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 3 of 12.
“To confirm, the documents that relate to the recommendation put to the Foreign Office and the Foreign Office’s decision to appoint Peter Mandelson irrespective of the recommendation that was put to it have been referred to the Intelligence and Security Committee. What has not been referred is the raw data collected as part of interviews undertaken with Peter Mandelson, which in any circumstances we would not share in relation to any appointment. I confirm that neither I nor any decision maker in this process has seen that level of personal detail, because it is kept so securely to ensure that, when people go through this process, they feel able to give full and frank answers, without a wide range of politicians or others seeing their deeply personal information.”
“Lady’s question about the motion in relation to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, that Humble Address is being administered by the Department for Business and Trade, and I understand the document is due to be published very shortly.”
“On the first part of the hon. Lady’s question on the assumptions about the Government withholding information that we should not withhold, I am afraid that that is just incorrect. This is the most extensive disclosure of information, I think ever, in relation to a Humble Address. The sheer depth of the document when it is published will illustrate the point that the Government have gone to great lengths to ensure that we are complying with the Humble Address. That is why we established the process with the Intelligence and Security Committee and the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, with independent KC oversight: to ensure that the process is done properly. On the hon.”
“All documents that are in the scope of the Humble Address will be published in the normal way. On the right hon. Member’s question about the work of the Intelligence and Security Committee, any redactions that had any relationship with international relations or national security have been submitted to the Committee for its consideration. As he knows, and as I have confirmed to the House, that process has concluded. I think he is asking me again about personal data, and I refer him to my statement, which makes the point that compliance with the Humble Address sits in the context of the Freedom of Information Act, the ministerial code and motions passed by both Houses about how to comply with such a motion. As I have said, all further information will be published in due course.”
“I can confirm to my hon. Friend that all documents will be published in relation to the Humble Address, as I have set out today and previously, but I again reassert the fact that any suggestion of a cover-up is merely a conspiracy theory.”
“As I have said, any summary documentation and recommendation that was put by UKSV to the Foreign Office has been shared with the hon. Gentleman’s Committee. What has not been shared was the raw data collected in interviews with Peter Mandelson. As I have said repeatedly to the House, and as I am sure the hon. Gentleman agrees, there is not such a mechanism for that level of personal detail—I am talking about how much money someone has in personal accounts, and who they may or may not have had a relationship with in the past—because if it was known that that could be made public to politicians, people going through the security process would not feel able to give full and frank answers, and that would undermine the very nature of our national security system.”
“I was delighted to see it confirmed last week in the King’s Speech that that legislation will be introduced in this Session. We will be bringing it forward shortly.”
“I think this is a question specifically to the Foreign Office in relation to evidence given by the former permanent secretary, and it is about how mitigations can be put in place to manage risks. For example, as I understand it, Mr Speaker, if you previously had a client in a commercial relationship with a business, you would not be allowed to meet them privately while you held public office. These are the types of mitigations to which I think the Foreign Office was referring, and I think they sound legitimate in the circumstances.”
“The second tranche of information will publish all remaining documents except those that are currently with the Metropolitan police in relation to ongoing criminal investigations. As I said to the House, this will be a very significant publication, which will warrant careful consideration from Members across the House. We want to publish it with sufficient notice to allow Members to consider it before coming to the House to ask any questions they may have of the Government, which is why we are now publishing it after the Whitsun recess.”
“I can confirm that all documents that need to be referred to the ISC have now been referred to it. That process has concluded, which is why we can move to publication after the recess.”
“Let me reassert: I really do not think Members are advocating that the raw information collected as part of national security screening interviews with people who are becoming public servants ought to be shared with Parliament. The summary of those recommendations and the advice put to Departments should be and have been shared, and I think that is the appropriate way to handle that. The hon. Gentleman asks me specifically when after the Whitsun recess the document will be published. We stand ready to do so as soon as we are able to secure the time in the House.”
