will agree with the sentiment. We are waiting for confirmation of the timetable for the Labour party’s election of a new leader. The sitting dates of this House have already been confirmed, but I know the new Prime Minister will want to come to the Dispatch Box at the earliest opportunity.”
“I thank the hon. Lady for taking the opportunity to pursue further Liberal Democrat policies; she is quite right to do so. She will know of the constitutional principles that mean we cannot bind our successors. I am sure that whoever is in the relevant ministerial role will happily answer that question in due course.”
“My hon. Friend is right. The Barnett formula plays an important role in ensuring fairness in public spending across all the nations of the United Kingdom. She is right to point out that we have given a record-breaking level of money to the Scottish Government, but it is the responsibility of the Scottish Government to spend that money effectively. People in her constituency and across Scotland have seen that the SNP has failed to spend that money wisely, and we should continue to hold it to account.”
“I could probably refer to quite a list of appointments under the previous Administration that did not meet that test. I reassure the hon. Gentleman that public appointments are made in line with independent panels, with proper evidence and citations. We continue to make reforms to the system to ensure that the brightest and best across the country help us to lead in the public sphere without being related to political conflicts, as he suggests.”
“I thank the hon. Member for his question. Of course, the House notes the conclusion of the criminal investigation and the judgment that was laid down in this case of embezzlement by SNP officials. That should never happen in public life, and it definitely should not happen when people are making donations to what they think are good causes—it is clearly wrongdoing, and should never be allowed to take place. A number of tests need to be met to establish an inquiry of the nature that the hon. Member refers to, and I would be happy for us to look at those conditions and write to him with the answer.”
“My experience of coups is that they do not come with a memo in advance, so the hon. Member should not feel sorry for not having had one. I can assure him that those investigations are under way; I cannot yet give him a time for when they will conclude, but I note that parallel investigations are happening in the European Parliament. When updates are available, my successor will come to the House with that information.”
“We have established a Cabinet Sub-Committee called the Middle East Response Committee, chaired by the Prime Minister, which has met weekly. I, as Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, have chaired senior ministerial groups underpinning that work to ensure we have a clear understanding of the impact of the conflict in the middle east on the UK domestic economy in relation to supply chains, the security of critical goods and the economic impact. That work is informing Government decisions to protect British citizens and the UK economy as best we can from that conflict. Official Report , 9 July 2026; Vol. 789, c. 7WC. (Correction).”
“Friend’s request for a meeting with the victims of Jeffrey Epstein. I know that there is a request with No. 10 for the Prime Minister to do so, but if she thinks it appropriate, I make myself available for that meeting to discuss the issues that she has raised. I know that she will continue to be a strong advocate from the Back Benches for the action this Government are taking to halve violence against women and girls, as well as to pursue the duty of candour on which I know she worked so hard, and I look forward to continuing my work with her on these important issues.”
“Did I consciously ignore the stories that followed Peter Mandelson, or indeed know about many of them, from many, many years ago? I do not think that I did. Did I ever ignore warnings that were put to me about Peter Mandelson? I did not receive any, to do so. But as I reflected on my hon. Friend’s speech, it made me think: did I at best subconsciously treat Peter Mandelson differently because I believed him to have influence and power within the Labour party? I think the answer to that question is yes, I did. Have I benefited from that relationship in the time I have been an elected politician? I think in part the answer to that question is yes, I did. For that I would like to apologise to the House, to the victims, to Lisa, and commit to then doing something about it. In the first instance, I hear my hon.”
“Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) for her powerful speech this afternoon and to take this opportunity to thank her for the work she carried out so diligently as part of this Government as the Minister for Victims. The accounts that my hon. Friend has shared with this House this afternoon from victims such as Lisa are harrowing and should remind us of the anger and suffering that they rightly continue to feel each time we have one of these debates. But my hon. Friend’s speech has made me think that just reading the words on this page alone feels insufficient in the context of the cultural challenges that she raised, and with your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to take a moment to take this opportunity to ask myself questions about my relationship with Peter Mandelson.”
“I thank Members from across the House for their contributions this afternoon and for sharing the condolences expressed by the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), on the news that we learned during the debate that Sir Alex Younger, the former director general of MI6, had passed. As I have said to the House before, while it is right for Members to discuss process and how the Government have responded to the Humble Address, we must not neglect to remember the women and girls who are at the very heart of this matter. Their suffering cannot be forgotten in this pursuit of justice—a pursuit that has been denied to them for too long. On that point, I want to start by paying particular thanks to my hon.”
