Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

Darren Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Harriet Cross]

Genius! My hon. Friend is full of great ideas. That is the calibre that we expect of him.

On misleading the House, the Prime Minister said that no one in No. 10 was aware that there had been any concerns about Mandelson’s vetting before the revelation was made a few weeks ago, despite it being reported in The Independent in September last year. On that very point, I submitted a named day question to the Cabinet Office last week, which was due to be answered yesterday. It simply asked whether The Independent is one of the newspapers to which the current or any previous director of communications, press secretary or anyone else at No. 10 has a subscription. The named day deadline has passed; the answer has not been received.

That was a simple question. Why has it not been answered? It would be very easy to find the answer. Maybe no one at No. 10 had a subscription to The Independent, but if they did, it would be difficult to hold the line that no one at No. 10 had any indication until just a few weeks ago that there had been any issues with Mandelson’s vetting. If the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister would like to intervene now and shed light on either the delay or the answer to that question, I will happily take the intervention.

[The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister (Darren Jones)]

indicated dissent.

[Harriet Cross]

That says all we need to know.

I hope that Labour Back Benchers and, indeed, Ministers see today as the opportunity it is for the Prime Minister. By voting for the motion, they will give the Prime Minister an opportunity to present his case to the Privileges Committee, an opportunity to prove his side of the story and an opportunity—if, as he said, he did not mislead the House—to be exonerated on that claim. I leave MPs with this final thought. If, as he claims, the Prime Minister has done nothing wrong, why has he whipped the entire Labour party, some of them back from across the country—some of whom we have not seen for weeks in this place—to vote to prevent him from having to give evidence to the Privileges Committee?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister (Darren Jones)]

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.

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. 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.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Darren Jones]

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.

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.]

[Mrs Badenoch]

On that point, will the Minister give way?

[Darren Jones]

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. Catherine Little stated unequivocally that “due process was followed” in relation to Peter Mandelson’s vetting.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

I thank the Minister for giving way. Would not “full due process” have required the vetting to be completed before announcing the appointment, as was advised by the then Cabinet Secretary and then ignored or overruled by the Prime Minister personally?

[Darren Jones]

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 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.”

[Ayoub Khan]

The Minister clearly believes that the Prime Minister has a defensible position, so will he support the withdrawal of the whipping of Labour Back Benchers?

[Darren Jones]

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.

[Dr Chowns]

Is it due process to make a public announcement of an appointment before vetting is completed? Is it not the case that having made a public announcement, the Government created pressure on the process?

[Darren Jones]

I am trying my best, but I have answered both those questions already from the Dispatch Box. I refer the hon. Lady to my comments.

[Mrs Badenoch]

Will the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister give way?

[Darren Jones]

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.”

[Mrs Badenoch]

I asked the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister just one question in my speech. Will he repeat on the Floor of the House the exact words that the Prime Minister used at PMQs, in front of all of us: that no pressure “whatsoever” was put on the Foreign Office?

--- Later in debate ---

[Darren Jones]

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. 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.

[Stephen Flynn]

rose—

[Darren Jones]

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. 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? 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.

[Stephen Flynn]

I thank the right hon. Member for belatedly giving way. I do not know if he has noticed, but this afternoon, polling was released outlining that 61% of people on these isles believe that there should be an inquiry in the terms laid out in the motion. Just 20% of the public agree with the Minister’s position. Why is he once again on the wrong side of public opinion?

[Darren Jones]

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!

[Dr Chowns]

rose—

[Darren Jones]

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—

[Dr Chowns]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. In fairness to the right hon. Member, he has given way once already. The hon. Lady cannot stand while he is speaking; she can indicate that she wishes to intervene, but she cannot continue to hang loose like she is trying to summon a taxi.

[Darren Jones]

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. 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.

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Julian Lewis]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Out of 190 questions for written answer that I have put down in this Session, which is coming to its close, all but one have been answered. The exception is one that I mentioned on the Floor of the House yesterday during the statement by the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister. He responded:

“I always ensure that I honour parliamentary questions in a timely fashion.”—[Official Report, 27 April 2026; Vol. 784, c. 598.]

The last day for answering this question is today, and it so far has not been answered, so I wonder if I might give the Chief Secretary the opportunity to answer it now. It is this:

“To ask the Prime Minister who first suggested to him that Peter Mandelson should be appointed as Ambassador to the United States.”

[Darren Jones]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

We are not going to carry on the debate, but the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister is desperate to answer.

[Darren Jones]

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.

[Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I understand that when an MP visits another MP’s constituency, the custom and practice is that they should give that MP due notice. The Leader of the Opposition came to my constituency but did not inform me that she would be there. I seek your advice on how best to resolve this.[Official Report, 28 April 2026; Vol. 784, c. 870.] (Correction)