“I think I am right in saying that the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam, who secured the urgent question, made the point that the Committee was in some agreement in relation to the Government’s argument about sharing raw data. I do not think that is the issue in dispute, so I am not sure that any suggestion of withholding information against the will of the motion is in contention. The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith) asks me about compliance with the motion more generally; I refer him to my previous answer.”
“As I say and as the House will see when the document is published, if I had published the document on Thursday, with the House rising on Thursday afternoon, Members would rightly have criticised the Government for not being able to have sufficient time to read it and ask questions of the Government. I am keen for it to be published as soon as possible after the Whitsun recess and I am arranging that with business managers.”
“The information will be published to the House after the Whitsun recess, as I set out. I am afraid that I just disagree with the right hon. Gentleman’s sentiment.”
“The Government believe the ministerial code is functioning as it should. We have increased the accountability measures associated with it. Where legislation is required—for example to remove peerages from disgraced peers in the other place—we will bring it forward shortly.”
“The right hon. Gentleman knows we have to secure time in the House with business managers. I am ready for the document to be published as soon as we are ready to do so, and I have committed to do so after the recess.”
“The hon. Gentleman is making assumptions about redactions that he has neither seen nor read. Redactions have been made in relation to personal data or national security and international relations—that is it.”
“The Government are not trying to amend the terms or scope of the Humble Address—that is a factually incorrect statement. The hon. Member asked me about documents that can be shared with the Intelligence and Security Committee in relation to UKSV’s recommendations and the decisions made by the Foreign Office. I can confirm that those documents have been shared.”
“I share the hon. Member’s sentiment on public trust, which is why the Government have initiated the Ethics and Integrity Commission, updated the ministerial code, and are bringing forward legislation on the removal of peerages from disgraced peers in the other place. We are undertaking what is probably the most wide-ranging work on ethics and standards in public life for many decades.”
“I refer to my opening statement in relation to compliance with the Humble Address and the right for the Government to withhold information subject to public interest duties—for example, the names and contact details of junior officials. All redactions that are in relation to national security and international relations have been submitted to the Intelligence and Security Committee and agreed in line with the Humble Address.”
“Questions about the Committee’s statement are for the Committee. As I have set out, we have complied fully with the Humble Address and the work of the Intelligence and Security Committee.”
“I also thank the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), as well as the members of the Intelligence and Security Committee, for their support in providing additional layers of transparency and accountability as the Government comply with the Humble Address.”
“The Prime Minister, and indeed the whole Government, recognise the importance of transparency in respect of Peter Mandelson’s appointment and dismissal as ambassador. That is why this is my eighth appearance at the Dispatch Box to provide updates on these issues, and why the Government welcome this opportunity to debate the substance of the motion before us. I also acknowledge the diligence of this House’s Select Committees. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) and the members of her Foreign Affairs Committee for their important work. Members from across the House will have heard the evidence from a number of officials, and from the Prime Minister’s former chief of staff, as part of that ongoing work.”
“May I begin by saying that the hon. Member’s speech—not least the beginning, when he visibly enjoyed his jokes more than the rest of the House—shows that, for the Conservative party, this is purely a joking matter? The Government take this seriously, however, so I will speak to the substance and the motivations behind the motion. Before I do so, I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions to the debate. I thank in particular hon. Friends and Members who reminded us, as they should, that the victims of Jeffrey Epstein suffered the most hideous abuse and will be reminded of that every single time this matter is debated. The Prime Minister has apologised to them and expressed his ongoing regret for having appointed Peter Mandelson, which he knows is at the heart of this matter.”
