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Lines from Political Thinking with Nick Robinson have been withdrawn from this page while we check who is speaking.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
“I would first say to the hon. Member that the disclosure of information from Bloomberg and subsequently from the United States Department of Justice showed a depth and extent of relationship between Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein that nobody was aware of—nobody was aware of that until that information became public—but that does not excuse the point he makes in his question. He is right that, as I have said at the start of every statement from the Dispatch Box on this issue, while we debate all these procedural issues about WhatsApp, security vetting or who was given a job on what basis, at the heart of this are the most atrocious crimes—unimaginable to all of us—by Jeffrey Epstein in relation to many young women and girls.”
House of Commons1 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I share the right hon. Lady’s sentiment, but the Government do not have the legal power to require the disclosure of Peter Mandelson’s device. As I have said in earlier statements, other powers are available—for example, to the Metropolitan police and others, should the CPS proceed to put a criminal investigation before the courts—so that may become clearer in the future. However, the Government have done everything we can to ensure we have provided full disclosure in compliance with the Humble Address.”
House of Commons1 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. He knows, because I have said it repeatedly at the Dispatch Box, that I take very seriously the role of Parliament holding the Government to account, in particular, as a former Select Committee Chair, the role of Select Committees as well as the statements and questions we make and answer on the Floor of the House. That is why I have gone to lengths to ensure that the Intelligence and Security Committee, the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, and the Foreign Affairs Committee—the lead Committees on this—have been given as full and as transparent access to the process and the documents as I have been able to make available, and why I have secured additional time for Members to be able to ask further questions on Wednesday.”
House of Commons1 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That is an important question, Mr Speaker, but a question I am unable to answer given I was not privy to those discussions at the time. Maybe if other Select Committees are able to ask questions in the future, they might put that to the relevant people.”
House of Commons1 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am sure that, as a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, he would not wish to advocate for that.”
House of Commons19 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am sure that Members across the House will recognise that there is no public interest in the Government publishing the names and contact details of junior officials or their telephone numbers.”
House of Commons19 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As I set out to the House on 23 February, and again when we published the first tranche of material on 11 March, we have taken the normal approach to redacting junior officials’ names, contact details such as telephone numbers and email addresses, the personal data of third parties where that is not in scope of the motion, and, where relevant, legal professional privilege. That has been done using the principles set out in the Freedom of Information Act 2000, and in line with the ministerial code and the resolutions on ministerial accountability passed by both Houses in 1997. Those resolutions state: “Ministers should be as open as possible with Parliament, refusing to provide information only when disclosure would not be in the public interest, which should be decided in accordance with relevant statute”.”
House of Commons19 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“] To refer back to my previous comments, this will be the largest publication—other than, I think, the Chilcot inquiry report—ever published to the House. When the Government publish the second tranche of documents, we will also publish a methodology confirming the process we have followed, and the basis on which content has been redacted will be clear from the published information. The targeted redactions made to the material, beyond those relevant to national security or international relations, have been made in line with clear precedent set by previous Administrations in responding to Humble Addresses.”
House of Commons19 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Government have taken seriously our obligations to comply with the Humble Address in full, while also upholding other public interest issues, such as our duty of care to junior staff. The Government have carried out this work according to a robust process, with assurance from an independent KC. Given that the House is due to rise on Thursday, and given the length of the publication, the second tranche will now be published after Whitsun recess to give the House sufficient time to review the material and to be able to ask me and the Government questions. It could have been published this Thursday, but I felt that the House would have deemed that to be inappropriate, given that it will be such a significant publication. [ Interruption.”
House of Commons19 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As part of this quality control process, the Government identified a small number of further documents that we felt should be reviewed by the ISC, and we immediately submitted those documents to the Committee. As Friday’s statement from the Committee set out, it has now considered all those documents. As I have previously said to the House, the Government will be publishing a second tranche of material. This is currently being finalised and will be one of the largest Government publications ever laid in this House. That is reflective of the breadth of the motion, and also the Government’s commitment to transparency in responding to it. It constitutes a very significant disclosure exercise involving sensitive material from across Government.”
House of Commons19 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As I have set out to this House on previous occasions, the Government are working to comply with the motion passed in February. I can reassure the House that this remains the case, and I can provide the following update today. The Government confirmed before Prorogation that we had referred more than 300 documents to the Intelligence and Security Committee. At the time, that represented all the documents in scope of the motion where the Government believed that publication would be prejudicial to UK national security or international relations. The Government have repeatedly assessed all the documents we have collected to make sure that all of those that need to be referred to the ISC are referred to the Committee.”
House of Commons19 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As I think he suggested, the raw data that is collected as part of those investigations—perhaps relating to how much money someone has in a particular account, or with whom that person may have had a personal relationship in the past—would never be published, because if we did so, people would feel unable to answer those questions honestly and frankly in any UK security vetting investigation in the future, which would undermine the very basis of our national security system.”
House of Commons19 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In response to the questions from the right hon. and learned Gentleman about compliance with the Humble Address, I refer him to the statement that I have made previously in relation to the principles set out in legislation and the motions of the House. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was, I think, asking me specifically about personal data that was collected as part of the security vetting process.”
House of Commons19 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I share those concerns as well as similar concerns that have been raised by the Intelligence and Security Committee, not only about the extensive use of what we call non-corporate communications channels but about information that should have been on a higher level of classification that was shared at “official sensitive”. I have already announced to the House the imminent start of a review of the use of non-corporate communications channels, and I shall be taking further action to ensure that sensitive information is shared at the appropriate classification.”
House of Commons19 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I take these matters very seriously, as I am sure Members across the House would recognise, and I will not for one instant countenance the idea that, as loud as the hon. Gentleman may want to shout it, there is a cover-up. If there was any suggestion of a cover-up, I would not be standing at this Dispatch Box to defend the process; I would resign. That has not been the case, and I suggest the hon. Gentleman may want to focus on the substance of the matter at hand. On the questions the hon. Gentleman has put to me, I have answered them in the statement and in my answer to the deputy Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, and I refer him to my previous answers.”
House of Commons19 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons19 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons19 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons19 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons19 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons19 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons19 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons19 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons19 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons19 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons19 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons19 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons19 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons19 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons19 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons19 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons19 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons19 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons19 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons19 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons19 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons19 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Catherine Little stated unequivocally that “due process was followed” in relation to Peter Mandelson’s vetting.”
House of Commons28 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons28 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons28 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons28 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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 . ]”
House of Commons28 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons28 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons28 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.””
House of Commons28 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons28 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons28 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.””
House of Commons28 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons28 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons28 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons28 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