YouSaid · the spoken record
Darren Jones
Lines from Political Thinking with Nick Robinson have been withdrawn from this page while we check who is speaking. See the correction.
On the record 2017–2026
hansard
This is everything the corpus holds for Darren Jones. It is not everything they have said on the record.
Every line below is reproduced as it was said and credited to the record it came from, and links to that record wherever it can be linked. Nothing here is summarised or generated. Directory · Search · Corrections
“Will the Minister tell us how the Department will decide how to split the pot of money it has received from the Treasury between different councils and communities across the country to ensure it gets directly to the people who need it most this winter?”
House of Commons26 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the Minister and the Secretary of State and congratulate them on securing additional funding for this important initiative—not least because, on the basis of the submission from the shadow Minister, the Conservative party thinks that we should not be doing anything at all. I am pleased to see this Labour Government doing the right thing. We have seen street homelessness increase in our constituencies over the years, not just in the areas where we might normally expect to see it, such as in Bristol city centre, but in vans, on the downs and in the church gardens in Shirehampton in Bristol North West. The prevalence of street homelessness has increased to unacceptable levels.”
House of Commons26 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“A public share offering and a special scheme for Royal Mail employees could be a nice way to do that, with the Government merely underwriting the risk, while funds are raised by the public in the years it would take to undertake the action. Having looked at this issue for so many years, I believe that this is the only solution to protecting the Royal Mail and its future.”
House of Commons26 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We have several well-established puFins, from the National Wealth Fund to the British Business Bank, which I am sure will spend their budgets well. The Government have also committed to establishing several new ones, some of which have yet to be fully established. In short, it is quite hard to spend the financial transactions capital budget and I therefore assume, with some confidence, that there will be underspends that could be reprioritised. Finally, if that is not convincing enough, I am certain that there will be public interest in a more mutual form of ownership of the Royal Mail and, I would hope, its reintegration with the Post Office.”
House of Commons26 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“When the current owners of Royal Mail, International Distribution Services, bought the Royal Mail in 2025, the deal was valued at £3.6 billion. We should therefore use that number for the purposes of today’s debate. In the spending review that I conducted in 2025, we allocated £23.8 billion for financial transactions alone between 2025-26 and 2029-30, and we are told to expect the Chancellor to increase that budget further this week. However, financial transactions can only be used by Departments to finance deals where there is a suitable public financial institution—or “puFins”—and where the Office for National Statistics agrees that it is a genuine financial transaction, not an attempt to redesign normal Government spending so that it falls outside the fiscal rules.”
House of Commons26 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That allowed the Government to borrow money to invest in assets while maintaining the debt rule target that Government debt should fall in the long term as a share of GDP. In practice, that allows the Government to use so-called financial transactions to pay for equity or debt financing of publicly owned assets. That could be done with the Royal Mail, and it would fall outside the fiscal rules. That merely leaves the question of how to raise the money to do so. I am very conscious that our national debt has risen to above £3 trillion, and that the cost of that debt is expensive to the taxpayer, costing over £100 billion a year in interest payments alone, but I think there is a way through that Ministers should consider.”
House of Commons26 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The House may be surprised to hear me, of all people, say that—I am not a natural fan of the Government borrowing yet more money to nationalise businesses that can be effectively run by the private sector. However, it has been proven that the Royal Mail is an example of a business that cannot be run effectively by the private sector, and an example of a business that I believe the Government can renationalise fairly easily within its fiscal rules. When the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West and Pudsey (Rachel Reeves), updated the fiscal rules in 2024, the debt definition became public sector net financial liabilities, or “persnuffle” among friends.”
House of Commons26 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That is important because, as we have already heard, the universal service obligation is not just about delivering letters: it is about having a human connection with the people of this country, at every doorstep of every house, in every community, across the width and breadth of the nation. The covid pandemic showed why the network of postal workers matters so much, and I believe that will become more, not less, important in the future. To those making an economic case about the drop in letter deliveries being the end of the universal service obligation, let me say this: think carefully about the end of this public service, because once it is gone, it will not come back. That takes me to the second option. If Ministers agree with me that privatisation of the Royal Mail was a failure, the only other real option is to renationalise it.”
House of Commons26 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“So it falls to us, as the guardians of public services in this country, to decide whether we will protect the public service functions of the Royal Mail or not. Some might say the issue is not that binary. No doubt regulation of the parcels market to ensure fairer competition would go a long way to help, and the Government should ask the Competition and Markets Authority to conduct a market investigation into parcel deliveries irrespective of what happens next to the Royal Mail. However, the House should be clear-eyed about what it will mean if we continue with the privatised model. It will, in the end, be the end of the universal service obligation as we know it.”
House of Commons26 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We should not be shy in coming forward to say that the privatisation of the Royal Mail and its separation from the Post Office was a mistake. The coalition Government got that wrong, and I hope that this Labour Government will put that right. As far as I can see, there are only two real options. The first is to facilitate the end of the public service provided by the Royal Mail, and to let the current owners turn it into a truly profitable business. We should not be surprised that the new owners of Royal Mail want to make the business profitable, and to focus on its profit-making services—that is the business they are in. However, the problem with privatisation of a public service is that profit making comes first.”
House of Commons26 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I sought to give a voice to postal workers who, more often than not, felt voiceless in the workplace, and I was proud to support the efforts of the Communication Workers Union to give its members more strength in the power games that were being played between management and the workforce, but quite frankly, what good did that do? The then chief executive was asked to move on, albeit with a handsome exit payment, a new owner has taken over the business, and the regulator conducted its reviews, issued its fines and changed the universal service obligation, yet we find ourselves here in Parliament discussing the issue once again. The only conclusion I can draw is that the business model is not fit for purpose.”
House of Commons26 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Redditch (Chris Bloore) and for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) and others for securing this important debate. It is a pleasure to speak in it, but I am disappointed we are having to discuss this topic yet again, because we have been here before: the owners of Royal Mail prioritising profits over the public service requirements of the business they bought; the regulator seemingly unable to do anything at all about it; and postal workers once again being treated so badly when they are the ones who go out on the frontline day in, day out. The question we therefore need to answer is: why? During my time as Chair of the Business and Trade Committee in the previous Parliament, I spent days and days of parliamentary time cross-examining Royal Mail bosses, the then Government and the regulator.”
House of Commons26 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I refer my hon. Friend to my previous comments about how the market needs to be better regulated, whether we own the Royal Mail or someone else does. That is why that work should be undertaken while a debate on ownership may continue with Government. I believe that the end goal that we all want to see, that our constituents want to see and that the Government have the capacity and the ability to enable is a Royal Mail that is back in public hands, reintegrated with the Post Office network. That would be a tangible example of change in every postcode. I put that option on the table today for the Government to consider. I hope that Ministers will come to the same conclusion that I have and get on with doing the right thing.”
House of Commons26 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons25 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons25 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons25 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons25 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons25 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons25 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons25 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons25 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons25 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons25 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons25 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons25 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons25 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons25 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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).”
House of Commons25 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons3 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons3 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons3 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons3 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons3 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons3 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons3 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons3 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons3 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons3 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons3 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons3 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons3 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons3 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons3 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons3 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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. ]”
House of Commons3 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons3 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons3 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons3 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons3 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons3 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