Lord Mandelson: Government Response to Humble Address

Darren Jones Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

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

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement regarding the Government’s response to the Humble Address laid before the House on 4 February. I committed to keeping the House updated. This is now my third statement on this issue, and I will continue to update the House throughout the process.

I will first update the House on the work already being undertaken by the Government. I can confirm that work is ongoing across Departments to search for and identify the material relevant to the Humble Address, and Departments have been instructed to retain material that may be relevant to the motion. Given the breadth of the motion, this process will clearly take some time. However, I want to reassure colleagues that officials have been working throughout the recess, and expect to compile information relating to the House’s request very shortly.

As the motion envisages, we are carefully assessing the material for whether any of it may be prejudicial to national security or international relations. The House will appreciate that this remains a sensitive matter, and the Government are committed to referring this material to the Intelligence and Security Committee. The Cabinet Office is leading this work, in close co-operation with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, in a process agreed by the permanent secretary to the Cabinet Office. This was delegated by the new Cabinet Secretary, following her appointment by the Prime Minister last Thursday.

The Government intend to publish documents in tranches, instead of having one publication date at the end of the process, given that we are unable to confirm how long the process will take. The Government expect to be able to publish the first tranche of documents very shortly, in early March. I should, however, inform the House that it remains the case that a subset of this first tranche of documents is subject to an ongoing Metropolitan police investigation. That includes correspondence between No. 10 and Lord Peter Mandelson, in which a number of follow-up questions were asked. Because of the Metropolitan police’s interest in this document, we are unable to publish it in early March in the first tranche, but we will release it as soon as we are able to, upon consultation with the Metropolitan police.

There is also a small portion of the material that engages matters of national security or international relations, and thus the role that this House has envisaged for the Intelligence and Security Committee. We are working with the committee to establish processes for making this material available to it, and we are grateful to the committee in advance for its important contribution to reviewing these documents.

I recognise that the House will want to know about the next steps around the publication of the remainder of the information relevant to the motion—the information that is not included in the first tranche. I would like to make it clear that for anything we publish, we will take our normal approach to publishing material in the House, such as regarding the redaction of junior officials’ names and, where relevant, legal professional privilege.

Further work is needed to compile the information in scope, and to conduct the necessary assessments. However, I can commit to the House that we will release this further material, subject to the ongoing process with the Met police and the Intelligence and Security Committee, and we will continue to keep Members updated as we make progress. I welcome the House’s patience as the Government work swiftly to comply with the Humble Address.

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to mention a separate matter before I conclude. I understand that there has been a high level of public interest in the news of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s arrest last Thursday, and in what may follow. The Government are clear that we are not ruling out action in respect of the line of succession at this stage, and we will consider whether any further steps are required in due course. It is vital, however, that we first allow the police to carry out their investigations. I know they will have the full support of the Government and, I am sure, this House as they do so.

I will return to the House with further updates, as I have committed to do, in due course—not just on this issue, but on wider reforms to standards, lobbying, transparency and the removal of peerages. I commend this statement to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

I thank the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister for the statement, which we received at 3.38 pm. I gently suggest to him that the 45 minutes referred to in the ministerial code is a minimum, rather than a target.

On 4 February, this House voted, cross party, for a Humble Address to be presented. That is not a polite suggestion; it is a formal command from Parliament to the Executive, but three weeks later, the Government have moved with the urgency of a tired sloth on a bank holiday Monday. Before the recess, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) sent a comprehensive list of questions to the Cabinet Office. He received nothing back—not a letter, not a postcard, not even an out-of-office reply, so let us try for some verbal clarity today.

The Prime Minister previously staked the integrity of this process on the personal oversight of the Cabinet Secretary—and then he sacked him. Has the change in Cabinet Secretary caused a scoping delay, or are the Government simply using the handover as convenient long grass to kick this into? Reports suggest that a secret investigation into Lord Mandelson’s conduct took place last September. My hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar asked about this on the Floor of the House, and again in writing, but there has been silence. Can the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister tell us if that report exists? If so, who wrote it, and will the Government stop playing hide-and-seek and publish it?

The Government call this an urgent review, yet the terms of reference remain as elusive as a coherent Treasury forecast. The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven (Chris Ward) promised my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar in the debate on 4 February that he would write with answers, yet there is still nothing. Can the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister tell us whether the scope includes the £241 million Ministry of Defence contract awarded to Palantir following Lord Mandelson’s off-diary meetings? Does it cover Global Counsel? Or are we looking only at bits of the noble Lord’s Rolodex that are not politically explosive?

The Intelligence and Security Committee is being asked to help, yet its secretariat consists of Cabinet Office civil servants. As the ISC itself warned last May, an oversight body should not be beholden to the very organisation it is supposed to be overseeing. If this is a genuine audit, what steps are being taken to ensure that the committee can operate without conflicts of interest, when Cabinet Office staff are considering material that relates directly to decisions taken by the Cabinet Office itself?

Mr Speaker, you could not have been clearer:

“the police cannot dictate to this House.”—[Official Report, 4 February 2026; Vol. 780, c. 375.]

Yet the Government remain coy about the legal basis for withholding documents. We need an unequivocal commitment today that once the police are finished, every withheld page will be published—no excuses, and no redactions by stealth—and that in the meantime, any documents that are withheld from publication at the request of the police are handed to the ISC immediately, as you indicated after the debate, Mr Speaker.

Finally, will the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister commit to a Keeling-style register of all withheld documents? If the Government have nothing to hide, they should have no problem listing exactly what they are keeping from us, and why.

The Opposition have acted in good faith. We have been patient, but careful work must not become a euphemism for managed delay. This House gave a constitutional instruction on 4 February. It is time the Government stopped treating Parliament like an inconvenient interruption to their schedule, stopped giving every impression that their priority is working out whose back to cover, and started providing some actual answers, so that we can start to get to the bottom of this murky matter.

[Darren Jones]

The shadow Minister asked a number of questions, which I will take in turn. He asked if the appointment of the new Cabinet Secretary had resulted in any delay or change to the process. The answer is no; the process is being led by the permanent secretary in the Cabinet Office. It was delegated to her by the former and new Cabinet Secretaries.

The shadow Minister referred to a secret report. As far as I am aware, there is no secret report, and all the documents will be published in the proper way, but he must recognise that we are trying to manage a criminal investigation by the Metropolitan police. I am sure that the House would not want us to inadvertently interfere with that process, which needs to be allowed to happen in the proper way. We are working closely with the Intelligence and Security Committee to make sure that it is able to fulfil the requirements of the Humble Address, and we will support it to do so.

The shadow Minister questioned the Intelligence and Security Committee’s independence. While it is not for me to speak for the committee, I am sure that every member of it will strongly refute his suggestion, given that they honour their independence very strongly, and the Government respect that entirely.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his statement. I agree that the Prime Minister was quite right to put the “Lord of the files” outside the tent; we got there eventually. However, can my right hon. Friend assure me that the answer to the $64,000 question—what was known at the time when Peter Mandelson was appointed US ambassador—will be put in the public domain? Many people in this place and across the country would not have touched Peter Mandelson with a bargepole. They are trying to get their head round why on earth this Government were not of the same view.

[Darren Jones]

I can confirm that those documents will be made available, subject, I am afraid, to the exclusion of one particular item, in which No. 10 asked Peter Mandelson a number of questions. The Met police have asked that to be held back, subject to their investigations, as I have said. That item will therefore have to be published at a later date, but the documents that are not subject to the Met police investigation will be published very shortly.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Mr Tom Morrison (Cheadle) (LD)]

The victims of Jeffrey Epstein have always been, and must remain, at the forefront of our minds. The decades of abuse and suffering that they endured can never be undone. Although nothing can erase that pain, we believe that recent decisions taken by the police and the Government represent a step in the right direction.

We welcome the Government’s work to begin releasing the files relating to the role of Peter Mandelson. Parliament asked for transparency, and the public deserves it. Earlier this month, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) called for a full statutory public inquiry into Jeffrey Epstein and his influence on the British political establishment. Only through an independent inquiry can we uncover the truth and deliver justice for the victims, so will the Government support that call? Once again, allegations of sleaze and scandal cast a shadow over our politics.

After a decade of misconduct and rule-breaking under successive Governments, it is clear that the current system is not fit for purpose, so will the Government finally commit to putting the ministerial code on a statutory footing, to ensure that breaches carry real consequences? Will the Minister commit to protecting those who speak out, by establishing a new office of the whistleblower, which strengthens legal protections and increases public awareness of whistleblowers’ rights? Transparency, accountability and integrity in public life are not optional; they are essential.

[Darren Jones]

In relation to investigations and inquiries, the House will know that the criminal investigation being led by the Metropolitan police takes primacy. Neither the House nor the Government would want to interfere inadvertently with that process. The Government agree with the hon. Member that it is important that people are held to account for their actions, and that the victims receive justice.

The hon. Member invites me to comment on some suggested reforms. As I have said to the House before, I am very happy to consider them—particularly the Liberal Democrat proposals on whistleblowing, which either he or his colleagues are to write to me about in due course. As far as I can tell, the ministerial code is working. A very effective independent adviser advises the Prime Minister, and when there is a breach, Ministers are removed from office. I am not entirely sure what value a statutory footing would add, as we have given independence to the ethics adviser, and the code seems to be applied effectively.

[Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

I share the sentiments expressed by many Members, and my thoughts are with the hundreds of survivors—most of them children—of that horrific sexual abuse. The public rightly expect holders of high office to maintain a high standard of conduct, and the Prime Minister rightly called for the removal of peerages from disgraced peers. Will the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister confirm that the Government are providing the police with the support that they need to progress the criminal investigation?

[Darren Jones]

I can confirm that the Government are complying, and will continue to comply, fully with the requests from the Metropolitan police, as well as from Parliament in relation to the Humble Address. My hon. Friend is right to say that it is important that we do so to bring transparency and accountability to these most egregious actions.

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

Could the Minister clarify whether or not the Cabinet Secretary’s review into Lord Mandelson will be advised by the Cabinet Office propriety and ethics team? I ask for two reasons. First, I think I am right in saying that it was the PET that undertook the original so-called due diligence on Lord Mandelson. Secondly, in the light of the question asked by the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) a few moments ago about the involvement of the PET in an earlier unsavoury matter, I am not sure that the House will have much confidence in that team.

[Darren Jones]

My experience of the civil servants in the propriety and ethics team is unquestionably that they work extremely hard, comply with the civil service code and seek to ensure that the Government uphold all the ethics and integrity rules that we are subject to. I have not seen one instance or any suggestion of poor performance or conflict of interest in that team, and I wholeheartedly endorse their work.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Palantir is a client of Global Counsel, which was Peter Mandelson’s PR agency, and clearly Palantir has benefited from lucrative contracts from the Government. Will the Minister ensure that all papers associated with Palantir are published as part of this inquiry?

[Darren Jones]

Documents that are published as part of the Humble Address will of course comply with the terms of the Humble Address. As I have said to hon. Members before, if there are particular suggestions or concerns about specific Palantir contracts, those representations—with our assistance, if helpful—should be made to the Departments concerned, but I have not seen any suggestion that there has been a breach of procurement rules in relation to the issues raised.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

In response to an earlier question about the role of the Intelligence and Security Committee in relation to the Cabinet Office, the Minister rightly said that the ISC is concerned about its independence. As its former chairman, I can vouch for the fact that it was particularly concerned about the dominant role that the Cabinet Office had in its affairs. In his annual report covering 2023 to 2025, which was published on 15 December last year, my successor as chairman states:

“The Committee in the last Parliament became very seriously concerned that the vital scrutiny that the ISC provides was being undermined by continued interference by the Cabinet Office in the Committee’s Office… The root of the problem lies in the control exerted over the Committee’s staff and resourcing by the Cabinet Office.”

This is an opportunity to let the ISC have what it has asked for and wanted for years, which is independence from the Cabinet Office. Will the Minister please take that message back?

[Darren Jones]

I think the right hon. Member is referring to 2023, which is of course before this Government were in office. I confirm that we are in the middle of negotiations with the committee on a number of issues, partly in relation to its headcount. We have increased the budget available to the committee for staffing. We are considering the question of whether those staff should be independently employed separately from the Cabinet Office at the moment. It is not for me to speak on behalf of the committee, but I remind the House—and I am sure the right hon. Member would agree—that even though those staff are currently employed by the Cabinet Office, the work they do for the committee is exemplary, and the committee itself is strongly independent of Government.

[Matt Bishop (Forest of Dean) (Lab)]

I thank the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister for his statement. I welcome comments from the Prime Minister calling for legislation to remove peerages from disgraced peers such as Mandelson, and I hope he will go even further and look at the line of succession in the royal family—I welcome those updates. My constituents, victims groups and everyone I speak to say that it is great to hear the messages, but they want to know when. Do we have any timescales for when this legislation will be brought to the House?

[Darren Jones]

We are working with relevant advisers and Departments to scope the Bill, and the measures that need to be brought forward for that to be effective. The legislation raises a number of constitutional questions, which have taken some time for the Government to consider. The last time peerages were removed, I think, was in the 1600s, so it is not something that has been done recently. We must ensure that the scope and drafting of the Bill is done in a way that means it will be effective when it is brought forward to the House.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

This is the second statement or urgent question in a row that we have had about ethics, and where the tentacles of various organisations or individuals go within Government. Does the Minister accept that we need a statutory inquiry that looks closely at the links and interference of outside bodies in Government, and in the operation of government?

[Darren Jones]

I have already committed on behalf of the Government that we will review the current regime and rules in relation to transparency on lobbying, and changes have been made recently in relation to the register and people’s declared interests. My sense is that we could go further, and as I said in my statement, I will come back to the House in due course to update Members on how we will be able to take those reforms forward together.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister for his statement and for coming again to the House to talk about this important matter. I also thank the Intelligence and Security Committee for the work it has done on this issue. Does the Chief Secretary agree that ensuring we get this process right is what our constituents deserve, and what the victims of these vile crimes deserve?

[Darren Jones]

I agree with my hon. Friend. In relation to the criminal investigation being conducted by the Metropolitan police, the Government of course want to support the Metropolitan police and to collaborate with them to ensure that where justice can be found, it must be found. In respect of the Intelligence and Security Committee, which has an important function in the House to support the work of Parliament, we are currently working together to ensure that the processes and the capacity are in place to honour the commitments in the Humble Address, in a way that means that the House is served with these documents as quickly and as effectively as possible.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Regular updates are all well and good, and they are appreciated, but they are a classic Whitehall strategy for disguising managed delay. When we get the first tranche of documents, will the Minister ensure that it is substantial and deals with the two key issues: first, what the Prime Minister knew at the point when he appointed Mandelson, what the agencies knew and what the propriety and ethics team advised the Prime Minister in relation to Mandelson’s connection with the convicted paedophile, Jeffrey Epstein, at the point of appointment; and secondly, the details of the dodgy, shady-looking Palantir deal involving Alex Karp, the Prime Minister and Peter Mandelson?

--- Later in debate ---

[Darren Jones]

I can confirm that the first tranche of documents that will be released are the documents that the Government currently hold, subject to the exclusion of one document at the request of the Metropolitan police, where subsequent questions were asked by No. 10 of Peter Mandelson—that can be released only when the Metropolitan police tell us that it can be released—and subject to a review with the Intelligence and Security Committee of some individual line items that might be considered to be related to national security or international relations, as set out in the terms of the Humble Address. The subsequent tranches of information will come in due course, because commissions have gone out across Government for Departments to search their archives and databases to bring forward any documents that relate to the terms of the Humble Address. Given the depth of the issues raised in the Humble Address, that will take some time to process.

[Brendan O'Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)]

Right now, trust in this chaotic Government has all but evaporated and the Prime Minister’s personal judgment is now on trial. We know that millions of documents are still to come out, so the Government really only have one chance to come clean, and any attempt to sanitise what is made public could have disastrous consequences for our democracy. Can the Government guarantee that the criteria for releasing the information will be exactly what this House demanded, and that the appointment of a new head of the civil service will not alter that one iota?

[Darren Jones]

The appointment of the new Cabinet Secretary has no bearing whatsoever on this process or on the Government’s compliance with the Humble Address. As the hon. Member would expect, the Government will comply with the terms of the Humble Address.

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

An additional concern that I have with the appointment of Peter Mandelson is that the American Government had compromising information in the form of the Epstein files. I wonder what consideration was given to the appointment of an ambassador who would be going into sensitive negotiations with a foreign Government knowing that that Government had compromising information. Will the Minister confirm that those considerations and that information is in scope of the disclosures?

[Darren Jones]

I am not sure which documents specifically the hon. Gentleman refers to. I note that the documents that were released by the US Department of Justice, and previously via Bloomberg in September 2025, were documents that the Prime Minister and the Government were not privy to until those disclosures had taken place.

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in connection to WhistleblowersUK, a not-for-profit organisation. I am concerned that we still have no conclusion to the Public Office (Accountability) Bill. It seems to be stuck on amendment 23, which still is being discussed. I am not sure how the Government will ensure that there are credible sanctions, maybe against Ministers who fail to whistleblow. Will the Minister commit to protecting whistleblowers by establishing a new independent office of the whistleblower, so that members of the public understand that they can have legal protections and so that they have much greater awareness of their rights about whistleblowing?

[Darren Jones]

I hear the strong interest of Liberal Democrat Members in the office for the whistleblower proposal. As I said to the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison), I am happy to look at those details when her colleagues write to me with them. The Government have committed to bring the duty of candour Bill back to the House as quickly as possible and for it to be completed in this Session. We are in the process of negotiations with the families, the intelligence agencies and the Intelligence and Security Committee on one final issue. As soon as we are able to resolve that, we hope to progress the Bill at pace.

[Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)]

We must see the documents that pertain to the appointment of Peter Mandelson. Given that any member of the public could have told the Government that Mandelson was dodgy, it seems amazing that the Prime Minister requested that this vetting happen in the first place. This is not a question of process; it is a matter of judgment. Does the Chief Secretary believe that these documents will reveal why the Prime Minister’s judgment is consistently so poor?

[Darren Jones]

I believe the documents will show that the Prime Minister was lied to by Peter Mandelson.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

It is very clear that the issue has been referred to the Intelligence and Security Committee and that it will look at issues of national security and international relations. I intervened in the debate on this matter; it is possible that the Chief Secretary heard that intervention. I want him to be very clear that in the event of the committee discovering commercial links from Mandelson to any company, including Palantir but not excluding others, they will be pursued and will not be ignored because they do not necessarily impact immediately on the very narrow definition of national security and international relations.

[Darren Jones]

The commission for information from Departments that is taking place has not yet resulted in those documents being shared with the Cabinet Office. If issues need to be pursued further once the documents are shared, we reserve the right to do so.

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)]

I wish I had started counting at the beginning of this statement how often the Chief Secretary used the word “process”. The word that I have been listening out for and have not heard him say is “responsibility”. Does he accept that it is the job of the Prime Minister to make all these appointments without reference to backroom bureaucrats and lawyers? Should he not accept that he made a terrible mistake in respect of Peter Mandelson, do the right thing and reveal all the papers immediately?

[Darren Jones]

It is interesting to hear from a Member on the Reform Benches that they do not agree with process or vetting. The Government are committed to both those things, because that is the way in which Government should conduct itself. As the Prime Minister has said at the Dispatch Box, had he had the information that we all have now available to him at the point of appointment, he would not have appointed Peter Mandelson. On that basis, he has apologised for any distress that that has caused for the victims of Jeffrey Epstein.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

If I understand the Chief Secretary correctly, he is saying that when it comes to the disclosure of documents, the Metropolitan police will have an unquestioned discretion as to whether to disclose. Moving forward, if there is no prosecution, presumably all those documents will be disclosed at that point. If there is a prosecution, one presumes that those documents that are relied on for that prosecution will not be disclosed until after the prosecution. There will be a cadre of documents that are not being relied on for the prosecution but, because they have been in the possession of the Metropolitan police, will be subject to disclosure to the defence. At the point when the Crown Prosecution Service decides that it is not relying on them, will those disclosable documents be published?