“Since the Humble Address motion was passed on 4 February, the House will know that a huge disclosure exercise has been undertaken by Government officials. The motion called for the disclosure of documents in respect of the appointment and dismissal of Peter Mandelson as His Majesty’s ambassador to Washington, alongside relevant communications. The publication of documents on 11 March, followed by the second tranche on Monday, has done that, in the Government’s view. I hope the Government have provided the House with the reassurance it needs that, with the exception of the small number of documents withheld at the request of the Metropolitan police, which we intend to publish when we are allowed to do so, the Government have discharged their duties to the House in relation to the Humble Address.”
“I have been advised repeatedly that I am not permitted to disclose what I have seen in that document on the Floor of the House, so I am afraid it will have to be one of those questions that remains until such a time as the Metropolitan police publishes its documentation. In relation to the second part of the right hon. Gentleman’s question, I refer him to the Paymaster General’s answer earlier today. That is the answer to that question. This is my 11th update to the House on this matter, and I am grateful for the opportunity to answer Members’ questions. I will speak to a number of issues first, before turning to some specific questions from Members and setting out what the Government intend to do next.”
“In relation to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman’s question, he will know, because I have confirmed it to the House at the Dispatch Box previously, that questions were put by the Prime Minister’s former chief of staff to Peter Mandelson following the due diligence report to seek further information about the stories reported in the newspaper. He will also know that Peter Mandelson replied to those questions, and that information was then considered by those in No. 10. As I have confirmed to the House, that document—the question and its answers—is one of the documents being held by the Metropolitan police.”
“It goes to your school, education, employers and friends, and people speak frankly. If for one moment they felt it was going to be published, security vetting designed to protect the most secret information would be of little value. Whatever else we do, we must hold on to that. However tempting it would be, for whatever reason, to know the full contents, they must not be revealed. I am talking not about this case but about a general principle.” —[ Official Report, House of Lords, 2 June 2026; Vol. 856, c. 764.] I hear the arguments put by right hon. and hon. Members in the House today, but I do say that not just the Government’s position, but the advice from the Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee, a former National Security Adviser and a former director general of MI5 should be taken seriously.”
“He said that he “agrees with the Government that the larger vetting documents shouldn’t be released to the Committee” because of the potential impact on the vetting system. The former National Security Adviser, Lord Sedwill, wrote in a letter published in The Times today that “the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) has seen a summary of the issues that vetting inevitably raised. That should be sufficient for Parliament to judge the Prime Minister’s handling of this episode. Any Humble Address requiring disclosure of Lord Mandelson’s detailed submissions or vetting file would be a serious mistake.” In the other place yesterday, Baroness Manningham-Buller, the former director general of MI5, said: “I know that security vetting is very detailed—I have been subjected to it many times myself.”
“However, the vetting inputs collected as part of those investigations would never be published, because if the Government did so, people would feel unable to answer those questions honestly and frankly in any UK Security Vetting investigation in the future—a point that was made by the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin), who has been through that process. That would undermine our national security—not just in this instance, but the very basis of the national security system itself. It would have far-reaching impacts that no responsible Government rightly should entertain. On that basis, I welcome the comments from the Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, Lord Beamish, on Monday night.”
“If the right hon. Member will forgive me, I have noted that question from earlier in the debate, and I will come to it in a grouping shortly. I note the comments and questions today from Members on the process that officials have led to support the Government in responding to the Humble Address. As I have said each time I have been at the Dispatch Box, the Government have taken their obligations to comply with the Humble Address seriously and, in their view, have done so in full. I hear the calls of some Members for the Government to provide further detail on Peter Mandelson’s vetting. As I told the House on Monday, we have shared the vetting summary and recommendation with the Intelligence and Security Committee.”
“I have said repeatedly that the summary has been given to the Intelligence and Security Committee. I think the hon. Lady may be confusing the summary and the recommendation from the interview information that was collected between the UKSV official and Peter Mandelson. This is important because, as the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells said, when someone goes into an interview with a UKSV specialist and they say, “You must tell me everything, and it will go no further,” if that were to be handed over to a politician—even a politician on the Intelligence and Security Committee—it would undermine the very basis of that work.”
“The Cabinet Office did not go to each person in each Department and conduct that itself; it executed it through Departments in line with the process that I have set out.”
“That is an important distinction because the disclosure process that took place involved the Cabinet Office writing to every Department, to permanent secretary and principal private secretary level for all relevant Ministers, special advisers and officials, to set out the guidance on which the disclosure process should take place—that is, for example, to include WhatsApp and other communication services, emails, personal devices, work devices and other messaging platforms—and a clear set of guidance about what would be in scope and not in scope. Permanent secretaries as the accounting officers to Parliament for each of those Departments were individually made liable for ensuring that that disclosure process took place in line with the guidance.”