“Today alone, we have heard Opposition Members bounce from one accusation to another in a desperate search for something that will stick. We have been subjected to the ranting incoherence of the Leader of the Opposition while she was in search of something that she could use to justify today’s politically motivated spectacle— [ Interruption . ]”
“I will not— [ Interruption. ] I will happily give way in due course, but I want to turn to the substance of the motion first. In recent weeks, some have accused the Prime Minister of dishonesty, saying that there was no way that Foreign Office officials would have given Peter Mandelson clearance against the vetting agency’s recommendation, let alone without checking with the Prime Minister himself. The Leader of the Opposition herself on BBC Radio 4 said, “He knew”, and that “I know he is lying”. However, the testimony provided by Sir Olly Robbins has disproved those accusations without further question. So rather than focus on the issues affecting our constituents and the country most, what do Opposition Members do? They try to shift the goalposts, and they have tried again and again to make their arguments fit.”
“I think we have heard enough of the ranting incoherence of the Leader of the Opposition. Let us take the specific allegations in turn. First, as to whether the Prime Minister was correct when he said “full due process” was followed, yesterday the Government deposited a letter from the then Cabinet Secretary, Sir Chris Wormald, in the Library of the House. In that letter, it is clear that he was specifically asked by the Prime Minister to review whether due process was followed in the appointment, and he confirmed that it was. Last week, the former permanent under-secretary at the Foreign Office, Sir Olly Robbins, stated to the Foreign Affairs Committee that his Department followed that process. We have also heard the Cabinet Office permanent secretary’s evidence, which covered this issue in great detail.”
“I understand that there have been some questions about this process, but to be clear, as Sir Olly Robbins told the Foreign Affairs Committee in November: “As is normally the case with external appointments to my Department…the appointment was made subject to obtaining security clearance.” As Sir Chris Wormald told the same Committee: “The normal thing is for the security clearance to happen after appointment but before the person signs a contract and takes up post.” And as the former Cabinet Secretary said in his letter to the Prime Minister, having conducted a review into the process, “the vetting process was complete before the previous HMA Washington took up post on 10 February 2025, and it is more usual for security vetting to happen after appointment.””
“The right hon. Gentleman should listen to my speech. I have just said that Catherine Little, Sir Chris Wormald and Sir Olly Robbins all agree on the point that due process was followed. When the Prime Minister received new information about the UKSV process this month, he immediately asked for the full facts to be established and he then come to this House on 20 April. On the statement that Peter Mandelson’s appointment was “subject to developed vetting”, the Prime Minister has always been clear that this appointment was in line with the processes at the time.”
“I am not going to answer silly questions. Next, on the question of pressure— [ Interruption. ] Many hon. Members have asked questions today about a general pressure, a specific pressure or a variety of different pressures, so they may want to listen to the answer. It is important to be clear about this, because there is pressure to get stuff done every day across every area of government, as we work hard to deliver for the British people. The Leader of the Opposition and other Members who have previously served in government will no doubt recall that from their time in office, but there is clearly a difference between asking for progress updates and putting pressure on officials to predetermine an outcome or not to follow a proper process. That was not the case in this scenario.”
“I will finish this section, then I will come to the right hon. Lady. Sir Philip Barton told the Foreign Affairs Committee this morning that “during my tenure, I was not aware of any pressure on the substance of the Mandelson DV case.””
“Again, Sir Olly Robbins told MPs that it was “never put to me that way”, and the Prime Minister made the comment immediately after quoting the evidence provided to the Foreign Affairs Committee. Regrettably—we see this again today, time after time—the Opposition are just trying to expand their interpretation of the Prime Minister’s words in bad faith, because their previous claim that the Prime Minister must have known about Peter Mandelson’s clearance has fallen apart in front of their eyes, and now they are grasping at straws. That matters, because as the right hon. Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale) argued, the processes in this House and the work of the Privileges Committee are important and integral to our constitution, but there must be appropriate thresholds for these investigations.”
“That is an important question, because it goes to the very heart of the motion before the House today. [Hon. Members: “Answer it!”] I am going to—rest your horses. It is important to place the Prime Minister’s words in the right context. When the Prime Minister—[Hon. Members: “Ah!”] The Opposition do not want to listen to the answer—again, they do not like the facts—but I am going to try my best. They should pay attention. To answer the right hon. Lady’s question directly, when the Prime Minister said that there was no pressure “whatsoever”, he was specifically responding to the allegation that there was pressure that Peter Mandelson should not be vetted at all and that he should be sent to Washington regardless of the vetting outcome.”