[Darren Jones]

We do not disclose any documents that the Met police tells the Government are related to its criminal investigations until it tells us that they are available to be disclosed. That will be on the basis that they are not relevant to the prosecution or because the prosecution is being taken forward or otherwise. The last thing that anyone in the House would want is for us to undertake a process that ultimately undermines a case, should the CPS decide to bring it to the courts, when we want proper justice to be delivered in the court. That is why we are honouring the requests of the Metropolitan police in the pursuit of justice.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The question on the lips of all of us in this House and this nation is: when will this ever end? That is an eternal question. It is understandable that the Government will stagger the documentation, but staggering must not be staging. Will the Chief Secretary once again reassure Members of this House and the people of this nation that the time for covering has long passed? Openness and allowing the information to be understood are essential components if trust is ever to be rebuilt.

[Darren Jones]

The hon. Member is right. The Government should publish these documents as quickly as possible, not just to comply with the Humble Address from this House, but to ensure that they are made transparent. Given that I am unable to confirm to the House today how much information we will receive from Government Departments in relation to the commission for information—and, as a consequence, how long it will take for that process to conclude, for the Metropolitan police to release any documents and for the Intelligence and Security Committee to conduct its work—I thought it was better that the Government publish the documents that are available as quickly as possible, instead of waiting until the end of an undetermined period. I hope that that suits the spirit as well as the letter of the Humble Address.

Labour Together and APCO Worldwide: Cabinet Office Review

Darren Jones Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the Cabinet Office review into Labour Together and APCO Worldwide.

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Darren Jones)]

Freedom of the press is a cornerstone of our democracy, and the Government are committed to upholding and protecting that freedom. Journalists must be able to do their job without fear or favour, including holding politicians of all political parties to account on behalf of the public that we all serve.

In the past week, there have been a number of media reports about the actions of the think-tank Labour Together in 2023 and 2024. Some of those media reports have included allegations about the conduct of the joint Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Cabinet Office and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Josh Simons), who was previously the director of Labour Together.

As the Prime Minister confirmed last week, he asked civil servants in the Cabinet Office propriety and ethics team to establish the facts. As Members across the House will know, all civil servants are bound by the civil service code, which dictates that they act with integrity, honesty, objectivity and impartiality. The exercise to establish the facts around the allegations was bound by those principles.

That work has now concluded and the facts have been reported to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has been advised that the matter should now be referred to the independent adviser on ministerial standards, and the Prime Minister has done so today. This is not a new process, but a continuation of the process that the Prime Minister has started. The Prime Minister will make a judgment when he has received the advice from the independent adviser. That will happen very soon, and the independent adviser’s advice to the Prime Minister will be made public in the normal way.

The independent adviser is appointed to provide impartial, independent advice to the Prime Minister, in line with his published terms of reference. The current independent adviser was appointed under the last Administration by the Prime Minister’s predecessor and is independent of the Government. He will provide his independent advice directly to the Prime Minister.

I reiterate that a free and independent press is an absolutely essential part of a free, open and democratic society and is one of the things that makes our country great. Representing the public as a Minister is a privilege and a duty, and public scrutiny is rightly part of that. The Government are committed to protecting freedom of the press, and no journalist should ever be intimidated for trying to hold those in power to account.

[Alex Burghart]

Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker. The details of this story are quite extraordinary, even by the standards of this Government. While he was the director of the think-tank Labour Together, the now Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Makerfield (Josh Simons), paid a PR agency to investigate the “backgrounds and motivations” of British journalists who had written about Labour Together’s breaches of electoral law, of which there were many—more than 20, the most famous being a failure to declare £730,000-worth of donations. The agency produced a report that included an allegation that the journalists in question had relied on Russian hacking. Needless to say, those reports were entirely spurious.

The Minister has claimed that the agency acted beyond its brief, but in the past few days an email from the agency to the Minister has been published, showing that he was shown that a “human intelligence investigation” into the journalists would take place. That investigation included details of one journalist’s Jewish faith and made claims about his ideological upbringing and personal relationships. The report was then circulated to key members of the Labour party and to GCHQ, who swiftly said that there was no case to answer.

This looks to all intents and purposes like a deliberate attempt to smear and intimidate journalists whose only “crime” had been to report that Labour Together had broken electoral law. As of today, it is very difficult to see how the Minister’s position is tenable.

The referral to the independent adviser, which the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister has just announced, is the right thing to do, but it should have been done immediately. This should not have been dealt with internally in the Cabinet Office, where the Minister in question is the Minister with responsibility for inquiries and whistleblowing—you couldn’t make this stuff up! I must ask the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister why the Minister has not been suspended while the investigation is going on.

The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister refers to the work of the propriety and ethics team. We must also ask about the current membership of that team, because it is known that a political appointment was made to a civil service role of a woman who was previously an employee of Labour Together. Does the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister now accept that that appointment was wrong?

It must also be the case that very many people took money from Labour Together: the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, the Chancellor, the Foreign Secretary, the Home Secretary, the Deputy Prime Minister—the list goes on. An organisation set up to conceal the source of its donations from the public and from the Labour party—is it not time for an investigation into Labour Together?

[Darren Jones]

I will take those questions in reverse order. The shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster accused me of taking money from Labour Together. That is not true. I had a number of staff seconded to my office when I was a member of the shadow Cabinet. As I am sure Opposition Members know, that is an important contribution that is made to political parties, as the Opposition do not have access to the civil service, but no money was taken—not one pound, not one penny—and seconded staff were reported in the proper way. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will revoke those comments when he gets the opportunity.

The hon. Gentleman’s second question was about the investigation led by the propriety and ethics team. I can confirm that that was led by a senior member of staff—not the member of staff to whom the hon. Gentleman referred—who reported directly to the Prime Minister.

The hon. Gentleman’s first question was about why the Minister in question has not been suspended while the investigation is taking place. That is because the independent adviser on ethics can investigate Ministers only while they are in office. If the Minister had been suspended or removed from office, the independent adviser would not be able to undertake his work, and the Prime Minister thinks it is important that the independent adviser is given the opportunity to do just that.

[Jon Trickett (Normanton and Hemsworth) (Lab)]

May I put it to the Minister that a significant number of Ministers in this Government, including him, received large sums of money from Labour Together? I think he received almost £60,000.

[Darren Jones]

indicated dissent.

[Jon Trickett]

The Minister is shaking his head. If what I have said is untrue, I withdraw it, but a number of Ministers did receive money. Did it not leave a bad taste in many people’s minds—if you can have a bad taste in your mind—that so many Ministers were standing in judgment on another Minister who had been the director of Labour Together? Clearly, the right thing to do is to hand over the investigation to an independent third party. Narrowing the investigation down to simply one man is a mistake, given that Labour Together has made a number of serious blunders.

[Darren Jones]

To repeat myself, just for the record, I did not receive a pound from Labour Together. I would appreciate it if Members did not keep repeating that falsehood.

The answer to my hon. Friend’s question about the independent adviser is in the title: the independent adviser is independent of Government and is looking at this matter in the proper way, as my hon. Friend would expect. We will wait for that advice to come to the Prime Minister, which I expect to happen very shortly.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Darren Jones]

The best route for independent investigations of these types is the independent ethics adviser. As I have informed the House, he can only investigate sitting Ministers. The process is important, and although it is not for me to make the case one way or the other for the Minister in question, he refutes the allegations and needs to be given the chance to go through that process. The independent adviser will then independently give a view to the Prime Minister in relation to the ministerial code and other issues. Ultimately, it is a question for the Prime Minister as to what should happen next.

I will slightly correct the hon. Lady, if I may. The accusations being made are not against the Labour party or the Government, but against the think-tank Labour Together.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I am the secretary of the National Union of Journalists parliamentary group, and we play a specific role in trying to protect the ability of journalists to report honestly and fairly across the world. We believe that what we saw was an attempt to smear journalists to prevent them from reporting the truth. That is why I wrote on five occasions to the general secretary of the Labour party, and to the Prime Minister, to ask for an independent inquiry. In the end, I was told that an inquiry was being undertaken by the Public Relations and Communications Association, which is not a regulatory body. I was told that the Cabinet Office was not carrying out an investigation, but assembling the facts. We now know that ex-Labour Together staff are in that team, and we know that Ministers have received donations, often to their office or their campaign. The scale of the donations from Labour Together is shocking, to be frank. It is almost as though an organisation has bought a political party—that is one of our worries.

Now we are told that this matter will be referred to the independent adviser. Is it true that the independent adviser will investigate the whole sequence of events with regard to Labour Together, and not just the role of this individual MP, who is now a junior Minister, during the period when he was an MP or a Minister? We need to get the full truth of what went on. At the moment, this does not pass the smell test, as far as I am concerned.

[Darren Jones]

As the House will know, the independent adviser on ethics has the remit to investigate Ministers on behalf of the Prime Minister in relation to concerns on which the Government have standing to ask such questions. Any questions about what happened or did not happen within Labour Together as a private organisation are a matter for the board of Labour Together.

[John McDonnell]

It is a whitewash—it is another whitewash!

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)]

To paraphrase Churchill, the cornerstone of a free society is a free press. Whatever the investigation may be looking into, I am afraid that the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office has admitted that he set the investigation going because he did not like the report that had been issued about donations. That should not need an independent inquiry; the Prime Minister should sack this Minister now. The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister is here in effect to represent the Prime Minister, so I ask: will the Prime Minister U-turn before or after Prime Minister’s questions this week?

[Darren Jones]

As I have said repeatedly, the process is now for the independent adviser to follow, for advice to be presented to the Prime Minister, and at that point the Prime Minister will make a decision.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

We expect integrity from our journalists and we expect integrity from our Ministers. In the light of the fact that 109 MPs received funding from Labour Together, can the Minister say what involvement the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards has had, and what advice was given to those 109 MPs regarding reporting the funding they received from Labour Together?

[Darren Jones]

As my hon. Friend knows, any donations that individuals receive—from Labour Together or from a trade union, Momentum or any other organisation—are for them to declare in line with the rules, and I do not think there has been any accusation that Members have been in breach of those rules.

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

The steps taken by the former head of Labour Together to smear journalists when they dared to look into the murky finances of this Labour think-tank are nothing short of chilling. No longer head of Labour Together, he is now serving as a Minister in the Cabinet Office, which is the Department currently looking into his actions, so he will be marking his own homework. When is the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office going to be sacked, if he will not do the decent thing and resign?

[Darren Jones]

I know my voice is going, but maybe the right hon. Lady did not hear my response to the urgent question. The process is being led by the independent adviser for ethics, which is not the Cabinet Office. As I have said, the independent adviser will report to the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister will then make a decision.

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Lab)]

I am the chair of the NUJ parliamentary group, which has long campaigned for press freedom, usually in relation to authoritarian regimes, but it seems that the surveillance and political intimidation of journalists is a threat much closer to home. As we have heard, that threat is not being adequately investigated, so will the Minister agree with the NUJ, me and other colleagues that we need an urgent, independent and transparent inquiry into the activities of Labour Together and APCO, and that we need stronger legislation to prevent the corporate surveillance of journalists?

[Darren Jones]

As I have said, the independent adviser will be looking at the testimony and evidence in relation to the Minister in question and advising the Prime Minister in relation to actions where the Government have standing. Questions for other agencies and organisations are either subjects for their relevant trade bodies or decisions for their private board.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

I am a former journalist and member of the NUJ, and I cannot sufficiently express my anger at hearing that a member of my former profession was investigated in this way in an attempt to intimidate them. The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister has made great play of the fact that it was not the Government but Labour Together that investigated them, but in the mind of the public the two are now linked. Do the Government not need to take urgent action to distance themselves from this organisation, cut off links and make sure that there is some transparency about what exactly went on?

[Darren Jones]

As I have said, in relation to anything that the Government are responsible for, we of course uphold the principles that the hon. Member speaks passionately about, and which we in the Government agree with wholeheartedly. If there are changes that need to be made in Government, we stand ready to do so. As I say, the Government are unable to take steps to investigate private organisations directly, unless there is a legal basis to do so. Therefore, it is for the independent organisation to conduct its own investigations.

[Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)]

I am curious—I am not sure who Labour Together are, what it is, or what its purpose is. I have no idea whatsoever; however, if we believe—and I do not—everything that we read in the newspapers, there have been very serious allegations. It has been suggested that more than 100 Labour MPs have received between hundreds of pounds and hundreds of thousands of pounds in donations. Those are the allegations in the press. With that in mind, can we clear this up? Instead of an investigation into one single individual, can there be an investigation into the entire operations of Labour Together? Nobody knows who they are, and we need to find out.

[Darren Jones]

As my hon. Friend knows, Labour Together is a private organisation. It is a question for its board what it does in relation to its conduct. As I have said already to the House, any donations that have been received by individual Members, whether from Labour Together or other organisations, have, as far as I am aware, all been declared in line with the rules, and there have been no accusations to the contrary.

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

Can the Minister confirm that the new head of propriety and ethics was appointed without a fully open, competitive recruitment process, and that the outgoing head of propriety and ethics was promoted to permanent secretary also without a fully open recruitment process? If so, he will know that both those appointments were in breach of rules put in place by the last Government—by myself as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—unless an individual Minister signed off a waiver from the process. Can he say which Minister signed off such an exemption, and why patronage is preferred to open recruitment for such sensitive roles?

[Darren Jones]

I was not privy to those appointments, so I cannot confirm the exact details that the right hon. Member asks of me. What I can say is that the senior civil servant who is currently acting as the director of propriety and ethics is a temporary appointment subject to a full recruitment in due course, which is in line with the rules that the right hon. Member refers to.

[Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

The severity of the allegations against Labour Together cannot go unaddressed. The Minister says of the referral to the independent adviser that it would then be for the Prime Minister to decide, but given that the Prime Minister’s own Labour leadership campaign in 2020 was supported by Labour Together, does the Minister feel that that would be appropriate? And what of the allegations against Labour Together beyond the role of the one Cabinet Office Minister? Who will investigate those allegations? As the Minister referred some weeks ago to a spirit of transparency and accountability following what we have heard of the role of Peter Mandelson, does he not want to see transparency and accountability more widely on the allegations around Labour Together?

[Darren Jones]

My hon. Friend’s question on transparency is answered by the fact that the independent adviser’s conclusions and advice to the Prime Minister will be published in the normal way, and they will be available for the public and this House to see. On whether the Prime Minister is the appropriate person to decide, as he is the only person, constitutionally, who advises His Majesty the King on which Ministers to appoint or dismiss in the circumstances set out, it is right for the Prime Minister to come to that judgment.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)]

What is of no doubt whatsoever is that countless Labour MPs took money from Labour Together. Anas Sarwar and his now estranged Scottish Labour MPs must come clean about their close financial and personal relationships with this sullied organisation, but for some reason they have all developed collective amnesia. They have forgotten about their links with this rotten organisation, their only defence being that they are utterly clueless. Will the Minister now insist that Scottish Labour hand back the £100,000 that it took from this dodgy and disgraced organisation?

[Darren Jones]

As I have said to the House, individual donations will be declared in line with the rules in the normal way. It is for those individuals to decide what they do with those donations.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)]

This is truly a sordid affair. The Minister speaks of receiving funds from Labour Together to work on policy; I will just remind him that when we sat on the Opposition Benches, many of us were quite content with the support we received from the trade union movement and were proud to declare it as socialists.

On Labour Together and its funding basis, it seems clear that the former chief of staff in Downing Street was content with not declaring, safe in the knowledge that the Electoral Commission’s powers were very limited and that a fine of £16,000—in the context of £730,000 of moneys coming into the system—was simply the cost of doing business. Can the Minister assure me that Sir Laurie Magnus will look at the funding structure and consider whether we need to revisit the ways in which people can be penalised for such egregious transgressions and flagrant disregard for doing business properly? To my mind, these individuals should, just as we as ask directors to be individually responsible, bear personal responsibility in these circumstances.

--- Later in debate ---

[Darren Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. The independent adviser on ethics will be looking at the ministerial code and its application to the Parliamentary Secretary in relation to the statements that have been made and the facts that have been made available through the propriety and ethics team’s fact-finding process. My hon. Friend asks a wider question around the regulation of think-tanks, donations and so on, which I am sure will be debated as part of the forthcoming elections Bill. I agree that those things should, of course, be done in the proper and ethical way.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Is it not likely that, with the awards ceremony last night, the Government would have won the BAFTA for “One Scandal After Another” had they entered? The facts in this matter are not in dispute: the organisation Labour Together did not declare massive donations and was fined as a result; and in response, its head, now a Labour Minister, sought to gain dirt on the journalists who had truthfully reported the matter. Why does this need to be investigated? The facts are clear and the position is indefensible. I regard the three Ministers present as decent people and as gentlemen. Are they not sick of being put forward to defend the indefensible?

[Darren Jones]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his concern for our wellbeing. As I have said, the independent ethics adviser will conduct his investigation and report to the Prime Minister in the normal way, at which point the Prime Minister will make a decision. It is not for me at the Dispatch Box to make the case one way or the other for the parties involved. However, I can inform the right hon. Gentleman that the allegations he has alluded to are disputed, which is why it is important that the independent adviser is given the opportunity to undertake that process and advise the Prime Minister in the proper way.

[Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Lab)]

Yesterday, party colleagues and I wrote to the Prime Minister and the general secretary of the Labour party to raise serious concerns over the allegations facing Labour Together. It is absolutely essential that any investigation into these matters is demonstrably independent, thorough, transparent and, now, wide-ranging, listening to the many voices in this place. For that reason, I ask the Minister to confirm that published terms of reference for that investigation will be brought before Parliament and suggest that the Government should introduce the duty of candour of the proposed Hillsborough law in any investigation.

[Darren Jones]

The terms of reference for the independent ethics adviser are already published, as is the ministerial code; as I have been able to confirm today, the advice that the adviser provides to the Prime Minister will also be published. All those documents will therefore be available to the House. As my hon. Friend knows, the Government support the proposals of the Hillsborough law and are working at pace to be able to complete the legislation to ensure that a duty of candour is on the statute books.

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)]

The Government are hiding behind process as usual, even when the process is so clearly compromised, as in this case. First, we hear that the propriety and ethics team are looking at this matter even though we know that the leader of that team is a former Labour Together staffer who was appointed according to inappropriate process. I would be grateful if the Minister repeated and perhaps explained the extraordinary claim he made earlier from the Dispatch Box that it is necessary for the Minister in question to stay in his role so that the independent inquiry can be carried out. It is an absolutely extraordinary suggestion—could he explain it? Secondly, could he simply confirm to the House that it is for the Prime Minister to appoint and dismiss Ministers without reference to independent inquiries, and that he is perfectly capable of making the right decision now?

[Darren Jones]

The Prime Minister made the ethics adviser independent on coming into government because of the misuse of that process by former Prime Ministers who were trying to cover up for their friends. The independent ethics adviser has not only illustrated his independence but proven that the independent process works, because where Ministers have been in breach of the code, the Prime Minister has sacked them as a consequence.

The hon. Member made a statement that the leader of the propriety and ethics team was a former Labour Together staffer. That is not true, and that should be acknowledged. He asked why Ministers have to remain in post while they are being investigated by the independent ethics adviser. Those are the rules for the system that we inherited. He raises an interesting question, and we should consider that for the future, but for the time being the rules are as established, and they require a Minister to stay in post while they are being investigated.

[Matt Bishop (Forest of Dean) (Lab)]

I hope the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister agrees that any investigation into any matter should be done in an appropriate and timely way. I know that it is an independent investigation, but can he advise the House on what the timescale for the investigation may be and, if it is not very quick, whether it can be brought forward?

[Darren Jones]

The independent ethics adviser is able to conduct inquiries in the time that he considers necessary in relation to the facts, the number of documents and the conversations that need to be had, but I agree that the advice ought to be made available to the Prime Minister as quickly as possible. I would certainly hope for that to be the case in the coming days.

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister may be aware that at the end of this week the UK takes on the chair of the global Media Freedom Coalition—a partnership of 51 countries pledged to protect journalists and the freedom of the press. How could the UK have any credibility in that role, given the revelations of the behaviour of a member of this Government, which are more akin to that of the worst authoritarian states?