“Moving to the documents that Members may have expected to see in the second tranche, as I said on Monday, some messages may not have been captured where people may have previously changed their phones without having backed up their messages or where they had disappearing messages turned on, and I noted to the House on Monday that that included myself. In my circumstance, to answer the questions from the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, it is not that I took a unilateral decision about messages that I felt were in scope or not in scope of the Humble Address; it is merely that I have access to no messages to disclose.”
“Again, it is important to distinguish between the notes and information collected in the interview process, which some Members have called to be given to the Intelligence and Security Committee, and the interviewer’s recommendation and summary and conclusions, which, as I say, the Government have already given to the Intelligence and Security Committee. The fact that documents that have gone through the ISC have not appeared in the bundles of this week must be in relation to the fact that categories of information given to the Metropolitan police are relevant to this question.”
“I have tried to explain the answer to that question a number of times. There was no decision to disregard any messages because there are no messages to consider. What I confirmed on Monday was that I have had WhatsApp exchanges with Peter Mandelson, but I have not saved them on my devices to be able to share with my principal private secretary. The only person who could release those messages, if they have them, would be Peter Mandelson, who has refused to disclose his phone to the process— [ Interruption. ]”
“In relation to mitigations, I confirm to the House that I have not personally seen any of the UKSV information nor the summary, recommendations or any mitigation information that was put in place, so I cannot speak to this question from personal experience. However, I note my comment on Monday that the Metropolitan police have permitted us to confirm that the categories of documents that they are holding include vetting information and conflict of interest process material. Unfortunately, that is all I am able to say on the matter.”
“As an extension of that question, the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster asked me to comment on how this relates to Morgan McSweeney’s messages. I am afraid that I did not conduct that conversation or investigation, so I cannot answer on the specifics of that question. I will now turn to some of the specific questions raised by Members during the debate, which I have grouped in a way that I hope is satisfactory to the House. The first group relates to vetting information, information on mitigations, both commercial and related to national security, and the question of attachments. I have already addressed the issue of vetting information.”
“I share the expectation of my right hon. Friend that there would be a difference between commercial mitigations—for example, what investments there may be in particular companies—and mitigations that may have arisen from national security considerations. What I do not know is whether that was the case and how they were dealt with in any particular instance, because I do not have that information to hand. Lastly on this first group of questions, the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) asked me to confirm the relevant detail in relation to the Metropolitan police dates and documents. As I have set out previously, I have been advised that I am not permitted to put that on the public record, but I am happy to go back to the Metropolitan police to see if there is anything further that we can add in due course.”
“Those include our commitment to bring forward legislation to ensure that peerages can be removed from disgraced peers, noting that Peter Mandelson has already been removed from the list of Privy Counsellors, and changing the process for direct ministerial appointments so that due diligence and national security vetting must take place prior to announcement.”
“Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) to confirm the Government’s continued commitment to the duty of candour legislation, which I can confirm. As he knows, there have been discussions with families and others about refining some of the final points in that legislation. The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) asked me about freedom of information requests, and I commit to taking that question away and asking officials to try to respond as promptly as possible. As the Prime Minister has set out, there are clearly significant lessons to be learned from the issues that arose from Peter Mandelson’s appointment, so while the Government consider that they have now duly discharged their obligations in respect of the Humble Address, they will none the less continue work on a number of important areas.”
“The deputy Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), made the helpful suggestion that we should think about codifying the precedent on which the Government rely when making redactions for the future. I commit to taking that away and taking advice, not least on what that might mean in terms of House business and Government business. My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) made some interesting points about how Humble Addresses may be used in the future, given that the House seems to have decided that it wants to use them more often than has been the case in the past. I was then asked by my hon.”
“Again, I do not know which documents the Metropolitan police have, so I cannot speak to them specifically, but I share the sentiment of the right hon. Gentleman’s point. The shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster asked me to confirm that there was a leak inquiry under way in relation to what appears to be information from UKSV being in the hands of Guardian journalists. I can confirm that that leak inquiry is under way but has not yet concluded. Questions of judgment and due diligence have been put to me. I have already answered the point about the follow-up questions to the due diligence report and can only reiterate to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom), the words of the Prime Minister when he said that he regrets the appointment and has apologised for it.”
“Members for their work on this matter and their contributions to today’s debate. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the Government’s response to the House’s humble Address of 4 February 2026.”
“The Government have also noted the Intelligence and Security Committee’s comments on the management of sensitive information; I share those concerns, and have expressed them at the Dispatch Box. The Government are committed to raising information security standards, and will take further action on this issue. As I have committed to previously, I will return to the House to update it on the progress of this work in due course, but on the basis of my statements today and on Monday this week, the Government now consider that they have duly discharged their obligations in respect of the Humble Address. I thank the Intelligence and Security Committee, the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, the Foreign Affairs Committee, and right hon. and hon.”