“What is it about a Labour Government raising taxes on private jets and non-doms to raise money for our state schools, our NHS and our police and to lift children out of poverty after years of neglect by the Conservative party that the Opposition parties do not want to hear? We all know why—because they are on the side of the vested interests, and we are on the side of the British people. To be fair to the House, this is not just an accusation that I am levelling at the Conservatives, because they are not the only ones playing games with today’s motion. The SNP, too, is desperate to distract from its record in power. What is it trying to distract from today? It is 10,000 kids in Scotland without a home to call their own, a Scottish NHS in decline, and the shameful ferries fiasco.”
“That is the nature of lying to this House, which he was proven to have done in the work of the Privileges Committee. It is not about the interpretation of a question and answer at Prime Minister’s questions. This all begs the question: if there is no substance to the allegations in the motion today, what is it that is driving the behaviour of Opposition parties? That question goes to the very basis of the motion before us. I have to ask: what is it precisely about this Labour Government giving rights and powers to workers, renters and the disadvantaged that they do not like? What is it about this Labour Government standing against unearned wealth and people who use their privilege to extract value from the system, rather than adding to it, that they do not like?”
“These investigations cannot be done every week off the back of PMQs on an interpretation of the wording of the Prime Minister. Instead, they must be done on very significant cases that warrant the work of the Privileges Committee. That is why it is important to contrast the allegations and accusations of the Opposition parties, as many Members of the House have done today, with the seriousness of the situation when Boris Johnson was referred to the Privileges Committee in the last Parliament. This is an important precedent. In those circumstances, Boris Johnson knowingly told this House that there were no parties in Downing Street during covid lockdowns, only for it to emerge that he had personally been at five of them and received a police fine for attending them.”
“I notice that the right hon. Member has nothing to say to those kids, to those patients waiting in the NHS, or to the line of other people waiting for his Government to perform. Just for me to complete going around the House, the so-called Green party is desperate to distract from Labour’s clean energy mission, from its opposition to clean nuclear power, and from its quibbling over new solar farms that—I literally could not make this up—it thinks are too big. Get real!”
“We are in an energy bills crisis and a climate emergency, and this Labour party is going to pull out the stops to serve the British people. While the Opposition parties play—”
“This Labour Government are doing the hard work of building a better Britain, a Britain that gives people hope for a better future. All these Opposition parties want to tear that down—they want to tear down this Labour Government and the labour movement. [ Interruption. ] They agree, because like our forefathers before us, we have stood up to the power of vested interests, and we will do so again. When the Opposition parties come to the Chamber to try to tear down this labour movement and our project for the British people, I say to them all, “Not today—not on our watch. We will not let it happen.” Question put.”
“In contrast, the Opposition parties want to distract from the fact that after years of ordinary people facing pressures from the cost of living and feeling like hard work is not rewarded like it used to be, the Conservatives and their friends in Reform wanted the UK to go to war in the middle east, making it harder for families up and down the country—distraction, distraction, distraction. In contrast, this Government are investing in new rail, roads and nuclear reactors, new scanners for our hospitals and free breakfast clubs for our kids. It is this Labour Government who have saved British Steel and who are investing in sovereign AI, renewing our high streets and delivering home-grown energy. This is relevant, Mr Speaker, because it goes to the motivation behind today’s motion.”
“I am grateful, Mr Speaker. I, for one, am rather enjoying myself, but I think the public might want to listen to the debate in the House today. While the Opposition parties are playing games—as we can hear from their chuntering, their joking and their shouting—this Labour Government are doing the work that matters. I have been asked, “Where is the Prime Minister?” This afternoon, the Prime Minister has been chairing the middle east response committee, bringing together the Government to mitigate the impact of the war in the middle east.”
“Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. First, may I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman? I would have cleared parliamentary questions, but I have been in the House all afternoon. To answer his specific question, I refer him to the evidence given today to the Foreign Affairs Committee by Mr Morgan McSweeney, who confirmed that the first person to recommend Peter Mandelson to become ambassador was Peter Mandelson.”
“As I mentioned earlier, I am very grateful to the ISC for the important role it continues to play in the Humble Address process, and for the speed with which it is processing the documents. I would like to reassure colleagues that Parliament will receive the second tranche of material as soon as possible following the state opening and the conclusion of the work of the ISC, and I will return to the House at that point. I commend this statement to the House.”
“The Government are very grateful to the ISC for its constructive engagement in that process, which we recognise has constituted significant additional work on top of its existing responsibilities. As I have set out previously, the Cabinet Office has also been working with the Metropolitan police to avoid prejudicing a live police investigation. I can confirm that by the end of today, the Cabinet Office will have passed to the ISC all the material it has processed as part of the Humble Address and judged to be prejudicial to national security or international relations. This has amounted to over 300 individual documents. It includes a number that are relevant to the processes of Peter Mandelson’s security vetting, too.”
“This includes co-ordinating a number of requests to Government Departments to identify documents potentially in scope of the Humble Address, particularly electronic communications and the minutes of meetings between individuals and Peter Mandelson. This is the section of the motion that has the broadest scope. As Members will have seen from the first tranche, the Government cannot publish certain details, such as the names of junior officials, personal information or legally privileged information. Separately, in line with the process agreed by the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament, the Government will not publish information that undermines or threatens our country’s national security or international relations. As colleagues will appreciate, both those processes require detailed consideration.”
“The House will recognise, given the breadth of the motion, that a very significant number of documents have been found to be in scope and that it is taking time to process them accordingly. The Cabinet Office team responsible for the Government’s response to the Humble Address has been working through a large quantity of material, working closely with many officials across Whitehall, particularly in the Foreign Office. The team has been seeking to take an approach to sifting and publishing information that allows it to respond to the will of this House thoroughly but expeditiously, and in line with the approach taken by previous Governments in responding to Humble Addresses.”
“Given the upcoming Prorogation and state opening of Parliament, I thought it would be helpful to return to the House to provide an update on the progress the Government have made to respond to the Humble Address of 4 February as quickly and thoroughly as possible. As Members will know, the Government published the first tranche of material on 11 March. That first tranche primarily related to the aspects of the motion regarding Peter Mandelson’s appointment and his subsequent dismissal as ambassador, in addition to the details of his severance payment provided to him by the Foreign Office. Following the publication of the first tranche of material, we have been working at pace to lay a second tranche before the House.”
“If there is a disagreement between the Government and the Committee, there is a process of redactions hearings between them to resolve that. As I mentioned in my statement, other redactions relate merely to information such as the names and contact details of junior officials, in line with established freedom of information policy as it relates to the publication of Humble Addresses.”
“I can confirm that documents that relate to Peter Mandelson’s security vetting have been passed to the Intelligence and Security Committee today, and that we intend to publish those as part of the second tranche, subject to discussions with the Intelligence and Security Committee. I was asked specifically about the documents that have been given to the Metropolitan police. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I have been advised by the Metropolitan police that I am unable to list those documents, and so I will not seek to do so. He asked me about redactions policy; obviously the key redactions policy is in relation to information that the Government consider to be prejudicial to national security or international relations. That goes through the Intelligence and Security Committee for consideration.”
“The hon. Gentleman asked me a number of questions, which I will take in turn. To the question of where the documents are, those in scope of the Humble Address are currently in one of three locations: first, with the Government waiting for the publication of the second tranche; secondly, with the Intelligence and Security Committee; and thirdly, with the Metropolitan police. We have sought to publish all those documents—those that the Government hold and those that the Intelligence and Security Committee are considering—in a combined bundle, in order to aid the House to see the documents in a chronological order. Otherwise, I suspect there would be questions about what documents were missing, subject to the conclusion of the Committee’s work.”