[Darren Jones]

I think that the right hon. Member talks down the country. The UK is rightly proud of the freedom of the press and its role in our democracy, and I know that both his party and mine support those principles. He has referred to allegations being made, and that is why an independent process is looking at the veracity of those allegations and any denial that is put. As soon as its advice has been made available, it will be put to the Prime Minister to make a call on it.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

The vicious actions of Labour Together are despicable. Any attack on the freedom of our press and individuals is unforgivable. The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister keeps referring to an independent ethics adviser while at the same time admitting that his only remit is the ministerial code of conduct. He needs to be reminded that the actions that have been referred to took place before the Minister concerned was in office. These actions are such that they will cause irreparable and tremendous harm to the Government and our party. Only an independent investigation into all the actions of Labour Together will suffice. Why will he not understand that?

[Darren Jones]

The investigation that the Government are conducting in relation to the Minister is independent. The ethics adviser is independent, as I have alluded to a number of times. The independent ethics adviser is able to look at the ministerial code as well as the circumstances in relation to the questions put to him, and his advice will make reference to that when he comes to advise the Prime Minister. I know that the hon. Member will be disappointed by this, but the Government cannot instigate an investigation into a private organisation unless there is a legal basis to do so. It is a question for the board of Labour Together whether they wish to undertake any work on the allegations that have been made in the media.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

There are real concerns that non-state actors, such as the commercial public relations organisation APCO and possibly Palantir Technologies, are selling services to carry out surveillance with the purpose of smearing journalists in the United Kingdom. If the Government are not just uttering polite, meaningless words about protecting journalists, surely we now need an independent investigation so that we can move beyond process and look at how to regulate such non-state actors?

[Darren Jones]

I am afraid that I do not know the veracity of the right hon. Lady’s allegations, but I share her concern. If that were to be true, it would clearly be unwelcome in the United Kingdom. If laws and regulations need to be updated to prevent that from happening, then of course this House should consider them.

[Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister for his statement. I wonder if he could clarify the actions that the Government will take should the investigation show that further questions need answering.

[Darren Jones]

The independent adviser will write a letter to the Prime Minister following his investigation, which will detail the facts as he understands them and the case that has been made by the parties in question. He will then draw some form of conclusion, on which the Prime Minister will need to decide how to act. As I have said this afternoon, those options can include an agreement for the Minister to continue in post or not.

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

The Prime Minister has today said that the independent ethics adviser will now investigate. Is this not another example of how poor his judgment is? Initially saying that the Cabinet Office could investigate someone who is now a Cabinet Office Minister was ludicrous; that was never going to be independent or comprehensive. The U-turn today is just so that his Chief Secretary had something to talk about in response to today’s urgent question, which my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) dragged him to the House for. Why is the Prime Minister’s judgment constantly so bad?

[Darren Jones]

I think the hon. Lady might be slightly confused.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

Why don’t you mansplain it to her?

[Darren Jones]

I will happily mansplain it to the hon. Gentleman, if I may say so!

The independent adviser is independent, and the proper process will be followed. I remind the House that the reason that the process exists and that the ethics adviser is independent is that the previous Administration repeatedly failed to deal with ethics issues properly. The referral to the independent adviser has been done promptly, following fact finding, and he will report in due course.

[Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)]

When the Prime Minister came to power, promising to clean up politics, he declared:

“Journalism is the lifeblood of democracy.”

We all know that Labour Together helped to mastermind the Prime Minister’s rise to the highest office in the land, and that it stands accused of running an orchestrated campaign to smear and discredit journalists. I think the Prime Minister should be here in this House answering questions, but my prediction is that that day will come. In the meantime, does the Minister agree with me and an ex-founder of Labour Together that this is some “dark shit”?

--- Later in debate ---

[Brian Leishman]

Please accept my apology, Mr Speaker. I withdraw the bad language.

[Darren Jones]

I think the question has been withdrawn, Mr Speaker.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

Can I take the Minister back to the strange answer that he gave to the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain), who asked for a full inquiry into all the actions and activities of Labour Together, including the behaviour of Morgan McSweeney and the hon. Member for Makerfield (Josh Simons)? I want the inquiry to extend to their undermining of the Labour party leadership between 2015 and 2020—the systemic briefing and attacks, and the general undermining of the interests of the Labour party while Labour Together claimed to support it. A single inquiry by a single person does not cut it. There needs to be an open, much more public investigation into not just Labour Together’s behaviour but the sources of its funding, expenditure and donations. Will the Minister confirm that political donations are not just cash payments but include the secondment of staff and the use of facilities, all of which ought to be publicly and openly declared, and clearly have not been?

[Darren Jones]

The Electoral Commission has looked at some of these issues and fined Labour Together for previous errors, but other than that investigation, I am not aware of any accusations of illegal or improper donations to Labour Together or other organisations. As I said, it is important that the Government investigate matters that relate to the Government and ministerial appointments, but questions for Labour Together as a private organisation are questions for its board.

[Lincoln Jopp]

As of today, what services—if any—is Labour Together providing either to the Labour party or to the Government?

[Darren Jones]

I can only speak on behalf of the Government; as far as I am aware, it is not providing any services.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

If I understand this correctly, out of all this unsavoury saga there is a single investigation about a single Minister. But if that investigation is under the ministerial code, it will deal only with his time as a Minister, and his previous involvement with Labour Together is beyond that remit, is it not? In Labour Together, we have a party within a party. Surely, how it was funded and how it used those funds are things that the Labour party executive could conduct an investigation into. Is that not correct?

[Darren Jones]

Labour Together is a separate organisation to the Labour party. It is not for the Labour party or the Government to investigate third-party organisations. It would be like asking the Government to investigate Tesco—that is not something the Government can do unless there is a legal basis on which to do so. On the hon. and learned Gentleman’s first question, the ministerial code incorporates the Nolan principles that apply to all Ministers and their appointment to Government. I am sure that the independent adviser will consider those when he considers the facts.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

Far be it for me to insert myself into the internecine warfare fast breaking out on the Government Benches, but the Minister pushed back when it was suggested that he had received donations from Labour Together. His entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests shows £63,000-plus of donations in kind with regards to both his time in opposition and his time in government. With that in mind, if the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee launches an inquiry into Labour Together, will the Minister and his Department co-operate with it?

[Darren Jones]

Investigations by Select Committees of this House are a matter for those Select Committees. The Government will always comply with requests from Committees.

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

When in opposition, the Prime Minister said that Boris Johnson

“always looked the other way”

over standards in government, and that he was “corrupt”. Yet Labour Together has been led by key advisers to the Prime Minister, including my constituency predecessor, and some remain in his Cabinet to this day. Given the £730,000 in undeclared donations from millionaire venture capitalists, and a payment of almost £36,000 to a public relations firm to smear investigative journalists, does the Minister agree that the public were promised real change but all they are getting is much of the same, and that the great British people expect a lot better?

[Darren Jones]

When coming into office, the Prime Minister was committed to improving the systems that we inherited. That was established with the ethics adviser being made independent—being able to conduct his investigations independently and to advise the Prime Minister, irrespective of whether the Prime Minister asks him to do so. It was done by our establishment of the Ethics and Integrity Commission. It was done by our introduction of the Hillsborough law to bring a duty of candour into statute, to ensure that officials and politicians tell the truth, where in the past they have been shown not to do so. Those are a number of examples of how the Government are bolstering ethics and standards in public life—the hon. Gentleman is right that the public expect that from us. On this particular matter, as I have said, the independent adviser will consider the issues as they relate to the Minister in question, and advise the Prime Minister in the normal way.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The Minister is an honourable man, but my goodness he has drawn the short straw today. These incredibly difficult allegations deserve and need honest answers. It is clear that this is yet another example of bodies overstretching their remit, and indeed their rights. The general public will view this as Big Brother watching over us all. How will the Minister, once again, rebuild trust in a Government who respect individual rights and independence, not some despotic Government to whom espionage on their own citizens is a normal occurrence?

[Darren Jones]

It is important to clarify that the allegations are not against the Labour party or the Government, but against the think-tank Labour Together. There is no suggestion that the Government are conducting business in the way the hon. Gentleman suggests. He and I—and the House, I am sure—will agree that freedom of the press is a cornerstone of our democracy and something that we in this Parliament will always seek to protect.

[Jon Trickett]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The House will have heard me suggest that the Minister had received a donation of almost £60,000. I withdrew that suggestion following an indication by the Minister that it was not correct. I have now had an opportunity to look at his declaration of interests for the early months of 2024. He received two donations amounting to £60,000. I accept that this was not in cash, so I want to clarify what I said, but on the other hand, the Minister has received a significant amount of money. I seek your guidance on whether Ministers who have received money need to declare their interest before responding on matters that relate to Labour Together. Maybe you have not considered that and can give us guidance later.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Maybe the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister wants to answer that rather than me.

[Darren Jones]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I am happy to answer that point. As the hon. Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) pointed out, I have not received one pound in cash from Labour Together, which was the suggestion from some Members in the House. Instead, I received while in opposition some hours of seconded time from staff, who were provided policy research to my role when I was in the shadow Cabinet. That was normal at that time, whether in relation to Labour Together, trade unions or other organisations. I am happy to confirm that those were declared in the proper way. There has been no breach of the rules and I am happy to make those declarations to the House today.

[Mr Speaker]

If the hon. Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) believes there is something wrong, my advice would be to go to Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. That would be the way forward, rather than to debate this matter on the Floor of the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister to respond.

[Darren Jones]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I understand that the Chief Whip spoke to the Minister in question this morning to inform him that the Prime Minister had decided to refer the matter to the independent adviser, but I can confirm that the propriety and ethics team will not have made a judgment one way or another about whether the Minister has been cleared or not in relation to the ministerial code. The propriety and ethics team advised the Prime Minister to refer it to the independent adviser, and it is for the independent adviser to come to a judgment on that and then to report to the Prime Minister.

[Mr Speaker]

I am going to leave it at that. I will just say that the PET will not be making the decision.

Lord Mandelson: Government Response to Humble Address Motion

Darren Jones Excerpts

Thursday 12th February 2026 Written Statements

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

Last week, the House made a Humble Address to His Majesty for the Government to disclose material surrounding the appointment of Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United States of America. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Cabinet Office also updated the House this morning in response to an urgent question. Given the considerable interest this matter has generated, I wanted to provide an update on the process now under way through which the Government will comply.

Departments have been instructed to retain any material that may be relevant, and work is now under way to identify which documents fall in scope of the motion. We will publish a first set of documents as soon as possible after the House returns from recess.

The House will be aware of the statement from the Metropolitan police regarding the ongoing investigation. As you would expect, the Government rightly do not wish to release material that may undermine an ongoing police investigation, and as such we are working constructively with the police as they conduct their inquiries. I will update the House accordingly.

Senior officials have this week met with the Intelligence and Security Committee to discuss what the Committee requires in order to fulfil its role in relation to the Humble Address. We are working with the Committee to put in place processes for making available to them material relating to national security or international relations. The Government are very grateful to the Committee for its work and commit to full engagement with them to ensure these processes are timely and effective.

The Government continue to take this matter incredibly seriously given the nature of the issues at stake and scope of material in place, and we will ensure that Parliament’s instruction is met with the urgency and transparency it deserves.

[HCWS1341]

Cabinet Office

Darren Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2026 Written Corrections

The following extract is from the statement on Standards in Public Life on 9 February 2026.

[Darren Jones]

On the Bill, as I informed the House last week, the Government’s preference is to bring forward legislation that could be applied to any peer who has breached the rules and brought the other place into disrepute. We have begun the work of looking at the scope and ability for such a Bill to be introduced. I have been informed that a Bill of that nature has not been brought before Parliament since 1425—[Interruption.] No, the 1917 Bill was about a collective group of peers who had been, I think, collaborating with the Nazis around the second world war.

[Official Report, 9 February 2026; Vol. 780, c. 573.]

Written correction submitted by the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones):

[Darren Jones]

… I have been informed that a Bill of that nature has not been brought before Parliament since 1478—[Interruption.] No, the 1917 Bill was about a collective group of peers who had been, I think, collaborating with the Germans around the first world war.

Standards in Public Life

Darren Jones Excerpts

Monday 9th February 2026 Commons Chamber

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

Last week, I came to the House in the wake of information released by the United States Department of Justice about the depth and extent of Peter Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. I outlined the immediate steps that this Government took, including an initial review of material, which ultimately led to a referral to the Metropolitan police, and steps taken to modernise the disciplinary procedures to allow for the removal of peers who have brought the House of Lords into disrepute. I am here today to update the House on further action that the Government will take to rebuild trust in public life in the wake of the damaging revelations since my statement last week. [Interruption.] I will finish my statement first, if I may.

I am sure that the House will agree that issues of standards, while important in and of themselves, do not meet the scale of disgust that we all have when we see powerful, rich men misuse their positions to abuse women and girls. The procedural rules, and the rules that I will talk to the House about today, are important given what has been able to happen in the past, but we should start by recognising that our collective response requires wider changes in the culture and use of power, wherever it rests. This goes to the heart of who my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is. It is why he became a human rights lawyer in the first place, why he became Director of Public Prosecutions, why he changed the Crown Prosecution Service to be more victims-oriented, and why he became Prime Minister.

As I set out last week, Jeffrey Epstein was a despicable criminal who committed disgusting crimes. The Epstein scandal is another awful example of a culture that did not value the lives, let alone the voices, of women and girls. The series and sequencing of events across the last week has made it clear to us all, rightly, that for too long, and too often, influential people in positions of power—overwhelmingly men—have been able to avoid proper and just scrutiny because of the perverse power structures that incentivise their belief that rules do not apply to them. [Interruption.] If I may say so, Members who are chuntering from the Conservative Benches, while I am talking about the victims of sexual abuse and the abuse of power, should know better and recognise that they should be quiet and listen when we are talking about victims and the justice that they deserve to seek.

Peter Mandelson’s disgraceful behaviour raises a number of questions about the ability of the current standards system to catch those few individuals who seek to break our rules. This damages all Members across the House. The vast majority of public servants, whether officials or elected Members, come to serve the public, not themselves. This House, and indeed this building, is full of people working hard, unsociable hours, and making significant personal sacrifices, in order to try to make a difference to people’s lives, to do what is best for their country, to fight for their communities, and to use their position in this place to give a voice to those whose voices are too often not heard. The issues associated with Peter Mandelson, however, show that we must go further to ensure that no one can ever again behave in this way.

Since entering government, we have delivered on our manifesto promises to strengthen the role of the independent adviser, and we have set up the Ethics and Integrity Commission, while also publishing Ministers’ interests, gifts and hospitality more frequently and reforming severance payments to ensure that they are proportionate and fair. This is significant and important reform after years of repeated ethics scandals under the last Administration. This includes restricting payments for Ministers leaving office following a serious breach of the ministerial code, and requiring repayment of severance for those found in breach of the business appointment rules. It is also why the Government have introduced the Public Office (Accountability) Bill—a landmark piece of legislation to tackle injustice—so that when tragedy strikes, the state is called to account.

In response to the latest revelations in the past week, the Prime Minister has confirmed that the Government will bring forward legislation to ensure that peerages can be removed from disgraced peers and that Peter Mandelson will be removed from the list of Privy Councillors. We are changing the process for the relevant direct ministerial appointments, including politically appointed diplomatic roles, so that in cases where the role requires access to highly classified material, the selected candidate must have passed through the requisite national security vetting process before such appointments are announced or confirmed.

However, we recognise that we need to go further. We will work with the newly established Ethics and Integrity Commission to ensure that it achieves its aim of promoting the highest standards in public life. We will consider whether the current arrangements for the declaration and publication of financial interests for Ministers and senior Government officials are sufficient, and whether regular published financial disclosure forms or other additional transparency measures should be used in the future.

We will look closely at our system for providing transparency around lobbying, and it is clear that we should consider again the use of non-corporate communication channels within Government. Revelations from the Epstein files have shown that it has been far too easy to forward sensitive information via unofficial channels. There is a lack of clarity about the use of non-corporate communication channels within Government, which has raised concerns about the security of official information, as Conservative Members know from their former Ministers forwarding information from the Government via private email accounts to people when they should not have done so. The Government recognise the consistent calls for a strategic review of these channels, the role they play in Government, the legal framework in which they sit and whether the current codes of conduct and guidance relating to them are effective.

This work will focus on the issues for the Government, but it will complement a range of work being carried out both in this House and in the other place. The Government are committed to the principle that second jobs for Members of Parliament should be banned outside very limited exceptions, such as maintaining a professional qualification. The Committee on Standards is currently conducting an inquiry into second jobs, and we are working with the Committee to deliver meaningful change as quickly as possible. The House is considering the legislation currently before Parliament to introduce a duty of candour, and the Prime Minister has been clear that we will bring forward legislation to enable the removal of peerages from those who have brought the House of Lords into disrepute. The Government will ask the Lords Conduct Committee to expand its work reviewing the code of conduct in the other place to consider whether standards issues, including the rules relating to peers and lobbying, need to be reformed.

Finally, I want to provide the House with an update on the response to the Humble Address motion passed by the House last Wednesday. The Government are committed to publishing all relevant documents in line with the motion agreed by the House, and we are working at pace to do so. As the House agreed on Wednesday, papers that the Government believe should not be published on national security or international relations grounds will be referred to Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee. The Prime Minister wrote to the Chair of the Committee on Friday, acknowledging that it is important that documents are made available to Parliament as soon as possible. As the Prime Minister has set out, the Government are committed to being as transparent as soon as possible and in full compliance with the motion. The Prime Minister has asked the Cabinet Secretary to liaise with the Intelligence and Security Committee, and I will ensure that the House is kept updated on this work.

We have all been appalled at Jeffrey Epstein’s disgusting crimes and Peter Mandelson’s despicable behaviour. It is utterly contrary to what the Prime Minister stands for and the values at the heart of this Government. We are resolute in our commitment to fighting men’s violence against women and girls and to supporting their victims. Delivering on this mission is a critical part of our response to the terrible misogyny at the heart of the Epstein scandal. We also recognise that Peter Mandelson’s behaviour has posed difficult questions about our safeguards against corruption. I have set out today the steps the Government are taking to ensure that the British public can have confidence in the integrity of public life, and as I said last Monday and today, I will continue to update the House on these matters as our work develops. I commend this statement to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow—

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)]

I thank the Chief Secretary for advance sight of his statement.

The Prime Minister’s authority is gone and his Government are starting to collapse. The Prime Minister’s decision to appoint Peter Mandelson raises massive questions about standards in public life—questions that the Chief Secretary’s statement today just does not answer.

Advisers advise, but Ministers decide. On that basis, can the Chief Secretary explain why it was right for Morgan McSweeney to resign, but not right for the Prime Minister to resign? Morgan McSweeney might have provided the advice, but it was the Prime Minister who made the decision to appoint the best friend of the world’s most notorious paedophile to be His Majesty’s ambassador in Washington. The Prime Minister did that despite knowing that Mandelson had stayed in Epstein’s house while he was in jail for child prostitution. The problem is not the structures or the processes—the information was there; the warnings were there. The problem is that the Prime Minister had all that before him and yet chose to ignore it. He cannot keep blaming others. He cannot blame the process. He must start taking personal responsibility.

The record of this Government on standards is truly extraordinary. First, the Prime Minister was embroiled in the freebies scandal: £107,000 in gifts given to him since 2019 and a personal donor given a Downing Street pass. Then, the Prime Minister was reprimanded by his own ethics adviser over the appointment of a non-disclosed Labour donor to be the football regulator. His Transport Secretary, an ex-cop, had to resign over misleading the police. His anti-corruption Minister had to resign over corruption. His homelessness Minister had to resign for making people homeless. And then his Deputy Prime Minister and Housing Secretary had to resign over a £40,000 unpaid tax bill on her house.

No wonder even the leader of the Scottish Labour party now says that the Prime Minister must go. Mr Sarwar says:

“There have been too many mistakes”

and that he has no choice but to be

“honest about failure wherever I see it.”

He is right.

Let me turn to some specific questions. First, can the Chief Secretary confirm whether Peter Mandelson received a golden goodbye severance payment, signed off by the Government? Why have the Government refused to answer that question since September? It has been reported that the golden goodbye was between £39,000 and £55,000, which is more than the average person earns in a year—that is grotesque. What steps are the Government taking to retrieve that incredible payment for resigning in disgrace? It sounded like the Chief Secretary was saying that he could not do it. I have to remind him that, at the moment at least, they are actually the Government. They can take action.