“I say politely to the hon. Lady that I have already answered all of those questions. The Government will continue their review with Sir Adrian Fulford, looking at recommendations for the national security vetting system arising from the lessons of the Peter Mandelson case. We are ordering an examination of any security concerns raised during Peter Mandelson’s tenure as ambassador, which the Government Security Group in the Cabinet Office is now taking forward. We are commissioning an independent review of how non-corporate communications channels, including WhatsApp, are used in Government. In addition, the Cabinet Secretary has written to all heads of department to clarify the rules on record keeping and ensure they are being properly applied across Government.”
“Anything less than full candour would be hugely damaging and profoundly negative for our national security; this would be felt by this and future Governments and, ultimately, by the British people. Sharing this data for any person undergoing developed vetting would therefore undermine the very basis of our national security vetting system. This is the 10th update to the House on this matter that I have provided. With the exception of the small number of documents that are withheld at the request of the police, which we intend to publish when the police are content for us to do so, the Government now consider that they have duly discharged the duties set out in the Humble Address. I will, however, return to the House for the general debate on Wednesday to provide a further opportunity for colleagues to ask questions.”
“I can confirm that the vetting process summary and recommendation that was put by UK Security Vetting officials to the Foreign Office has been shared with the Intelligence and Security Committee. It was shared for the purpose of agreeing redactions, as part of the agreed process, so that it can be published when we are in a position to do so. What have not been shared are the highly sensitive personal data inputs collected during the interview process. These could, for example, relate to how much money an individual might have in a particular account or who a person may have had a personal relationship with in the past. If those participating in the vetting process cannot trust that the information they feed into that process is confidential, that will harm the integrity of the whole system.”
“I share the view put by the Intelligence and Security Committee to the House that there are lessons for the civil service to learn in respect of better note-keeping, archiving and the use of appropriate levels of secure IT systems in the future. The Government have already committed to a review of the use of non-corporate communications channels, the terms of reference for which we will shortly publish, taking into account the concerns that have been raised in this House and the two tranches of documents that we have published in response to the Humble Address. I will of course keep the House updated as we progress that work. I now turn to the material relating to Peter Mandelson’s national security vetting process.”
“However, the House should note that some messages may not have been backed up where devices may have been changed or disappearing messages turned on, for reasonable and permitted reasons, including before the dismissal of Peter Mandelson or the passing of the Humble Address—my messages included. I do recall having some limited exchanges with Peter Mandelson over WhatsApp, including those I have already discussed in the media, but these conversations did not involve transacting Government business and were in line with official guidance on the use of non-corporate communications channels at the time.”
“The documents published in the first and second tranches contain the entirety of the documents the Government have available for disclosure, except those few documents I have just referred to in relation to the Metropolitan police. Members will no doubt have questions about what might be perceived to be “missing” messages and meeting notes, which I would like to address in turn. On messages that some might expect to be included, I can confirm that we have conducted multiple rounds of discovery from relevant Ministers, special advisers and officials, in line with the motion passed by the House. This has involved requesting searches of email, messaging platforms such as WhatsApp, and other related communications services on both work and personal devices.”
“No responsible Government would wish to undermine a criminal investigation and put at risk the justice that it seeks, and I am sure that the House will share this position. I can, however, confirm that this material does include questions put to Peter Mandelson by the Prime Minister’s then chief of staff, and Peter Mandelson’s responses. In addition, a small number of documents have been withheld at the request of the police, which fall broadly into the following categories: national security vetting material; conflict of interest process material; and relevant internal correspondence with Peter Mandelson. Such information will, of course, be published at the conclusion of the investigation or at the point at which it would no longer be prejudicial to the police investigation to do so.”
“As the House is aware, the Metropolitan police has also asked the Government to withhold some material in scope of the motion that it considered could be prejudicial to its ongoing criminal investigation or any subsequent prosecution. This request remains in place and I am very grateful, again, to the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, with whom we have also shared this information in order to provide additional accountability for the Government’s actions. I hope that Members will appreciate the need not to prejudice the investigation and understand that I will not be able to answer questions about certain documents that have been withheld.”
“However, I recognise the level of interest in the House in respect of these redactions not related to national security and international relations, so, on the recommendation of the ISC, I can confirm that the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, has reviewed our approach to third-party redactions this morning. He has confirmed that we have applied the methodology set out in the document and that, in his view, the redactions are sensible, reasonable and proportionate. I thank the ISC for this recommendation and the hon. Member for the additional reassurance he has provided on this point.”