Secondly, will the Government agree to a full investigation of Peter Mandelson’s behaviour while he was our ambassador? On 27 February, Mandelson arranged for the Prime Minister to meet Palantir, a client of Global Counsel—his own company. It was not recorded in the Prime Minister’s register of meetings; it emerged only later. Palantir was then directly awarded a £240 million contract by the Government. I make no criticism of Palantir. I simply ask: why was that not recorded? How many more such lobbyist meetings were there with the Prime Minister and what other inside information was being shared? Will the Chief Secretary agree, yes or no, to a full inquiry into Mandelson’s time as our ambassador?

Thirdly, let me ask about another new Labour veteran put forward for a public office despite his known association with a paedophile. No. 10 has said that it investigated Matthew Doyle’s relationship with a convicted paedophile, Sean Morton. No. 10 gave Doyle, the Prime Minister’s former director of communications, a peerage after purportedly examining this matter, but it has never clarified whether their relationship continued after Morton’s conviction. If Doyle cut ties with Morton upon his conviction, why do the Government not just say so? I ask the Chief Secretary to clarify that. Will he agree to publish all the documents relating to that appointment?

Fourthly, the Chief Secretary told the House on 2 February that a review of the decision to appoint Mandelson was under way. What form will it take? Will a statement be laid before Parliament, and when? Will Mandelson be interviewed as part of that review? Will it include the potential involvement of hostile intelligence services? Finally, have the Government responded substantively to the ISC’s request for more resourcing so that it can do its job properly in reviewing the papers that are about to be released?

No amount of process or fiddling about with procedures can compensate for a Prime Minister who lacked the judgment to act on the information put before him. The Prime Minister was warned about Mandelson—he knew, but he decided it was a risk worth taking. As the leader of the Scottish Labour party pointed out today, it is not just the Mandelson affair; time and again, the Prime Minister has got it wrong, from the winter fuel payment to the family farm tax. Just like with the grooming gangs inquiry, the Prime Minister has once again put his own political interest ahead of the interests of victims. At the start of his statement, the Chief Secretary said that the Prime Minister’s choices in this case go to the heart of who he is, and that is what we are worried about.

The Prime Minister’s head of communications has resigned; the Prime Minister’s chief of staff has resigned; and the leader of the Scottish Labour party says that the Prime Minister should resign. It seems like even in the Labour party, more and more people are now coming to the same conclusion as the public: this country deserves better.

[Darren Jones]

I remind the hon. Gentleman that the public had their say at the last general election, and they elected a landslide Labour majority, with the Conservatives suffering an historic defeat. In my view, one of the reasons the public booted that lot out of office was their repeated failings in standards and ethics, from the personal protective equipment contracts for dodgy friends to lying to Parliament and the sexual misconduct scandals. The hon. Gentleman asks me why it is that Ministers who have breached the code have resigned. It is because we fixed the system. The reason we have an independent ethics adviser who cannot be directed by the Prime Minister, as was the case under the previous Government, is that they are independent. When Ministers have been found to have broken the code, they have gone, because that should be the consequence for doing so.

The hon. Gentleman asks me what the Prime Minister knew at the time of Peter Mandelson’s appointment, but the Prime Minister has already answered that question repeatedly. The information that has come out since his appointment has made it clear that Peter lied to the Prime Minister about the state of his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. Had the Prime Minister known at the point of appointment what we all know now, with the privilege of hindsight, he would not have appointed him in the first place.

The hon. Gentleman asks me a number of questions about the process flowing from the Humble Address. As I have already informed the House, the Government are working with the leadership of the Intelligence and Security Committee to ensure that we can comply with the Humble Address and co-operate with transparency to release the documents as we have said we will, in compliance with the Met police investigation and other constraints that are currently being managed. We will ensure that the Intelligence and Security Committee is given all the available support it needs to be able to service the House effectively in line with the Humble Address.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his statement and for telling us that relevant direct ministerial appointments, including politically appointed diplomatic roles where the appointee will have access to highly classified material, will have to pass the requisite national security vetting process before such appointments are announced or confirmed. [Interruption.] That may sound surprising to Conservative Members, who probably did not hear what my right hon. Friend said as they were barracking him so much, but that is to be—[Interruption.] That is to be welcomed.

The Foreign Affairs Committee believed that Peter Mandelson should have come before our Committee before he was sent to Washington, and we were right. We should not have been prevented from seeing him. In the past, political appointees to ambassadorial roles have nearly always appeared before the Committee, but only at the Foreign Office’s discretion. We do not want it to have that discretion any more. We would like it written into the rules that before someone is appointed to an ambassadorial role or to be chair of the British Council or director of the BBC World Service, those political appointees must appear in public before the Foreign Affairs Committee and answer our questions.

[Darren Jones]

I thank the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee for her question. She raises important points about the process for appointing ambassadors and the delay between announcement, appointment and the host country accepting their appointment to the role. That is why we have made it clear today that the security vetting process will now have to be concluded before announcement and confirmation.

My right hon. Friend asks me about the role of pre-appointment hearings. I know that the permanent secretary of the Foreign Office has already informed her Committee that it is entitled to invite ambassadors to appear before the Committee to answer questions. Of course, we continue to keep all other pre-appointment hearings under review.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

I thank the Chief Secretary for advance sight of his statement. We must remember that we are having this debate today because of the courage of the women and girls who spoke out against Jeffrey Epstein and those connected to him. Their bravery has forced us to confront uncomfortable truths about power, accountability and the standards we must demand from those in public life.

There are many questions swirling around this place about judgment, and rightly so. While poor judgment cannot be legislated out, a better system can be put in place that leaves as little to chance as possible, but successive Governments have failed to do that. From partygate to ministerial code breaches that went unpunished, we have witnessed a systematic deterioration of standards, and the current system is broken.

The ministerial code lacks legal force. We need structural reform, and I welcome some of the measures that the Minister has mentioned in his remarks today, including the ability to boot out peers whose behaviour falls below the standard we should all expect. The ministerial code must be enshrined in law, with genuine sanctions for breaches. The ministerial code must extend beyond its current parameters to include senior public servants such as ambassadors, and we agree that vetting standards must also be made tougher and should include trade envoys like Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor.

We must ban those who have served in any capacity for a current foreign Administration from donating to political parties, think-tanks or campaign organisations. We must end government by WhatsApp. All ministerial instant messaging conversations involving Government business must be placed on the departmental record. They should be published quarterly, alongside emails, letters and phone calls, to ensure greater transparency. We should also protect whistleblowers through a new office of the whistleblower, with legal protections and criminal sanctions on Ministers who fail to report wrongdoing.

Just this morning, I met the lively and engaged year 12 students from Hazel Grove high school. When the next election rolls around, they will all be able to vote. They deserve better than this broken system, and we should all be working hard to restore the public’s trust in politics.

[Darren Jones]

I thank the hon. Lady for her remarks. I think we can all agree that we need not just effective rules but effective enforcement for people who break those rules. These issues have highlighted the fact that there is more work to do, and I look forward, as do the Government, to working on a cross-party basis to make sure that, as she said, we bring justice for victims who are affected by the abuse of power.

[Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

In December 2025, Palantir won a three-year contract from the Government worth £240 million. The contract, which is three times larger than any that Palantir has previously won, was awarded without tender. Will the Minister ensure that there is full transparency about how this decision was made and who was involved?

Does the Minister agree that resignations under the last Government meant that true accountability could be evaded and obscured? More widely, does he agree that all our constituents wanted from us and this Government was the change that we promised to deliver?

--- Later in debate ---

[Darren Jones]

On the first part of my hon. Friend’s question, I can assure her that all procurement rules have been followed, but if there is any suggestion of wrongdoing, we have powers under the Procurement Act 2023 to take action if required. On the second part, I agree that the public were calling for change at the last election, partly because of the repeated scandals that happened under the last Administration. That is why we have already taken action to make the ethics adviser independent and institute the Ethics and Integrity Commission, and as I said in my statement, we will go further.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

Can I ask the Chief Secretary the following points? He said in answer to an earlier question that the documentation would be released in compliance with the Metropolitan police. Can he ensure that his Department, No. 10 and the Met understand what parliamentary privilege means and assert it on behalf of this House? Secondly, he has mentioned that the Bill that would remove Mandelson’s titles is in preparation, but that is a short Bill. Could he tell us when he expects to see it introduced in this place and guarantee that there will be a one-day process for all stages of the Bill?

The statement today is entitled “Standards in Public Life”. Knowing that Mandelson was a friend of Epstein—forget the extent—and all of Mandelson’s baggage, could the Chief Secretary finally explain to the House why Mandelson was ever on the shortlist of people considered to be appointed to what is probably our most important ambassadorial role?

[Darren Jones]

On the first question from the Chair of the Select Committee, I do not for one second question the supremacy of Parliament or the basis of parliamentary privilege; all I meant to say was that the Government are in discussions with the Met police, who have launched a criminal investigation, and that it is important that we work with them to ensure that information that is released does not then affect their criminal investigations. The Cabinet Secretary and others are in discussions with the Met police about that, and we hope to be able to say more soon.

On the Bill, as I informed the House last week, the Government’s preference is to bring forward legislation that could be applied to any peer who has breached the rules and brought the other place into disrepute. We have begun the work of looking at the scope and ability for such a Bill to be introduced. I have been informed that a Bill of that nature has not been brought before Parliament since 1425—[Interruption.] No, the 1917 Bill was about a collective group of peers who had been, I think, collaborating with the Nazis around the second world war. This issue is different; it is about standards that should apply to all peers in the House of Lords, and there should be appropriate mechanisms for that to be instigated. We are working on that, and liaising with the House authorities to ensure that we do it right. We will bring the legislation forward very, very shortly.

On the final question, about the appointment of Peter Mandelson, as the Prime Minister has said repeatedly if he had known at the point of his appointment what we know now, he would not have appointed him in the first place.

[Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)]

I thank the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister for his statement. Could he tell the House how the Prime Minister is considering strengthening the role of the Ethics and Integrity Commission, given his commitment to improving standards in public life?

[Darren Jones]

The Ethics and Integrity Commission was set up only very recently by this Government to play an important role in relation to standards in public life. We want to work with the commission to ensure that we set it up for success in delivering on the issues and reforms that I have outlined to the House today. That is the basis on which we will collaborate with it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Standards Committee.

[Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)]

I never comment on any conduct or standards issues that may impact individual MPs, precisely because of my adjudicatory role on the Committee on Standards, and I do not propose to refer to the Prime Minister in respect of the potential that, if not all the documents are disclosed to the House, there might be a breach of privilege.

However, let me say this gently: the Minister constantly refers to the past, and to my party’s role in government with regard to breaches of standards issues. From this moment on, will he accept that, given the litany of issues that have befallen the Labour Government, as outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien) at the Dispatch Box, it would really behove the Minister to stop doing that, and just to ensure going forward that the Labour Government act with the same standards of conduct that they demanded of my party in government?

Also, given the Minister’s statement, might he request that the Prime Minister attend a meeting with the Committee on Standards to outline exactly how, moving forward, the Prime Minister will uphold the highest of standards?

[Darren Jones]

On the first question, I agree that we need to ensure that we have a standards system, both in this place and the other place, that meets the challenges we are talking about. That is not a party political issue. I merely referred to the performance of the last Government given the chuntering from those on the Opposition Benches when I talked about the reforms that we are bringing forward to ensure justice for victims and appropriate powers to tackle corruption in the future.

On the second question, I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman writes to the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister’s office will engage with him and his Committee on the invitation.

[Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)]

I think it is worth reminding my right hon. Friend that one of the things that people keep going back to is that a decision was made that this appointment was “worth the risk”, and we finally found out that some people decided that the rules did not apply to them. Considering how important tackling violence against women and girls is to this Government and this Prime Minister, would my right hon. Friend agree to meet women Back Benchers in particular to discuss the possibility of exploring further how we tackle misogyny in public life?

--- Later in debate ---

[Darren Jones]

I would be very happy to meet my hon. Friend and colleagues and to do anything I can in pursuit of that outcome.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

It is jaw-dropping how many rich and powerful people were within Epstein’s orbit, and how many of them believed that they were untouchable. It is important that we have a culture that is supportive and trusting around whistleblowers, so does the Minister agree that we need to have an office for whistleblowers as the backbone of such a positive culture?

[Darren Jones]

I agree with the hon. Member that we need to ensure that those processes are available in all circumstances. My understanding is that the legislation was updated in recent years, but I am happy to consider any inputs from him and other Members if they wish to send them to me.

[Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

Could my hon. Friend confirm the actions that the Government have taken to ensure that direct ministerial appointments, including political appointments, must pass the appropriate security vetting processes prior to being announced or confirmed?

[Darren Jones]

I can confirm for my hon. Friend that the rules have been updated to ensure that national security vetting must receive full clearance before any direct ministerial appointments are confirmed publicly, or then confirmed for appointments at later stages. As I recently said to the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the process for ambassadors in particular can often be stretched out over a number of days—from announcement to being confirmed by the host country and then fully being in post—but we will update the rules to ensure that what happened in these circumstances with Peter Mandelson cannot happen again.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

I do not doubt the right hon. Gentleman’s desire to put things right. What I slightly doubt today is this: everything is about the Prime Minister’s judgment right now, and this looks a lot like smoke to me—this is right, but not right now. The point is that all this stuff about Mandelson was known in conversation and discussion. He was sacked twice for impropriety in Government office. He ended up on Deripaska’s yacht when the EU was discussing taxation on aluminium—improper again. All this stuff leads to the final question: why him? Then, of course, the vetting was not good enough, but it could have been, had they bothered to check everything. There is a big question to be asked here. Surely this is ultimately about the Prime Minister’s judgment in overruling anything that he found and deciding for his own purposes that this man should be appointed as our ambassador.

[Darren Jones]

The right hon. Gentleman will know that the Prime Minister apologised last Thursday for having appointed Peter Mandelson to the post. As he said repeatedly, had he seen the information that we are now able to see from the release of documents from the US Department of Justice—which showed not only the level of corruption but the deep and extensive relationship that existed between Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein, about which Peter Mandelson lied to the Prime Minister at the point of his appointment—he would never have appointed him in the first place.

[Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. My biggest concern, and the biggest concern of my constituents, is that the impact of behaviour like Peter Mandelson’s undermines trust in our politics and our democracy. Quite frankly, all parties in this House have had scandals related to someone in their party, and it gives us all a bad name. I ask from the bottom of my heart: can this Government get a grip of this, and end the sleaze and scandal culture that has engulfed all our politics and all our parties, so that I can go back to my constituents and say, “No, we’re not all the same”?

[Darren Jones]

As I said in my statement, the vast majority of Members of this House, and also civil servants and other political appointments in the other place, come into politics to serve the public, not to serve themselves, but the Peter Mandelson issue has shown that, for all the rules we have in place that work for the majority of people doing the right thing, there have still been loopholes for people who want to do the wrong thing. We are now going to close those loopholes.

[Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)]

I thank the Minister for his statement—it was clearly preferable being here than at the reception that the Prime Minister is hosting for Scottish Labour MPs and MSPs later on. I have lost count of the number of times I have spent here dealing, in one way or another, with Westminster chaos. It often relates to Members of the House of Lords, who are there for life—be they Labour, Liberal or Conservative. This statement is tinkering. When will the Government commit to doing what they have promised to do for 115 years and deal with the obscenity that is the House of Lords?

[Darren Jones]

The hon. Member will know that the Government are committed to working with peers in the other place to modernise the House of Lords and that we agree that that needs to happen. That is why we are in the process of removing hereditary peers and are working with the authorities in the other place to ensure that we deal with the issues we are talking about today.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister for his statement and his focus on the victims of these appalling crimes. What steps have the Government taken to ensure that victim-survivors of these vile crimes are heard by those in power?

[Darren Jones]

My hon. Friend is right to bring us back to the victims of Jeffrey Epstein and to all women and girls who have been subjected to these atrocious crimes across the country, because evidently their voices continue to not be heard and these crimes continue to perpetuate. That is why the Government are committed to halving violence against women and girls and why we have introduced measures to ensure standards of public life are enforced in this place and in the other place.

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

May I tell the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, in relation to his previous answer, that the Foreign Affairs Committee repeatedly asked for Lord Mandelson to appear, but he refused to come, and that what the Committee did hear, from the permanent under-secretary, was that Lord Mandelson would be entitled to a payoff in relation to the terms of his contract? Can the Chief Secretary say how much Lord Mandelson received and whether he will be asked to repay it?

[Darren Jones]

The Foreign Office is currently reviewing the terms of the contract that led to the suggestion of severance payments when Peter Mandelson was sacked, and it is due to update the House in due course.

[Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

I thank the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister for his statement. It is refreshing to see a Government who are committed to making those in positions of trust accountable. [Interruption.] Opposition Members are clearly angry today. Maybe it is because this is in marked contrast to the record of people who voted to cover up for one of their friends. For ordinary people in Bishop Auckland, the crimes of Epstein are truly shocking and disgusting. They are shocked to see this global web of power and people acting with complete impunity. In addition to looking at improved vetting, are the Government looking at how we can have improved surveillance and vetting of those in a position of trust to make sure that those who are entrusted cannot do these sorts of things?

[Darren Jones]

As my hon. Friend will have heard in my statement, the Government are pursuing a number of avenues, including the potential for more routine annual disclosure of financial and commercial interests, which we hope will shed more light on some of these issues where individuals are getting away with breaking the rules.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister will know that there are too many Members on both sides of this House who enjoy situations like this, and it belies the seriousness of the situation. Does he recognise that an integrity and ethics adviser would not be able to solve the appointment of somebody removed from Government twice if the Prime Minister wished to appoint them; would not be able to assist a former director of the public prosecution service whose professionalism should have been able to discern the truth in accepting lies; and would not be able to inject honour in a situation where a Prime Minister accepted the advice of an individual, and then accepted his resignation but received the advice?

[Darren Jones]

The right hon. Member is right that the public do not expect party political bickering on these issues; they expect problems to be solved and justice to be sought for those who deserve it. On the question of the advice that the Prime Minister received, as I have said a number of times, Peter Mandelson lied to the Prime Minister. Questions were asked, and Peter Mandelson lied in his answers. I am sure that that will become clear as part of the disclosure of documents, in compliance with the Humble Address, in the coming weeks.

[Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for all that he is doing to overhaul standards in public life, following the absolute bin fire that the Conservative party left behind. Peter Mandelson is reportedly in receipt of a severance payment. As a former regulator, I know that clawback is an important tool. If possible, Peter Mandelson should be forced to pay back every single penny to the British people. Does my right hon. Friend agree?

[Darren Jones]

I agree with my hon. Friend. As I said, the Foreign Office will come forward with more information in due course.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

The Intelligence and Security Committee wrote to the Prime Minister last Thursday. The letter, which has been published, included the following request:

“The Committee would be grateful to, now, be told the date on which we will receive those papers such that we are able to plan the resourcing requirements”.

I do not doubt what the Minister said about the Government’s commitment to being as transparent as possible, but in his statement he repeated the phrase “as soon as possible”. Will he go beyond ASAP, so that the Intelligence and Security Committee can make resourcing plans before receiving the papers?

[Darren Jones]

I can confirm that the Government will be working with the Intelligence and Security Committee; meetings are happening today and tomorrow morning about that. The Government are liaising with the Metropolitan police on the criminal investigation. Once that matter has been clarified, we will be able to move forward with disclosures to the House.

[Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)]

Will the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister elaborate on how the Government will work with the Committee on Standards on proposals to ban second jobs for Members of Parliament, in order to deliver meaningful change?

[Darren Jones]

My hon. Friend will know that it was a clear manifesto commitment of our party to ban second jobs for Members of Parliament, except in limited circumstances such as those involving the maintenance of professional qualifications for doctors and lawyers. The Committee is considering those issues, on which it has been working in detail. The Government are working with the Committee to move those proposals forward as quickly as possible. I know that the Committee wishes to do the same.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

It is notable that despite the Government’s huge majority, they have run out of people to stand up and defend their position. The Minister is—I am not being patronising—a very intelligent man. I therefore ask that he does not insult the intelligence of the rest of us by talking about the Prime Minister having believed Mandelson’s lies after he asked him questions. We now know from the forensic questioning by the Leader of the Opposition that the Prime Minister knew that the relationship between Mandelson and Epstein carried on—“ongoing” was the word—after Epstein was jailed for offences related to paedophilia and prostitution. The Prime Minister apparently chose to ask more questions after that, and was lied to. What more did he need to know to realise that that man should never have been allowed within a mile of the post of ambassador to America?

[Darren Jones]

The right hon. Gentleman will, in due course, see papers disclosed, in compliance with the Humble Address, that will be very clear in showing the questions that the Prime Minister asked of Peter Mandelson, and the lies that Peter Mandelson responded with.

[Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)]

We in Wales know how this story ends. The former Welsh First Minister, Vaughan Gething, was forced to resign following a serious error of judgment; the Prime Minister had expressed full confidence in him. The Prime Minister then went on to appoint Peter Mandelson, despite his association with a convicted paedophile being a matter of public record. What lessons, if any, does the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister draw from this pattern of poor judgment at the very top of Government?

[Darren Jones]

As I have repeated to the House, there must be rules that apply in all circumstances, to all people, in respect of the House of Lords and the House of Commons, and to appointments to such roles, as well as clear consequences for people who lie or breach those rules. Those are the reforms that the Government are bringing forward.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

Yesterday, the Prime Minister’s adviser, Morgan McSweeney, resigned because he had advised the Prime Minister to make this appointment. What advice did the National Security Adviser, Jonathan Powell, give the Prime Minister? If he gave the same advice, should he not resign as well?

[Darren Jones]

The hon. Member will know that it would not be appropriate for me to speak from the Dispatch Box on behalf of civil servants and special advisers. The statements released by Morgan McSweeney and Keir Starmer yesterday answer his questions about Morgan McSweeney’s decision to resign from his post.

[Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)]

A Government in thrall to men and corporations drunk on power is the rot at the centre of the Mandelson scandal. When people operate in the shadows, they think they can act with impunity. Of all seven Nolan principles, openness can help to build back the most trust. Does the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister agree that we must drive out corporate influence and money, and as a start, will he cap political donations, and ask all MPs and peers to follow my example in releasing logs of all lobbying meetings, so that people can know that we work for them?

[Darren Jones]

As I said in my statement, on a number of those measures, we are looking at current procedures, and at whether they can be updated to provide more transparency. The hon. Member is right to say that although individual rules can be improved, that alone will not be sufficient to tackle the cultural issues that lead to some of these challenges. It is on us all, cross-party, and any other people in power, to call out such behaviour, and to make it clear that it is not acceptable in public life.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)]

Further to the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), this looks like smoke today. The horse has bolted so far that it is at Wetherby racecourse, and the right hon. Gentleman is not giving the answers that we need to hear. He said that this goes to the heart of who the Prime Minister is, so why did the Prime Minister believe that somebody who took loans that, in today’s money, would be worth more than £1 million, and who was found to be flogging passports, should ever be rewarded?

[Darren Jones]

On the first part of the right hon. Gentleman’s question, I would just remind him that the reforms that this Government have made in the past 18 months, and those we are talking about today, will be the most wide-ranging reforms to standards in public life that we have seen for a very long time. I would not call that smoke and mirrors; I would call that progress. On the second part of his question, as I have said repeatedly to the House, if the Prime Minister had known the depth and extent of the relationship between Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein, Peter Mandelson would not have been appointed in the first place. [Interruption.] It is easy for Opposition Members, with the benefits of hindsight, and with access to documents that were not available to the Prime Minister at the time of the appointment, to say that things should have been done differently.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

This is not about process; it is about the judgment of the Prime Minister, and we cannot legislate out the poor judgment that has been in evidence today. Perhaps the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister has considered our calls for an office of the whistleblower, but does he agree that, in order to mitigate the frailties and the human error that we see here, we must ensure that there are proper criminal sanctions for Ministers who fail to whistleblow?

[Darren Jones]

I point the hon. Lady to the duty of candour provisions that we are bringing forward in the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, which will include criminal sanctions for those who breach the rules. As I said to her hon. Friends on the Liberal Democrat Benches, I am happy to consider the wider recommendations for whistleblowers that she mentions.

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

Given the importance of standards in public life, why is it that the adviser who suggested that Peter Mandelson be made ambassador to the United States had to resign, but the person who actually appointed Peter Mandelson—the Prime Minister —is still in post?

[Darren Jones]

The Prime Minister apologised last Thursday for having appointed Peter Mandelson. Had information that is now available been available at the time of his appointment, he would not have appointed him in the first place.

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

We all know that the Prime Minister is a lawyer, and lawyers must understand and test the veracity of information that is being provided. The Prime Minister has said from the Dispatch Box that he took a risk, and that he had known that Mandelson had kept up his relationship with Epstein. I suspect that the risk was of the public finding out, and the public do now know about this. Is it not simply time for the Prime Minister to go?

[Darren Jones]

No.

[Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)]

The Minister’s statement is insulting. The first, but not the last, time that Peter Mandelson resigned in disgrace from a Labour Government—on that occasion, it was Tony Blair’s Cabinet —I was seven years old. Is the Minister seriously telling us that our Prime Minister needs tweaks to process to know not to hire somebody who has been a nationally notorious crook for over 25 years?

[Darren Jones]

As the hon. Lady will have heard, if the Prime Minister had had access to the information that he now has about the depth and extent of the relationship between Jeffrey Epstein and Peter Mandelson, Peter Mandelson would not have been appointed in the first place.

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

I direct the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in relation to whistleblowing. I am hopeful that the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister knows that during the passage of the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, I was promised a meeting with him about whistleblowers; I look forward to that. Is he aware that current legislation dealing with whistleblowers directs them to seek an employment tribunal, but that there are 47,000 employment tribunal cases waiting to be heard? We have to do something about whistleblowing, and we have to ensure that protections are in place. I look forward to meeting him with a number of my colleagues, so that we can discuss the matter in detail and in full.

[Darren Jones]

As I have said to the hon. Lady’s Liberal Democrat colleagues, I am happy to receive further representations on reform of the law relating to whistleblowers. If we need to go further, we will be happy to consider doing that.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

The Minister has managed to throw out more chaff than a B-52. He mentioned security vetting. Does he mean developed vetting, of the sort applied to very senior officials, including military individuals, before they are appointed to extremely sensitive positions, or does he have something else in mind? Will that vetting be repeated periodically, as it is for officials? Will it be applied to both political appointees and ministerial appointments, where those positions are particularly sensitive?

[Darren Jones]

The right hon. Gentleman knows that there are different processes for the different types of role that we have in government, from due diligence through to developed national security vetting, which he mentions. The important thing is that the right process is applied to the right person at the right time, and that is what we are reviewing right now.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)]

The only statement that my constituents want today is a resignation statement. The only reform that they want is the reform that takes this Prime Minister out of No. 10 Downing Street, and it does not matter how many reviews, inquiries or fireguards the Government put in the way. The Prime Minister has lost the confidence and trust of the British people. We need a Government who will end this chaos. This Government promised to end the chaos when they came to power, but instead, it has gone through the stratosphere. The Prime Minister knows, everybody in this House knows, and everybody in this country knows that he is toast, so why do the Government not just get on with it and get rid of him?

--- Later in debate ---

[Darren Jones]

The hon. Gentleman seems to be wishing for more chaos in our country. The public voted to end that at the last general election, and that is why this Government are getting on with delivering change for people across this country.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

Today’s statement is little more than a smokescreen, and a chance to distract from the key issue, which is about Peter Mandelson and our Prime Minister. More questions are being asked, but there are still no answers, so may I take the Minister back to the central point? How much was the golden goodbye for Peter Mandelson?

[Darren Jones]

I refer the right hon. Lady to my previous answer.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Of course we need a commissioner who has the power and ability to expose corruption and deal with it, but today’s statement was not required. We already knew that the Prime Minister made a bad judgment. What the public want to know is how he will be held to account for the things that he knew but ignored. Will the Minister assure the House that when he looks at extra powers for commissioners, he will not go as far as was gone in Northern Ireland, where the discredited former standards commissioner used her powers to silence Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly who were questioning Ministers too vigorously, or who were not showing enough empathy when they made public statements about security situations in their constituency? I ask this particularly because when heckling fails, some Members of this House now threaten other Members by reporting them to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, to try to silence them that way.

[Darren Jones]

It is important that we take good practice wherever it exists and learn the lessons where reforms have not worked, whether it is in our Parliament or in devolved Governments across the United Kingdom. I encourage the right hon. Gentleman to write to me with his examples in more detail to ensure that we avoid that in the future. I assure him that the Government have no intention or desire to try to limit the voices of people in this House or anywhere else.

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

Let me go back to the process that the Prime Minister followed. He received information from the vetting and security services that Peter Mandelson might have had an ongoing relationship. He then questioned Peter Mandelson about that. Did he then test the answers that Peter Mandelson gave with the vetting and security service? If he did not, it can mean only one of two things: either the Prime Minister has committed a dereliction of duty or he is a credulous fool. Either way, should he not resign?

[Darren Jones]

No.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

May I take the House back to where this debate started? It began with the shadow spokesman, the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O'Brien), reminding us that advisers advise and Ministers decide. On the back of that, I want to give the Chief Secretary the opportunity—for the fourth time in this debate, I think—to answer a fairly fundamental question that my constituents and I would like to know the answer to. If it is right for an adviser to resign, why not the far more culpable decision maker?

[Darren Jones]

As the Prime Minister has made clear, he apologised for appointing Peter Mandelson to the position of ambassador. Had the information that is now available been available at the point of his appointment, the Prime Minister would never have appointed Peter Mandelson in the first place.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

May I thank the Chief Secretary for his statement about the new rules and legislation that he is bringing forward? I have missed something, though. Can he point to what he is bringing forward that would stop a Prime Minister from appointing a twice-sacked best friend of the world’s greatest paedophile?

[Darren Jones]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the detail of my statement.

[Rupert Lowe (Great Yarmouth) (Ind)]

Many of us, including myself, spoke in this House against the ill-judged appointment of Peter Mandelson, which flew in the face of logic, given his poor relationship with the US and his history of misfeasance in public office. Will the Chief Secretary undertake to obtain all redacted evidence from the US pertaining to all UK persons in positions of influence referred to in the Epstein documents and expose them to the public? That is the only way to clear up this global scandal for the UK electorate.

[Darren Jones]

Where the Government have jurisdiction over documents and in compliance with the Humble Address, we will publish them, as I said to the House earlier today.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

The Chief Secretary keeps making reference to, “If we had known then what we know now,” with regard to Peter Mandelson’s appointment. The key fact is that we already knew of Peter Mandelson’s ongoing relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, as the Prime Minister spoke about at PMQs last week, just as the Government knew about Matthew Doyle’s relationship with Sean Morton and still gave him a peerage after the internal investigation. Let me come back to the resignation statement of the chief of staff yesterday. He stated that he

“did not oversee the due diligence and vetting process”.

Can the Chief Secretary explain who did oversee the due diligence and vetting process?

[Darren Jones]

Those processes are administered by the propriety and ethics team in the Cabinet Office, by the Foreign Office and by all the normal, appropriate authorities.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The Chief Secretary is an honourable man. He is answering incredibly difficult questions, and we have to recognise that. He will know that I seek to find solutions rather than prioritising point scoring in this House—I say that very respectfully—and in this instance it is clear that the public want a solution to the seeming litany of trust-breaking decisions taken by successive Governments. While we cannot please all people, the issue of a basic standard for public servants is non-negotiable, and this breakdown has highlighted the need for accountability at the highest level. Does he believe that that can be achieved without a complete overhaul of the appointment system?

[Darren Jones]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman; a number of changes evidently need to be brought forward. As he suggests in his question, that should be done on a cross-party basis in the interests of how we serve the public.

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

Confidence in the Prime Minister is at an all-time low, and many of the reasons for that have already been discussed. However, one particular issue is that the Prime Minister visited Palantir’s head offices in Washington DC in February 2025. Will the Chief Secretary confirm whether Peter Mandelson advised the PM to visit Palantir? What was the purpose of the visit? Will the Government publish details and minutes of the discussions that took place at that meeting? Will the Government review all existing contracts with Palantir and suspend any further engagement with it until the investigations are completed?

[Darren Jones]

The Prime Minister engages with a whole host of businesses, whether in the United Kingdom or abroad. The hon. Gentleman’s question suggested particular wrongdoing; as I said earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum), we have powers under the Procurement Act to act on these issues if we must. If evidence comes to light, we reserve the right to do so.

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

The problem with the list of measures that the Chief Secretary read out is that, unfortunately, not one will protect us from the Prime Minister’s poor judgment. Before asking my question, I point out the fact that—as the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) knows, and as the Chief Secretary has mentioned himself—the Government are currently introducing the duty of candour Bill, which will legally require Ministers to answer questions frankly and with any information that people could usefully think they should know. I ask for a third time: how much is Peter Mandelson due to take as part of his pay-off?

[Darren Jones]

As I have said, the Foreign Office will update the House in due course.

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

I thank the Minister for his statement, and I definitely agree that Epstein’s crimes were disgusting and Mandelson’s behaviour despicable. I remind the Chief Secretary that, under the last Conservative Government, the now Prime Minister said,

“a fish rots from the head”

and that real change had to be

“led and modelled from the top”.

Yet here we are, and the issue is back. Despite the colour of the rosette changing, the Prime Minister’s closest circle must now take the fall for his poor decision making in appointing a man who was best friends with a paedophile. Given that there is now a criminal investigation into his closet advisers, should he not do the honourable thing and take his own advice?

--- Later in debate ---

[Darren Jones]

The Prime Minister, as he said today, is getting on with the job of delivering the change for this country that the electorate voted for 18 months ago, rewarding my party with a huge majority in this House. These issues are important and we will fix them, not least keeping the victims of sexual abuse and abuse of power at the centre of our thoughts. I know that Members across the House will want to work with us to ensure that that is done.

US Department of Justice Release of Files

Darren Jones Excerpts

Monday 2nd February 2026 Commons Chamber

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

As I know right hon. and hon. Members across the House will agree, Jeffrey Epstein was a despicable criminal who committed disgusting crimes and destroyed the lives of countless women and girls. What he did is unforgivable. His victims must be our first priority. As the Prime Minister has said, anybody with relevant information must come forward and co-operate with investigations, so that Jeffrey Epstein’s victims can get the justice that they have been denied for too long.

On Friday, the Department of Justice in the United States released around 3 million pages from the case files relating to Jeffrey Epstein. It is increasingly clear that his awful crimes involved many—often powerful—people, who facilitated them by actively participating in those crimes, by failing to hear the victims’ voices, by equating wealth with integrity, and by not using their privileged position to speak out, even against a friend. It is incumbent on those of us who hold ministerial office to behave in a way that builds trust in politics and upholds the standards that voters rightly expect from us.

Contained within the release by the US Department of Justice are documents that highlight the close nature of the relationship between Jeffrey Epstein and Peter Mandelson, including alleged financial transactions when Peter Mandelson was a Labour Member of Parliament and later a Minister. For the avoidance of doubt, this information was not known by the Government until the release of documents by the Department of Justice on Friday.

The nature of the documents has also raised serious concerns about Peter Mandelson’s behaviour while a Minister. Peter Mandelson must account for his actions and conduct. It is an understatement to say that his decision to continue a close relationship with a convicted paedophile, including discussing private Government business, falls far below the standards expected of any Minister. His behaviour was unequivocally wrong and an insult to the women and girls who suffered. No Government Minister of any political party should have behaved or ever should behave in this way.

The Prime Minister has today asked the Cabinet Secretary to review all available information regarding Peter Mandelson’s contact with Jeffrey Epstein during his period as a Government Minister, and to report back to him as a matter of urgency. As the House knows, Peter Mandelson is no longer a member of the Labour party, having resigned his membership last night, and the House may wish to know that disciplinary action by the Labour party was under way prior to his resignation.

The Prime Minister believes, as do the Government, that Peter Mandelson should not retain his membership of the House of Lords or use his title. As the House already knows, the Government do not have the power to remove peerages without legislation. However, the Prime Minister is calling on all political parties—including the Conservatives, as the largest party in the House of Lords—to work with the Government to modernise the disciplinary procedures to allow for the removal of peers who have brought the House of Lords into disrepute. The Government will today write to the appropriate authorities in the other place to start that process. It would be better to update those procedures so that they apply to all Members of the House of Lords, instead of having to introduce complex hybrid Bills for each individual peer who has brought the other place into disrepute.

I recognise the strength of feeling on all sides of the House, myself included, and the Government will of course keep Members up to date. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement.

The crimes of Jeffrey Epstein were truly terrible—paedophilia, sex trafficking, child prostitution. It was an awful abuse of power, and it is of course a great embarrassment to our country that its most senior ambassador should have been caught up with a man like him. In this latest set of releases from the US Department of Justice, it is clearer than ever that theirs was a relationship built not just on affection, but on the transfer of money from Epstein to Mandelson’s family and the transfer of information from Mandelson to Epstein. In some cases, this was apparently market-sensitive information that Mandelson received only by dint of being a member of the Labour Government.

So we of course welcome the belated announcement that there will be an investigation into Mandelson’s conduct while he was a Minister, but this should have happened long ago. I say that because we know that, in February last year, Gordon Brown, the former Prime Minister, wrote to the Cabinet Secretary explicitly asking for an investigation into the

“veracity of information contained in the Epstein papers about the sale of assets arising from the banking collapse and communications about them between Lord Mandelson and Mr Epstein.”

That investigation never happened.

In any case, I am afraid that the investigation announced today alone will not do. It is not enough to consider Mandelson’s historical conduct; there also needs to be an investigation into his behaviour while he was our ambassador in Washington. Given that he abused his previous position, it is entirely conceivable that he abused his most recent one. For example, I understand that on 27 February last year, Mandelson arranged for the Prime Minister to meet Palantir, a client of Mandelson’s company, Global Counsel. How many more such meetings were there, and what other information was shared? We all have a right to know.

Likewise, the Government cannot hide from their responsibility in having made Mandelson their ambassador in the first place. This was a political appointment, and it happened only because of political pressure. So one of two things must be true: either there was the most terrible failure of the vetting system, or the Government chose to brush that vetting information away. Both are very serious, but the Government must now be honest with us about which it was. It seems very unlikely that the Government’s vetting system broke down entirely. Indeed, on 10 September, the Prime Minister told the House that

“full due process was followed during this appointment”.—[Official Report, 10 September 2025; Vol. 772, c. 859.]

Can it really be the case that this “full due process” did not pick up the extent of the relationship?

On 3 November, Olly Robbins, the then permanent secretary at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, told the Foreign Affairs Committee:

“Back before Lord Mandelson was announced as the appointee, there was a process...within the Cabinet Office to make sure that the Prime Minister was aware of Lord Mandelson and the issues around his appointment...we can confidently say that the relationship with Epstein was indeed surfaced”.

So the Government knew that Mandelson had a long-maintained and unhealthy relationship with Epstein, yet they continued with their appointment anyway.

The question is: who in No. 10 knew what and when? The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister has a duty to tell this House precisely what the Prime Minister knew when he made the appointment, and to disclose the documents that the Prime Minister saw. If the Prime Minister genuinely did not know, somebody must have done. Who was it? Was it his chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, who is reported to have personally pushed the appointment? Was it the now Deputy Prime Minister, who was then the Foreign Secretary and who would have been party to some of the information?

It is time for the Government to be open and clear with us all. Something went very badly wrong with this appointment. It has caused very great embarrassment to this country and it is time that someone took responsibility.

[Darren Jones]

The person who has to take responsibility for their failings is Peter Mandelson. The shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster knows that the process for political appointments, whether to ambassadorships or otherwise, was one set up under the previous Conservative Government. It was a process that we inherited and have since updated. The Prime Minister has been very clear that the declarations of interest put forward by Peter Mandelson were not wholly truthful. When it became clear from the release of information that that had not been the case, the Prime Minister moved swiftly to remove Peter Mandelson as the ambassador to the United States.

On the first point that the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster made, in relation to an investigation requested by former Prime Minister Gordon Brown, I can confirm to the House that his statement was incorrect. The former Prime Minister did ask the Cabinet Secretary to investigate in order to look for any particular documents that related, as he said, to the sale of RBS assets to JP Morgan. That investigation was undertaken. The Cabinet Secretary did respond to the former Prime Minister to confirm that no documents in relation to those questions were held by the Government. Evidently, now that more documents have become available to the public and to the Government, further investigations are now taking place.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

The files seem to show that Peter Mandelson was given £50,000 by a notorious paedophile and that a few years later he sent on market-sensitive information to Epstein, who worked for JP Morgan, about market bail-outs. He told him about the Prime Minister’s resignation, said that they should “mildly threaten” the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and then told him about matters of national security. Surely this is a matter not of whether Peter Mandelson should be in the House of Lords, but of whether the police should be involved.

--- Later in debate ---

[Darren Jones]

My right hon. Friend is right that each individual issue is wholly unacceptable, and cumulatively they are also unacceptable. The undeclared exchange of funds and the passing on of Government information, let alone the fact that those exchanges were to a convicted paedophile, are wholly unconscionable. The House will know that if any of those activities were to take place today, Ministers would be swiftly relieved of their duties and could be, via the recall petitions available to the House, removed from their constituency, too. As to the matter of criminal investigations, of course that is a matter for the prosecution services and the police. As I have informed the House, the investigation by the Cabinet Secretary into the released documents, as requested by the Prime Minister, is currently under way.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister and the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster are right: we must start by remembering the many women and young girls who experienced unimaginable horrors at the hands of Epstein and his network.

We must also ask what it was that first attracted the politician Peter Mandelson to the billionaire financier Jeffrey Epstein, and why it was that that relationship continued after Epstein’s character was well known. At the very least, the forwarding of confidential Government correspondence to a wealthy and powerful individual was clearly well beneath the conduct expected of a Cabinet Minister and possibly a breach of the law. When that is combined with the reported financial flows, the evidence is damning. The use of public office for private gain is the very definition of corruption; regardless of the outcome of a Government investigation, millions of people up and down the country are more than capable of judging for themselves on the evidence in front of them.

Is it not time to end the Lord Mandelson charade once and for all by bringing legislation to the House to strip him of his peerage? And what about his membership of the Privy Council? The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister referenced declarations of interest, so will the Government work with the House authorities to republish Peter Mandelson’s entry on the Register of Members’ Financial Interests dating back to his time as a Cabinet Minister in a Labour Government?

[Darren Jones]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his post on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench. He is right that it is time for the procedures in Parliament to be updated. While this House has taken steps in recent years to do so, the other place has not; as I said in my statement, the Government are today making an offer to the other place—to the appropriate authorities in the House of Lords—to put forward proposals to do just that. If we need to make time available to do so, we will.

[Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)]

The key question here is: who advised the Prime Minister? I do not expect the Prime Minister to do due diligence on appointments of this kind himself, but those around him must have done so. It appears that questions that needed to be asked of Lord Mandelson were not asked, or, if they were asked, that the answers were not passed on. Will my right hon. Friend give us a guarantee that when this is investigated, those around the Prime Minister who would have advised him on this appointment will be investigated fully?

[Darren Jones]

The process for political appointments has since been strengthened by this Government to include additional interviews and processes for declarations of interest. The key thing, though, is that when someone lies in their declaration of interest, there must be a consequence, and that consequence for Members of the other place needs to be removal from the House of Lords and loss of peerage; that can happen only if the other place brings forward proposals to update its own processes, and the Government stand ready to support it in doing so. I agree with my hon. Friend that there need to be robust, clear and transparent processes, that any conflicts of interest need to be surfaced and dealt with adequately, and that when people are found to have lied, there must be some consequence.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hoare]

And the Hinduja passport, yes. Where I disagree with the Minister is in conflating the updating of the disciplinary procedures of the other place and the bringing forward of legislation—which is allowed—to remove Mandelson’s peerage. I am absolutely certain that, were the Government to bring forward a Bill, which need not be complex and hybrid as he suggested, it could be rushed through this House in a day, such is the appetite to make the point.

[Darren Jones]

For the sake of clarity, can I just make it clear that neither I nor the Government are here to defend Peter Mandelson? We are here to defend the integrity of this House and the other place and to ensure that where processes need updating, they are updated. On the question of legislation regarding individual Members of the other place, the fact—if I might say so—is that there is a queue. That is why the process needs to be updated to apply to all peers: to remove the need to bring forward individual legislation, whether for Peter Mandelson or Michelle Mone.

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)]

Like the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, I am a parent of young children, and I know that he will have found it very difficult to stomach some of the details that came out over the weekend. The conversation here has so far rightly been dominated by the actions of the men. I ask the Chief Secretary seriously what he is doing to ensure that the victims—mostly children—of sexual violence and sexual assault will be heard by those in power, including the Prime Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Darren Jones]

I am sure that there is not one Member of this House who does not agree with my hon. Friend about the level of disgust we feel in seeing the disclosures from the Epstein files. The House knows that the Government are taking forward radical proposals for tackling violence against women and girls. In respect of Jeffrey Epstein, we are doing all that we can to ensure that people who have information make it available to investigators.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Does the Minister think that the deep involvement of Mandelson with Epstein shows that Epstein’s victims were not only women and girls but may have included young men?

[Darren Jones]

It would not be appropriate for me to entertain that hypothetical question at the Dispatch Box. We obviously hope that that is not the case, but, as I say, I am not here to speak for Peter Mandelson.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)]

This is a disaster, and against the backdrop of the incredible abuse of young women for such a long time, it fills the House will horror.

I must agree with the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare); this House would be minded to bring forward legislation and to do so quickly. It would appear that Gordon Brown was very concerned in September 2025 that there had been a disclosure of information by Mandelson to Epstein that may have been used for commercial gain. He turns out to have been right. How is it that such an error could occur within government and that the information was not known? Can the Minister assure the House that those matters will be given full attention in any inquiry and that, from this day on, there will be full engagement with the criminal authorities, because, as many Members have said already, the time has come for criminal prosecution?

[Darren Jones]

My hon. Friend is right to raise those concerns. As I confirmed to the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the Cabinet Secretary did respond to Gordon Brown’s request to search for documents in the Government archive in relation to the sale of RBS assets to JP Morgan at the time. The review concluded that those documents did not exist in the Government archive. It is now evident from the release of documents by the US Department of Justice that the emails we have all seen account for what took place at the time. That is why the Cabinet Secretary is reviewing the archive again, not just in respect of that particular question but in the round during the time that Peter Mandelson was a Labour Minister. The Cabinet Secretary will report to the Prime Minister as soon as he has been able to do that.

[Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

With the cash for questions scandal or the recent sexual harassment cases in Westminster, the police were called by the Government, proactively. Why, in this case, are the Government conducting an inquiry without informing the Met police? If they are not conducting their own inquiry, will they get on with calling the police straightaway, because it is inevitably going to happen?

[Darren Jones]

As I have said, the Cabinet Secretary is currently looking at the Government archives to see what documents are available and will advise the Prime Minister accordingly. If the Government can be of assistance to any investigations in due course, they of course will be.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)]

There are many aspects of this that are hugely troubling, but I will focus on one: the passing on of highly sensitive information by a serving Cabinet Minister to third parties. Clearly, that could amount to misconduct in public office, and I hope that the police investigate it.

The papers reveal a very casual relationship with probity for Mandelson and his apparent willingness to share highly sensitive information with third parties. What concerns me in particular is that he has been in a very senior role in recent times. Could the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister confirm whether he or anyone else serving in government in a ministerial or advisory capacity has discussed since in recent times—in the course of this Government—information of a similar nature that could have been used to benefit third parties?

[Darren Jones]

The information that became available over the preceding few days from the US Department of Justice is new information to the Government.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

I echo the remarks made in the House this evening that it might be time for criminal proceedings to take place. When the Government have made such a totem of tackling violence against women and girls, it is important that they are seen to stand up for women and girls on this matter, and to encourage everyone mentioned in the files to co-operate with the American authorities and give any information they have to their inquiries.

[Darren Jones]

I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Lady, and the Government have called for anybody with information to do just that.

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)]

Many of my constituents, like all of us, will be horrified by the revelations regarding Peter Mandelson and the Epstein files, but they will also be shocked to know that the Government do not have the power to remove peerages. Does the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister agree that it is absolutely right to do whatever is necessary to modernise procedures to allow for the removal of peers and their peerages when they have bought the other place into disrepute?

[Darren Jones]

My hon. Friend is exactly right, and that is why the Government have written to the appropriate authorities in the other place today to request that that work is now started.

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

I do not understand why the Minister, whom I respect greatly, is standing there and speaking as though the Government did not know about the relationship and connection between Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein prior to appointing him as the ambassador to the United States. I cannot understand why the Minister is not standing at the Dispatch Box saying that this House will sit until whatever hour required to pass legislation to strip Peter Mandelson of his peerage. I cannot understand why the Minister is acting like the Labour party has been proactive on this, when it has known for months about Peter Mandelson’s revelations and yet has allowed him to maintain a party membership throughout that time. I cannot understand why half an hour ago the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom did not just apologise for his decision making and lack of judgment and say that Peter Mandelson should be subject to a criminal investigation.

[Darren Jones]

Neither the Labour party nor the Government, or indeed this House or the right hon. Member, knew about the information that was made available by the US Department of Justice only a matter of days ago. As soon as that information became available, the Government have acted accordingly. In respect of the previous decision of the Prime Minister to sack Peter Mandelson as the ambassador to the United States, the Prime Minister was very clear with this House and, indeed, the public that he did so quickly, as soon as the extent and depth of the relationship became clear from the disclosure that took place. The Prime Minister relied on the information provided by Peter Mandelson at the time of his appointment. As soon as that information changed, the Prime Minister acted quickly and removed him from office.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

The public are asking how on earth Peter Mandelson ever got to be appointed ambassador to the United States, given what was known. One would presume he passed some sort of security check or vetting. As well as an inquiry into Peter Mandelson’s appointment, can the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister reassure the House and the public on behalf of the Prime Minister that everyone in No. 10 who advocated for, or had influence in, securing Peter Mandelson’s appointment, in spite of what was known about his relationship with Epstein, had security clearance, which is a key protection to guard against improper influence and exposure for our country?

[Darren Jones]

All due process was followed. As the Prime Minister made clear, it was clear that additional measures for political appointments needed to be put into place, which have now been put into place. I remind my hon. Friend and the House that the information that became available, both at the time the Prime Minister sacked the former ambassador to the United States and in the last few days, only became available to the Prime Minister and the Government at the same time as everybody else.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Can the Minister not see that it is in the Labour party’s interest, as much as it is in the national interest, that this issue of stripping Mandelson of his peerage should be resolved as soon as possible and that wider legislation is brought in subsequently? The Minister may be a little young to remember when the late John Prescott compared Mandelson to a scorpion in a jam jar that he was holding, but can he explain to the House the fatal fascination of Labour leader after Labour leader appointing this man to post after post, given his chequered record of corruption and multiple resignations?

[Darren Jones]

I say to the right hon. Gentleman and the House that, whether it is Peter Mandelson, Michelle Mone or other peers who have brought the other place into disrepute, there needs to be a process for removing peerages. The Government are making it very clear today that this should be conducted on a cross-party basis to ensure the integrity of the other place and our democracy in the future, as it relates to all peers. I encourage Members across this House, and in the other place, to make sure those proposals are brought forward swiftly.

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)]

Mandelson’s behaviour fell well below the expected standard for a long time, but he was disgracefully allowed to resign very quietly, even though he was sacked as ambassador to the US last year—more action should have been taken last year. I ask the Chief Secretary to do everything he can to expedite legislation to remove all the privileges from this awful man as soon as possible.

[Darren Jones]

The Government stand ready to work with the appropriate authorities in the House of Lords to update its procedures, and as I informed this House, we have written to them today to start that process. We hope to move as quickly as possible.

[Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)]

I want to focus on the victims—the children and young girls who were trafficked. Will the Government confirm that any UK-linked offences will be fully investigated, that all evidence will be acted upon, and that anyone implicated, whatever their status, will be pursued with the full force of the law to ensure that victims and survivors receive the justice and support they deserve?

[Darren Jones]

The hon. Lady is right that the victims of Jeffrey Epstein need to be at the centre of all our attention. The Government will, of course, co-operate with any investigations that take place. As we have said repeatedly, anybody with any information should make themselves available to investigators, whether here or overseas.

[Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)]

I thank the Chief Secretary for his statement. Gloucester residents will rightly be angry and incredibly disgusted by the revelations in the papers released by the American Government over the weekend. It is in the interests of the whole House that we get this place in order so that those who commit heinous acts, who align themselves with people like Jeffrey Epstein, are no longer in this place, and so the public can have trust that we are acting in their best interests.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he and the Government will act at pace to ensure that that man is removed from the House of Lords? Will he update the House on the steps the Government have taken to improve the direct appointments process since Peter Mandelson was removed as ambassador?

[Darren Jones]

I share my hon. Friend’s disgust at what has taken place. As I have said, the House of Lords must update its procedures to ensure that there are consequences for the behaviour of Members who bring their House into disrepute. The House of Commons has been able to do that in recent years, and there is no reason why the other place should not. The Government stand ready to support the House of Lords in whichever way is necessary to make sure that is put into effect.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Reform)]

Appointing Peter Mandelson to our premier ambassadorship was always a grotesque error of judgment by the Prime Minister, given everything we knew about this man. Now we are told that this man leaked confidential information to a convicted sex offender when he was a Cabinet Minister and took tens of thousands of pounds in secret backhanders. It is a total disgrace.

Has the Minister really come to the House to say that he does not intend to bring forward primary legislation to deal with this now but will write to the House of Lords to seek support for modernising its procedures in a few months’ time, and that he will not go proactively to the police to demand an investigation when Peter Mandelson has clearly broken the law and now stands accused of serious misconduct in public office and should be tried for his offences?

[Darren Jones]

As I have said repeatedly, the Government will, of course, co-operate with any investigation and encourage everybody to do so. We stand ready to introduce legislation at pace, if required, and to work with the House of Lords to update its procedures. We agree that that needs to happen, and that it needs to happen quickly.

I gently say that when the right hon. Member was a member of the Conservative party at the point Peter Mandelson was first appointed to the ambassadorship to the United States, the official Opposition did not object in any way.

[Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes were utterly abhorrent, and our thoughts should always be with the women and girls whose lives were destroyed by him and his network. The revelations over the weekend were utterly disgusting. Does the Chief Secretary agree that the Cabinet Secretary should undertake an immediate review of Peter Mandelson’s actions when he was a Government Minister, particularly in relation to the issue raised by the previous Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, of the potential and unacceptable disclosure of Government papers and information when this country was battling a global financial crisis?

[Darren Jones]

I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. The Cabinet Secretary is today reviewing the Government archives to see what information is available for that time, not just in relation to the sale of RBS assets to JP Morgan, as requested by the former Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, but, more broadly, during the time that Peter Mandelson was a Labour Minister in the then Government.

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

Do the Government believe that Lord Mandelson should be stripped of his peerage, yes or no? If they do believe that, they should bring forward primary legislation to do just that. I am afraid the Minister’s excuse of a queue does not wash. Will they bring forward legislation for the disgraced Lord Mandelson, their friend? If they do not, and he keeps his title despite Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor being stripped of his, what rank hypocrisy that would be. How much further can this Government stain their tarnished reputation?

--- Later in debate ---

[Darren Jones]

As I have repeatedly said, neither the Labour party nor this Government seek to defend Peter Mandelson, as the right hon. Lady implies. The Leader of the Opposition has herself called for Michelle Mone’s peerage to be removed. The point I make is that that cannot happen either, because the processes are not up to date in the House of Lords. It would be better to bring forward changes to ensure that the rules can be applied to all Members of the House of Lords in these circumstances, whether Peter Mandelson or Michelle Mone, and we stand ready to do so.

[Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)]

I thank the Chief Secretary for coming to Parliament at the first opportunity to address this issue. Epstein’s crimes were vile, and I cannot begin to imagine how these latest revelations must have compounded the pain for all the women and girls who were victims. Many in this House have already spoken powerfully about our collective alarm at the revelations in the last few days of Government information being passed to Epstein in 2009. I fully support the decision to have an investigation, but, for public trust, will the Chief Secretary reassure me that the Cabinet Secretary will be given everything he needs so that his investigation may move at pace?

[Darren Jones]

I agree with my hon. Friend and again reiterate that if any Minister were found to be forwarding Government information in that way, they would be quickly removed from post under the rules that we have today and could be made subject to a recall petition in their constituencies by the House authorities. In respect of the Cabinet Secretary’s work, officials from the propriety and ethics team and elsewhere in the Cabinet Office are of course supporting his investigations in reviewing what documents are available in the archive, because the Prime Minister has made it very clear that he wishes the Cabinet Secretary to report back to him as a matter of urgency.

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

The files released on Friday are an horrific record of the relationships among the rich and the powerful, including Elon Musk and Donald Trump, and we have seen mention of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, and of course Peter Mandelson. It is horrific and, as other Members have mentioned, we must keep the victims at the forefront of our minds. We have heard the discussion of the email that Peter Mandelson sent to Epstein about business issues, and there was a second one in 2010 in which he gave a preview of the €500 billion bail-out that was imminent. In the light of that, will the Government be proactive in encouraging a police investigation? Are they in discussions with the US Department of Justice about unredacted emails and, potentially, documents that have been withheld and not yet released, which detail the offending further? Will they also republish Peter Mandelson’s entries in the register of interests from his election in 1992 through to 2010?

[Darren Jones]

I think the Register of Members’ Financial Interests is a matter for the House, not the Government, but I am sure that the House authorities will have heard the hon. Gentleman’s question. He asked a question about an investigation, and the answer is yes. Everybody—whether it is the Government, individuals involved or those with any knowledge—should co-operate with any investigation. As he said at the start of his question, if the victims of Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes are at the heart of all our thinking, the answer has to be justice.

[Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Lab)]

The latest information appears to show that Peter Mandelson, when he was a Minister, worked alongside one of the world’s most notorious paedophiles and conspired against the interests of the British people in pursuit of money, power and influence. That strengthens the case for a Hillsborough law to hold those in power properly to account. Under that law, Ministers who used their office to gain a benefit—financial, reputational or otherwise—or who caused detriment to others while knowing that their conduct was improper, would face up to 10 years’ imprisonment. It cannot come quickly enough.

Can I ask the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister a simple question? Will the Government commit to an immediate investigation into who knew what about Peter Mandelson, before and during his disastrous appointment as ambassador to the United States?

[Darren Jones]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on all his tireless campaigning on the Hillsborough law, and I reaffirm the Government’s commitment to bringing that legislation back to the House as soon as possible. In respect of Peter Mandelson’s appointment as ambassador to the United States, and the Prime Minister’s decision to sack him when more information became available, the Prime Minister has spoken at length on that, both at the Dispatch Box and elsewhere in public.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Labour appointee Lord Mandelson has been a pivotal figure in the Prime Minister’s leadership project, and this is now a damage limitation exercise for the Government. There is deep irony in the fact that a Government can appoint people to the House of Lords, but cannot clear up their own mess. Why have the Government not referred this to the police? Does the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister admit that this is doing grave harm to the public’s confidence in the accountability of our democratic institutions?

[Darren Jones]

The Cabinet Secretary, as we speak, is reviewing the Government archives to see what documents we have available on the time when Peter Mandelson served as a Labour Minister. As I have informed the House, the documents released by the US Department of Justice in the preceding few days contained information new to the Government, and we will do all we can to both highlight the information we have and co-operate with any investigation that takes place.

[Matt Bishop (Forest of Dean) (Lab)]

I thank the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister for his statement. Does he agree that unless this legislation that we are talking about is brought through swiftly, we run the risk of diminishing any confidence that victims of serious sexual abuse and violence have in Ministers and people who make decisions and laws?

[Darren Jones]

My hon. Friend is right that the public expect that if we break the law or the rules, there should be consequences. In this House, that is the case, but in the House of Lords, it is not. That is why the Government are encouraging the appropriate authorities in the House of Lords to come forward with proposals to change that. If the Government are required to assist in any way, including by making time available in this House, we will.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)]

There are two issues here, one of which is the connection of a Member of the House of Lords to a convicted paedophile, but let us not forget that he is not the only recent Labour appointee who has been connected to a convicted paedophile; Lord Matthew Doyle, who was appointed only recently, has also maintained a persistent connection with a convicted paedophile.

Does the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister agree that it is not enough to refer the matter to the Cabinet Secretary, and that the police should be called immediately? We are seeing misconduct in public office, and this goes all the way to the Prime Minister’s chief of staff. The possibility of the destruction of evidence and the obscuring of a future prosecution is now increasing, and that is being masked by the Government.

[Darren Jones]

I have to refute in the strongest possible terms any accusation that the Government would seek to interfere in, or block, any investigation in relation to Jeffrey Epstein. It is absolutely wrong to suggest that documents would be made unavailable or deleted. The Cabinet Secretary is today reviewing the Government archives from the time in question, and as I have said, he will comply with any investigation that takes place. The right hon. Gentleman must know that accusing me or other parts of Government of misdemeanour in such a way is wholly unsatisfactory and—might I say—out of character.

[Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)]

I can recall the description of the scorpion in the jam jar. Mandelson surely has some sort of self-destruct chip inside his head. It was reported in The Times this afternoon that Mr Butler, the Downing Street adviser to Gordon Brown, said that the memo containing highly sensitive market information allegedly leaked by Mandelson presented an unimaginable breach of trust. Does the Minister agree that this looks like political insider trading on a grand scale, and would he support not only an independent inquiry, but a criminal investigation?

[Darren Jones]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that releasing Government information in and of itself, let alone for personal or commercial gain, is wrong and a breach of rules that we all must comply with. If that is what happened, there should be appropriate investigations and consequences for that behaviour.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)]

I am afraid that it is untenable to suggest that what was already known of Mandelson’s simpering after the conviction of Epstein was not enough to make it inappropriate for him to be ambassador, and I did object to that from day one, on that exact basis, as Hansard shows. I am afraid that a number of questions to the Cabinet Secretary—to whom I wrote on 5 December, alongside my hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies)—still have not been answered, so I would be grateful for the answers today. Did Mandelson receive a taxpayer-funded severance payment after stepping down as ambassador? If so, how much was it? Will details of his contract be published, in the name of transparency? Was any non-disclosure agreement signed, and when did Lord Mandelson’s salary formally cease? These are not unreasonable questions, but almost two months on, I have had no response from the Cabinet Secretary. That gives me enormous concern.

[Darren Jones]

On the first part of the hon. Lady’s question, as the Prime Minister made very clear, when the extent and depth of the relationship between Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein post his conviction became clear, the Prime Minister moved very quickly indeed to sack Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United States. The Prime Minister was not aware of that at the point of Peter Mandelson’s appointment, and Peter Mandelson made certain commitments to the Prime Minister that obviously turned out to be untrue. On the hon. Lady’s letter to the Cabinet Secretary, I will feed what she has said back to the Cabinet Secretary and ensure that she gets appropriate answers to her questions.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

Could the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister explain what steps this Government have taken to make sure that the voices of the victims and survivors of sexual abuse and violence are heard by those in power?

[Darren Jones]

My hon. Friend knows that the Government have committed to reducing violence against women and girls, and have recently brought forward a strategy, setting out how we will work across Government to do just that in the years ahead. Specifically on the victims of Jeffrey Epstein, we will continue to do all we can to support any investigations in order to ensure justice for those victims, and we encourage everybody with any information to do the same.

[Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)]

I asked the Prime Minister in this Chamber, on behalf of my constituents who were asking the same thing, why Peter Mandelson had been appointed our most senior ambassador at all, given the knowledge of his links with Epstein. By September, it was clear just how close that relationship had been, yet the PM did not immediately sack him, and there still was not a full investigation of Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein. Why is that investigation happening only now? The Prime Minister has stated his commitment to restoring trust in public life; how does the Minister square that promise to uphold standards with the delay in investigating this relationship?

[Darren Jones]

I am not sure that I agree with the hon. Lady that there has been any undue delay in investigation. At the time of his appointment, Peter Mandelson gave the Prime Minister a commitment about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, but it became evident when documents were released that the reality was different. Within a matter of days of the extent and depth of the relationship becoming clear, the Prime Minister sacked Peter Mandelson from his post as ambassador to the United States. Now that even more information has become available, the Cabinet Secretary is reviewing what documents are available in the Government archive, and will of course comply with any investigation that may take place.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister for his statement. His focus on the victims of these terrible crimes is absolutely right. The majority of us in this House, whatever colour rosette we wear, come here to represent our constituency, and I hope I show that I represent my constituency as well as I can, every single day. When we hear of an MP, or in this case a Government Minister, representing the interests of outside bodies—in this case, a vile paedophile —it is absolutely disgraceful, and very upsetting to those of us who come here for the right reasons. What will the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister do, working with the PM, to ensure that we have a strengthened ministerial code, so that this can never happen again?

[Darren Jones]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Government, and specifically the Prime Minister, have already strengthened the ministerial code that we are all subject to in this House, and have made the ethics adviser independent. That gives the ethics adviser the authority to investigate Ministers freely, without requiring permission from the Prime Minister, in contrast to what happened under the previous Administration. That has already been shown to be effective; Ministers have had to stand down as a consequence of breaches of the ministerial code. It is right and proper that we have robust rules in this House for Ministers and Members, and it is about time that we had similar processes in the House of Lords.

[Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)]

Try as he might, the Prime Minister cannot escape his responsibility in this latest scandal to engulf Peter Mandelson. Ordering a very limited investigation into Peter Mandelson’s activities is pretty meaningless. We need an investigation that is fully independent of Government and the Labour party, with the scope to investigate not just Mandelson, but those who put him in the House of Lords, those who promoted him to UK ambassador to the United States, and those who have done everything possible to protect him over several decades, despite his scandal-ridden career. Does the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister agree?

[Darren Jones]

The Prime Minister has acted at every stage with integrity. It is Peter Mandelson who has to be accountable for the actions of Peter Mandelson. To suggest that the Prime Minister should be responsible for the actions of Peter Mandelson is obviously wrong-headed. As I said in my statement, Peter Mandelson, who is no longer a member of the Labour party, should be accountable for his actions, and should account for them.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

It is disgraceful that the Government are choosing not to bring forward legislation to remove Peter Mandelson from the House of Lords; it is entirely within their gift to do so. The public know that, and will be not only alarmed by the fact that the Government are not doing that, but questioning the motive for their delay. On what date exactly did Peter Mandelson cease to be paid by the Government?

[Darren Jones]

As the hon. Lady knows from the discussion in the House today, it is not that we do not wish to take action in respect of Peter Mandelson; it is that we expect action to be taken that affects all Members of the House of Lords, including other peers who need to be removed from the Lords as a consequence of their behaviour. We stand ready to act swiftly on that, and have asked the House of Lords to bring forward proposals for doing just that.

[Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)]

The revelations in the press that Peter Mandelson was, while Business Secretary, leaking confidential Government secrets to paedophile Jeffrey Epstein should be more than enough evidence to warrant his expulsion from the House of Lords, yet we hear that this will not happen through legislation. Sadly, this is yet another scandal in the House of Lords. While Labour has promised major Lords reform for over 100 years, time and again it has kicked the can down the road. Does the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister agree with many in this House that rather than our desperately trying to reform an embarrassingly broken system, it is time for the House of Lords finally to be abolished?

[Darren Jones]

The hon. Member knows that the Government have stated and believe that Peter Mandelson should not be a Member of the House of Lords and should not use his title, but he is right that the rules need to be updated to allow that action to be taken by the House of Lords. We have written to the House of Lords authorities today to say that this work must begin, and the Government stand ready to support them on that.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

To be fair to Peter Mandelson, I think the crustacean in John Prescott’s jam jar was a crab, not a scorpion.

In our system, it is very unusual to appoint ambassadors and high commissioners from outside the ranks of the civil service, and for pretty good reason. When they are appointed from outside the civil service, and particularly when the appointee is a politician with baggage, as here, the appointer has to own it, because he made that decision—in this case, against advice. What does the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister think this fiasco says about the judgment of our Prime Minister?

[Darren Jones]

The Prime Minister’s judgment was made clear when, as soon as information that he had been misled by Peter Mandelson became available, he sacked him.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

The actions of Peter Mandelson are a disgrace, and I support the proposals to remove him without delay, but he is not the only British person implicated in the appalling Epstein files. What are the Government doing to ensure that all those linked to Mandelson, Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and any political, public or civic figure are fully investigated here? We should not just co-operate with US authorities but take action on all the crimes committed on our soil.

[Darren Jones]

The hon. Lady knows that it is not the Government who instigate criminal investigations. It is for the Crown Prosecution Service and the police to take those decisions independently of Ministers. Whether in respect of UK investigations or investigations in the United States, the Government have made it very clear that all individuals should comply with those investigations and make any information available, to ensure that the victims of Jeffrey Epstein’s acts can see justice.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

When the Prime Minister sacked Lord Mandelson as the American ambassador, Ministers came to the Dispatch Box and I pointed out to them that for the whole time he was our ambassador he had been subject to politically fatal kompromat, which left him open to leverage—as it finally played out. I said that if we had found out he was spying for Russia or China, we would be turning every single aspect of his time in office inside out, to find out the truth, and the Government said, “Well, he’s been sacked.” Does the Minister regret the fact that, following Mandelson’s sacking, the Government did not do the sort of due diligence and inquiries that might have unearthed the documents from the Department of Justice?

[Darren Jones]

To be clear, the documents produced by the United States Department of Justice were not available to the Government until they were released a number of days ago. As soon as they have become available, we have instigated processes in our own authorities to make sure that we have a clear view of what information was available to the Government at the time and to comply with any investigations that may take place.

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

As so many of my colleagues have rightly said, our thoughts today should be first and foremost with the victims. I hope that no political party in this Chamber would use this as an excuse to cover the backs of some of the less fragrant Members of the House of Lords. The fact that Lord Mandelson was, as ever, interested only in the ruthless pursuit of financial gain will come as a surprise to no one. No. 10 is now saying that Mandelson should lose his peerage, and I wholeheartedly concur. However, is it not staggering that Members of this House seemed more aware of Mr Mandelson’s skeletons in the wardrobe than the Prime Minister who appointed him?

[Darren Jones]

As far as I am aware, no Member of this House had access to the information recently published by the United States Department for Justice, or to the documents that were released at the time the Prime Minister sacked the ambassador to the United States. The Prime Minister has previously been very clear to the House that had he had access to that information, he would not have appointed him in the first place.

[Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)]

The Minister indicated that Mandelson assured the Prime Minister that his relationship with Epstein was of a different nature. Can he explain what sort of relationship with a convicted paedophile would be acceptable in that role? Will the Prime Minister come back to the House to make a specific statement on the advice he received regarding Mandelson’s conduct?

[Darren Jones]

The information that became available in September that led to the sacking of Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United States made it clear for the first time, to all of us and to the Prime Minister, that Peter Mandelson not only remained a friend of Jeffrey Epstein following his conviction but had actively mentored and encouraged him on how to challenge that conviction and push back against it. That was one example —there is now a list of examples—of how the depth and extent of the relationship between Jeffrey Epstein and Peter Mandelson, following Jeffrey Epstein’s conviction, was unacceptable. If the Prime Minister had known that at the time Peter Mandelson was being considered to be ambassador to the United States, he would not have appointed him, and as soon as the Prime Minister became aware of that information, he sacked him.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

The Epstein files suggest that Lord Mandelson was prepared to lobby in the United States in 2009 for a policy position in contradiction to that of Her Majesty’s Government, in which he was then serving as Business Secretary. Will this revelation encourage the Government to find out whether Lord Mandelson lobbied against his Government while serving last year as British ambassador to the United States? Can the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister find out whether this lobbying against British Government policy is revealed in US policy towards the UK?

[Darren Jones]

As I have informed the House today, the Cabinet Secretary is reviewing all documentation relating to Peter Mandelson’s time as a Minister in the last Labour Government to see what information is available today, and we will comply with any investigations that take place as a consequence. The hon. Member is right that any Minister acting against the collective decisions of Cabinet and against the Government is in breach of the rules. It is unacceptable behaviour, and if any Minister were to do that today, they would be quickly dismissed.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is disturbing to read of Peter Mandelson’s role when holding high office in government. I just remind the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister that Mr Mandelson was also the EU trade commissioner for five years. I believe that needs investigating, too, because how far does this go? It is my understanding that the latest releases may have made public the names of victims that had not previously been released. Can the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister please assure the House that any British victims who have been made public will have support and help to make their way through what could be a retraumatising experience, with press invasion and interference?

[Darren Jones]

I was not aware of that issue, so I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing it to my attention. If there are any British victims affected by the crimes of Jeffrey Epstein, whether in relation to the latest publication of documents or otherwise, Government services stand ready to be of support to those victims and to ensure that they can seek justice.

Oral Answers to Questions

Darren Jones Excerpts

Thursday 22nd January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Welcome, Minister.

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Darren Jones)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker; I am here to earn my salary. I thank my hon. Friend for her question. The Government will be taking a “digital first” approach to modernising public services. On Tuesday, I highlighted that we are expanding the No. 10 innovation fellowship programme to bring more specialist digital skills into Government. On everything from justice to health, people with those skills will be working on building in-house digital solutions to create more efficient, value-for-money public services.

[Florence Eshalomi]

I thank my right hon. Friend for making sure that he is earning his keep. I welcome the written statement from the Minister for Digital Government and Data on the plan to use artificial intelligence to boost productivity in public services. It is right that we look at all avenues, but I am concerned about the gender and racial bias in artificial intelligence, which many studies have shown, particularly as regards health outcomes. My right hon. Friend may be aware of a King’s College London study, which showed racial bias in AI when it comes to heart scans. The data shows that black and minority ethnic people have worse health outcomes, but we want them to engage in these programmes, so that they are not left behind. What steps is he taking to help identify and, most importantly, resolve these biases, so that our public services and AI work in step to make sure that no community is left behind?

[Darren Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important question. These AI solutions are only as good as their ability to serve the public fairly; equality should be built in at the start. The AI Safety Institute and officials at the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology work across Government to ensure that those values and ethics are built into programmes as they are developed by the Government.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

14. What steps his Department is taking to provide households with information on emergency preparedness.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Darren Jones)]

This week, I gave a speech recognising the public’s frustration with our public services. I rejected the Conservative party’s offer of continued cuts and decline, and I rejected the offer of the populist parties, which just want to tear everything down and leave people on their own. Labour will build public services anew, so that accessing services in the future will feel more like online banking or online shopping, and so that public services are there when people need them most.

I have tabled a written ministerial statement about other changes in how we perform our duties in government. There will be new taskforces; the expansion of the innovation fellowship scheme; the new national school of government and public services; and reforms to the recruitment criteria, bonuses and performance management of the senior civil service. All of those are spelled out in the written ministerial statement, and I am happy to answer any further questions today.

[Sarah Olney]

In his speech this week, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster set out his plan for the future of the civil service, in which he envisioned further sackings in a digital transformation. Last week, we saw the untested and potentially dangerous nature of artificial intelligence when the chief constable of West Midlands police admitted that his force had used AI to come to its verdict that Maccabi Tel Aviv fans should be banned from attending their European game away to Aston Villa. As Government Departments are already using AI to make critical and life-changing decisions, can the Minister clarify whether he plans to replace diligent civil servants with artificial intelligence?

[Darren Jones]

In the first instance, I am trying to put in place computers that work. Before we even get to artificial intelligence, we need to build some pretty basic services—services like those that the public are used to using in the private sector, but that are not used for public services because of 14 years of austerity from the Conservative party.

[Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)]

T2. In Scarborough, British electric bus manufacturer Alexander Dennis employs more than 700 people and is vital to our local economy. Tax-funded bus procurement should support UK industry, rather than fund international competitors. However, with the social value requirement in public procurement set at only 10% and price still weighted at 70%, social value has little to no real impact. Will the Minister look at increasing the social value requirement in public procurement to support our great British—

--- Later in debate ---

[Darren Jones]

I do, and I am happy to take a look at that.

[Alex Burghart]

I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that reply; I really appreciate it. In his role as chief of staff to the Prime Minister—

[Darren Jones]

indicated dissent.

[Alex Burghart]

In his role as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, will he please write to all other Government Departments to make sure that the good example that will now be set by the Cabinet Office is followed by other Departments?

[Darren Jones]

Mr Speaker, you will know that I take accountability to Parliament very seriously, as do the whole Government. As I said in my first answer, I am happy to take a look at that.

[Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)]

T3. The SNP Government dropped the ball on an £11 million investment, led by Rolls-Royce, in building a specialist welding centre on the Clyde—a vital opportunity to support the Royal Navy. It is only thanks to this Labour Government providing £2.5 million of support to the programme that it is going ahead. Does the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster agree that, at a time of rising global uncertainty, my constituents deserve better than the flaky student union politics of the SNP Government?

[Darren Jones]

I could not agree more, and I thank my hon. Friend for making such an important case for his constituency, as he did yesterday at Prime Minister’s questions. Whether on defence, nuclear energy, or fixing public services, the SNP have failed Scotland for far too long, and only with Anas Sarwar as leader of the Scottish Government from May will things start to get better.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

T6. May I please push for a clearer answer to the question by my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart)? Will the Cabinet Office set up a European relations Select Committee?

[Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)]

T4. It was great to be at the headquarters of what3words for the speech by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster about moving fast and fixing things. Three words to describe the previous Government are: total utter shambles. Does my right hon. Friend agree that public services must be not only value for money, but delivered quickly, and must have Labour values at their very heart?

[Darren Jones]

I could not agree more. Perhaps with those what3words, more Tory MPs can find their way to the Benches next time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)]

As chair of the Labour rural research group, I continually hear about the challenges facing rural communities, including access to education and transport infrastructure. Will the Minister set out the specific steps that the Cabinet Office is taking to ensure that rural voices and rural communities are meaningfully represented throughout Government decision making?

[Darren Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for the great work that she does in Parliament and within the Labour party as a leading voice for rural communities across our country. On Government action, I point her to the rural taskforce, a cross-departmental group looking at how policies taken across Government can have a positive impact in rural communities while recognising the unique risk that we want to mitigate.

[Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)]

The Paymaster General has told the House this morning, on more than one occasion, just how wonderful his new EU deal will be for British food and drink manufacturers, so why is he refusing to appear in front of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee to discuss the matter in more detail?

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)]

On Tuesday, the Chief Secretary set out plans to “promote the doers” across the civil service by establishing the new national School for Government and Public Services. Will he tell the House what steps he plans to take to ensure that Whitehall is focused on delivering services that actually work really well for my residents in Exeter?

[Darren Jones]

My assessment is that government conflates policy and delivery. That is why we will be promoting people from the frontline into the more senior levels of the senior civil service, to make sure that we understand the customer experience and how citizens expect their services to work more than has been the case in the past.

[Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)]

I questioned the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Makerfield (Josh Simons), earlier about the U-turn on compulsory digital IDs. Much to our confusion, he said that there had been no U-turn. Will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster clear this up? Is digital ID going to be compulsory—yes or no?

[Darren Jones]

There has been no U-turn—[Interruption.] The hon. Member has asked the same question twice and has had the same answer. If he would like, I will write to him in plain English and he can read it a third time.

[Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)]

North West Leicestershire is home to East Midlands airport, which carries the highest volume of small parcel air freight in the UK. In the light of the new trading agreements with the EU, can the Minister update me on how we will ensure that small businesses can make the most of these additional trading benefits, for current and future agreements?

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

I thank the Chief Secretary for meeting me to discuss the £20 million Pride in Place money awarded to Portsmouth. To boost and expand those funds in my city and make investment lasting, will the Chief Secretary tell me and my constituents more about his work with the new Office for the Impact Economy, collaborating with social investors and philanthropists so that we can boost funding and create much-needed change in local communities?

[Darren Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for the brilliant work that she is doing in her constituency with this historic money from Pride in Place, whereby local people get to decide how to spend money on their own communities. As she has alluded to, the Office for the Impact Economy will work with social investors, philanthropists and other organisations to match up funding in order to increase that money even further and have a longer-lasting impact on local communities.

[Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)]

I thank the Government for their work on cutting the cost of living. Can the Minister say how the Cabinet Office is supporting other Government Departments to continue this work?

[Darren Jones]

As part of the Growth and Living Standards Cabinet Committee, the Cabinet Office co-ordinates Ministers across Government to ensure that we are working as hard as possible to get inflation and costs down and make a real difference to the living standards of the public across the country.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

Boots has stores in Castlepoint, Southbourne Grove and Boscombe high street in my constituency. I met Boots in Parliament to hear about what it is doing to tackle shoplifting. In London, it is working with the Metropolitan police, who plug into Boots’s own reporting system to avoid the need for duplicate reporting. I am calling for the same to come to Bournemouth, but plugging all businesses into all police forces will take a lot of work. Will the Government consider having a national police app that is opt-in, like the national health service app, so people do not have to go through the faff of reporting their demographic information and so they can get on with reporting crime faster? That would be a lot of help to Karl, the store manager at Aldi in Boscombe.

[Darren Jones]

That is a very good idea—I have had similar issues in my own constituency. I will make sure that that idea is passed on to the Home Secretary. Police reforms will be coming to the House shortly.

Civil Service: Innovation

Darren Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 20th January 2026 Written Statements

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Darren Jones)]

The British people deserve public services that work for them. I am announcing today changes to rewire the state and jump-start a move to a new model for Whitehall, fixing some of the fundamentals of how the civil service works by learning from the best examples of innovation in both the public and private sector.

The No. 10 innovation fellowship programme is an example of the opportunity to do government differently. A small number of leading technologists and data scientists have been given the freedom to approach public service delivery problems in new ways. From prison security to patient safety, the fellows are working on projects to make the state more productive and more dynamic. We will build on this success and expand the programme this year.

The need to innovate to deliver the public’s priorities is urgent. I am therefore also making broader changes to the delivery architecture of government. Supported by teams in the Cabinet Office, we will establish taskforces, working with Departments to drive forward delivery of some of this Government’s top priorities. Time-bound and focused on specific outcomes, taskforces will be granted freedoms to operate outside normal administrative rules so that they are unhindered in tackling high-impact challenges with singular determination.

To incentivise innovation throughout the wider civil service, I am also announcing changes to the performance management and recruitment of senior civil servants. Guided by the principle of targeting bonuses more towards the highest performers, bonuses and a system of pay progression will reward innovation and delivery in critical areas. We will also change the criteria for SCS selection to prioritise candidates with frontline delivery and innovation experience. Under-performers will be held accountable to tougher standards and must improve or face the consequences, including dismissal.

Alongside incentivising performance and innovation, we must build a civil service with the skills it needs for the future. I am announcing that we will establish a new National School for Government, which will provide learning and development for civil servants, while saving taxpayers money by ending current high-cost contracts with external providers.

[HCWS1260]

Oral Answers to Questions

Darren Jones Excerpts

Thursday 4th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Irene Campbell (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

17. What recent progress he has made on improving the relationship between the Government and the devolved Administrations.

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Darren Jones)]

After the damage wrought by successive Conservative Governments, we have successfully reset relations with the devolved Governments. Thanks to the hard work of Eluned Morgan, Anas Sarwar and our brilliant Welsh and Scottish Labour MPs, we have provided the largest uplifts to their budgets since devolution began.

[Gerald Jones]

I very much welcome the additional £505 million of investment that the Chancellor announced in last week’s Budget through the Barnett formula, building on the biggest settlement since devolution. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is another example of two Labour Governments working together for the benefit of the people of Wales, which is in complete contrast to how we were treated by the Conservatives?

[Darren Jones]

I agree that this is but one fantastic example of two Labour Governments working together to deliver for the people of Wales, in stark contrast with 14 years of Conservative Governments ignoring Welsh leaders in the Senedd. Just the other week, we announced two AI growth zones and the UK’s first small modular reactor in Anglesey, alongside historic investment in Welsh rail earlier this year. Through that, we are creating 11,000 new jobs across Wales. That is thanks, again, to two Labour Governments working together for the people of Wales.

[Katrina Murray]

Does the Minister agree that in my constituency, where people are struggling to access healthcare, it is vital that the SNP Government make effective use of the recent funding uplift to finally deliver the long-promised elective treatment and diagnostic centre in Cumbernauld, so that we can cut waiting lists and get my constituents the care they need?

[Darren Jones]

My hon. Friend will know that it was Nicola Sturgeon, campaigning less than a month before the 2021 Scottish Parliament election, who promised a new elective treatment and diagnostic centre for the people of Cumbernauld. Four and a half years later, my hon. Friend’s constituents are still waiting, and the SNP Government have admitted that they will not be building it any time soon. This Labour Government have committed billions of pounds in extra funding for Scottish public services, but voters in Cumbernauld and across Scotland will rightly be asking the SNP Government the question, “Where’s the money gone, John?”

[Irene Campbell]

Does the Minister agree that with a Labour Government at Holyrood working with a UK Labour Government, constituencies like North Ayrshire and Arran could be much better off, because nuclear policy in Scotland could change and sites like Hunterston, which is currently blocked from investment by SNP policy, could be developed to support small modular reactors, bringing good jobs to the community and playing a key part in our energy supply?

[Darren Jones]

In England and Wales, Labour Governments are investing billions of pounds to deliver a new generation of clean, safe nuclear power. Hunterston, in my hon. Friend’s constituency, is just one of the communities in Scotland that could benefit from this investment, if it was not for the SNP Government’s outdated and ideological ban on nuclear power. Their student politics approach is holding Scotland back. Only a vote for Scottish Labour and Anas Sarwar next May will deliver the jobs and growth that nuclear power could offer Scotland.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

Despite the Government’s assurances, they and the Scottish Government fail to communicate in many ways. As a Scottish MP, I am used to the frustrating process of being sent from one to another, with nobody taking responsibility. Access for All is a great example. The new ramp at Leuchars station, which serves St Andrews, could provide effective step-free access, but nobody knows when the new scheme is coming and how it will be administered in Scotland. Can I get an assurance that conversations are taking place about the scheme?

[Darren Jones]

I can confirm that Ministers across Government, including myself, the Prime Minister and others in relevant Departments, engage with our counterparts in the Scottish Government frequently, and we wish to unblock problems to improve delivery for the people of Scotland. If the hon. Lady writes to me on the particular issue that she raises, I will ensure that it is taken into account. Perhaps next time, SNP Members might come to oral questions to hear about the issues directly.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The Minister is a gentleman—that is never in question. What steps will be taken to respect the principle of devolution and avoid legislating on behalf of the Northern Ireland Assembly without genuine necessity? I ask everyone to cast their minds back to 2019, when the Conservative Government brought in abortion legislation in Northern Ireland against the will of the Northern Ireland Assembly and against the will of the people of Northern Ireland. This House endorsed it. Mr Speaker, what can be done to ensure that that never, ever happens again?

[Mr Speaker]

I am sure the Minister will answer, rather than me.

[Darren Jones]

I think it comes from mutual respect and dialogue, which this Government have exhibited since we have come into office. That is in stark contrast to the relationship over the previous 14 years. The Northern Ireland Secretary and I, alongside the Prime Minister, engage with the Deputy First Minister and the First Minister on these issues routinely, and we will continue to try to provide the best answers for the people of Northern Ireland.

[Alex Brewer (North East Hampshire) (LD)]

10. What steps he is taking to improve relations with the EU.

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

16. What progress his Department has made on implementing the agreement made with the EU in May 2025.

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Darren Jones)]

Since coming to office, the Government have secured a new strategic partnership with the EU to deliver on jobs, bills and borders. We are repairing the damage inflicted by the Conservatives’ botched Brexit deal, which left food businesses paying £200 on paperwork for every single consignment shipped in from the EU. We have made significant progress since our historic May summit, including negotiations on a food and drink deal, which will slash red tape for businesses and bring down prices for consumers.

[Alex Brewer]

Given that Brexit has left a £90 billion hole in the UK’s tax revenues and that small business owners in my constituency of North East Hampshire are telling me that the last two Budgets have been “catastrophic” for them, why are the Government not pursuing a bespoke UK-EU customs union to cut red tape, boost economic growth and support British businesses?

[Darren Jones]

The Prime Minister was very clear in the House yesterday that we will be honouring our manifesto commitments on a single market and a customs union—we will not be rejoining those institutions. However, there is a great deal of work that can be done between the botched deal we inherited from the Conservatives—from their acrimonious relationship, when Britain and the European Union refused to talk to each other in the interests of either of them—and the new relationship that the Prime Minister has built with his counterparts in Europe to deliver for the people of the United Kingdom.

[Andrew Cooper]

Recent efforts to secure UK participation in the EU’s Security Action for Europe initiative, which aims to strengthen defence capacity across the continent in response to escalating Russian threats, appear to have come to an end without agreement. While it is right that the UK only enters agreements that clearly support our national interest and represent value for money, we must continue to play a leading role in European security. Will the Minister outline how the Government intend to build momentum for renewed UK-EU co-operation in this area?

[Darren Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for his important question. The United Kingdom remains committed to our role in European security in the face of rising threats. As the House will know, the Prime Minister has led the coalition of the willing to combat Vladimir Putin’s aggression in Ukraine and has worked tirelessly to strengthen our relationships with our allies, including across Europe. We are working quickly with the EU to implement our ambitious security and defence partnership, and have already stepped up our co-operation on key issues such as tackling hybrid threats and our collective support to Ukraine.

[Dr Pinkerton]

On “The News Agents” podcast yesterday evening, the Deputy Prime Minister, when asked about a UK-EU customs arrangement, said

“that journey of travel…is self-evident”.

Given that the botched Brexit deal is costing the UK Exchequer £90 billion a year, can I ask what that self-evident journey means for the Government’s own red lines? Will the Government take the opportunity to take a giant leap on that journey by supporting my ten-minute rule Bill next Tuesday?

[Darren Jones]

I have to confess that I have not listened to “The News Agents” podcast that the hon. Member refers to, but I know you will be pleased to hear, Mr Speaker, that what is self-evident is what is said in this House, not on podcasts. The Prime Minister was very clear yesterday on the position the Government hold in relation to a single market and a customs union, while also improving our trading and security relationships, which is what we will continue to deliver on.

[Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

The agreement in May included the restoration of the UK’s country-specific steel quota, but in October we saw new steel protection measures from the EU. Do the Government expect the article 28 GATT––general agreement on tariffs and trade—process to be honoured for those quotas, and will trade measures be set out prior to the steel strategy?

[Darren Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. As he will understand, my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office is in discussions with counterparts in the European Union about the changing global landscape for steel. This Government are very clear that we should protect British steel and our capabilities to produce steel in the UK, while supporting exports and making sure that British steel is not undercut by cheap global imports from around the world.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

I am sure people will be pleased to hear that the Labour party is going to honour some of its manifesto commitments.

Last week, it was announced that the Government’s attempt to join the new EU defence fund had failed. This is a major setback for our relationship with the EU, and it is a major embarrassment for the Government. Since that time, no Minister has come to the House to explain what on earth has gone so horribly wrong, so perhaps the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster can tell us: what has gone so horribly wrong?

[Darren Jones]

First, regardless of the negotiation on SAFE, our collaboration with European partners is stronger than ever on defence and defence procurement. In relation to SAFE in particular, about which the hon. Member asked, this was always going to be a negotiation between the EU and the UK, and the UK Government rightly have to consider value for money considerations in return for how much access British industry has to the contracts being negotiated in Europe. Irrespective of the position on SAFE, I can confirm to the House that UK companies will still be able to take part in European procurement for defence equipment, with an up to 35% allowance for British components in those manufactured goods.

[Alex Burghart]

I admire the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster’s chutzpah in answering. He pretends that this was in some way not a defeat, but a victory—many more such victories, and we are lost.

The House will remember that in May, No. 10 trumpeted a new agreement with the EU, which gave the EU privileged access to our fishing waters for 12 years—12 years—to

“pave the way for the UK defence industry to participate in the EU’s proposed new…defence fund”.

Now that the EU has killed off that deal with what the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster rightly describes as an unreasonable demand for £5 billion, are we going to get our fish back?

[Darren Jones]

The hon. Member will know that the agreement with the European Union was not just on one particular issue; it was a package of improvements in the relationship between the UK and the EU. He might want to welcome the agreement on food and drink regulation reforms, so we can get prices down on the shelves in British supermarkets, after they went through the roof under the last Conservative Administration.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

Following threats from Donald Trump, earlier this week the Government announced that between £3 billion and £6 billion each year will be diverted from our NHS services into the pockets of pharmaceutical giants. The American Health Secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., said the agreement shows Trump’s

“courage and leadership in demanding these reforms”

and that he puts Americans first. That will give no comfort to my Hazel Grove constituents, who rightly value our NHS and want to see it thrive. Does the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster agree that we are more isolated from our European allies following Brexit, making us far too vulnerable to the threat of American tariffs? What will it take for the Government to rethink their red lines and protect the British people from further bullying from the White House, by agreeing a bespoke UK-EU customs union with our European neighbours?

[Darren Jones]

The agreement reached on pharmaceuticals is a win for the United Kingdom. We have an enormously important sector for pharmaceutical research and development and production in the United Kingdom, which exports many of its products to the American market, so to have agreed the tariff arrangements with the United States is a win for UK pharma and the people who work in it. I would just point to the fact that the UK’s relationship with the United States, thanks to our Prime Minister, has been one of the most productive relationships in the world in securing trade and security agreements both for the UK and to support our allies around the world.

[Lisa Smart]

I note the right hon. Gentleman’s response. It may well be good for the pharma industry; my question was whether it is good for the NHS. Just four days ago, the Prime Minister said that the Brexit deal “significantly hurt our economy” and that we have to keep moving towards a closer relationship with the EU. I agree with the Prime Minister. A clear and welcome step for jobs and growth would be to create a bespoke customs union with the EU. The Liberal Democrats want to cut unnecessary red tape, support British businesses and deliver sustainable long-term economic growth. I am sure the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster does, too. I agree with his earlier comment that what happens in this House matters, so will he at least agree not to block his colleagues on the Government Benches from backing the ten-minute rule Bill that my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) will move next Wednesday, which sets a path towards a bespoke EU-UK customs union—

[Darren Jones]

Mr Speaker, there is obviously a great deal of interest on the Liberal Democrat Benches in their ten-minute rule Bill, which I look forward to reading in due course.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

14. What steps his Department is taking to help improve the cyber-security of national infrastructure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kenneth Stevenson (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Darren Jones)]

Since I last addressed the House, the Prime Minister announced the new Office for the Impact Economy, based in the Cabinet Office. From building affordable homes to giving children up and down the country the best start in life, social enterprises and community foundations are fundamental to delivering the change that this Government were elected to deliver. Changing lives for the better happens from the ground up, as well as from the top down. The Office for the Impact Economy will allow those organisations to engage with Government directly to get the support they need, and it will help public funding work harder by bringing philanthropists and other social investors together with communities that need investment. I look forward to updating the House further on this issue in due course.

[Kenneth Stevenson]

While passengers are experiencing short-term pain of long waits as the EU entry-exit system becomes fully operational, can the Minister confirm his Department is working to ensure that the agreement obtained by this Labour Government to allow British access to e-gates will, in the long term, cut queues and improve the travelling experience for my constituents in Airdrie and Shotts and other Members’ constituents?

[Darren Jones]

British passport holders will be able to use e-gates across Europe, allowing for more time to be spent on holiday and less time spent held up in queues. This is a positive step forward in expanding our access across the EU. The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office is working with individual member states to make this happen as soon as possible.

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

A few weeks ago I wrote to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster about Chinese ownership of critical national infrastructure, including the possible acquisition of Thames Water. I have not had a reply, but since then The Telegraph has been briefed by the Government that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster would block such an acquisition. Can he confirm to the House that he will use his powers under the National Security and Investment Act 2021 to launch an investigation before any Chinese acquisition of Thames Water is allowed to proceed?

[Darren Jones]

The House will know that because of the quasi-judicial powers I have under the National Security and Investment Act 2021, I cannot comment on individual transactions. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are always willing to use those powers to protect the national interests and national security of this country. I do not recognise that briefing to The Telegraph, but I will ensure that he gets an answer to his correspondence shortly.

[Alex Burghart]

Well, someone was briefing in the right hon. Gentleman’s name. I thank him for his answer, but on the same theme, the electricity distribution network for London and much of the south-east, as well as the gas distribution network for about 5 million people in our country and the water supply for about another 3 million, are currently under Chinese ownership. That includes the power supply for the Palace of Westminster, Whitehall and many security capabilities. Will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster tell us whether he has reviewed the national security implications of these legacy acquisitions? If not, will he commit to doing so?

[Darren Jones]

I can reassure the hon. Member and the House that we constantly keep critical national infrastructure risks under review and will take interventions as required to protect the national interest and national security of the United Kingdom.

[Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)]

T3. The Prime Minister was clear this week that the wild promises of Brexit have hurt our economy, eroded trust in politics and that there is no credible economic future for Britain without a closer relationship with the European Union. I completely agree. Can the Minister set out when he expects a youth experience scheme to be agreed and confirm that we will seek to rejoin Erasmus on terms that ensure that young people from all backgrounds can access opportunities across the European Union?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

T2. First, I want to echo the concerns of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael): the Paymaster General really must meet with the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee to discuss the sanitary and phytosanitary agreement—meeting with the Chair in private is not enough. When it comes to Europe and negotiating deals, the devil is always in the detail. Looking at the fisheries negotiation, we can see that the Government struggle with this area. Given that Switzerland will be paying €375 million a year, and it seems as though we will have to pay for the privilege of being a rule taker once more, can the Minister clarify exactly what he considers to be an appropriate financial contribution to be paid to the EU?

[Darren Jones]

We will always negotiate in Britain’s interest and ensure value for money for the taxpayer and benefit for the UK economy. I can confirm that not only has the Paymaster General agreed to meet with the Chair of the EFRA Committee, but the relevant Minister from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will be appearing to give evidence in the normal way.

[Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)]

T7. What steps is the Minister taking to support small and medium-sized businesses in Banbury with public procurement?

--- Later in debate ---

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

T6. The Information Commissioner’s Office revealed that Lord Alli’s pass to No. 10 was requested by a staff member of the Labour party. Was it the Prime Minister’s then chief of staff who made the request?

[Darren Jones]

I do not know.

[Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)]

T9. To support transport operators in North Warwickshire and Bedworth, what discussions has the Minister had with EU counterparts on securing a professional driver exemption from the 90/180-day Schengen travel restrictions for UK drivers of heavy goods vehicles and coaches?

--- Later in debate ---

[Callum Anderson (Buckingham and Bletchley) (Lab)]

T10.   Through the town deal and the Bletchley investment taskforce, our town is already working hard to attract private investment. We see an opportunity to go even further by bringing in socially minded investors to back local growth. What further steps is the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister taking through the Office for the Impact Economy to connect social investors with our town so that we can realise our full potential?

[Darren Jones]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing so much investment in his constituency. The Office for the Impact Economy will be working with philanthropists and social investors, as well as corporate givers and others, to support programmes led by the Government, such as Pride in Place and other public investments, to deliver a better bang for our buck and the renewal of communities across the country, including in Bletchley. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend to deliver on that promise of change.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

The Cabinet Office has an important role to play in publishing data to enable the public to track the Government’s performance. Does the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister agree that it would be helpful to have data on the number of prisoners wrongly released every day by the Justice Secretary?

[Darren Jones]

I will ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice receives the hon. Gentleman’s question, which he can maybe raise again in Justice questions when they come round.

[Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)]

Tomorrow will mark a year to the day since the Government launched the plan for change, to great fanfare, with its milestones, its mission boards, and its dashboards that never materialised. We have now found out that the five mission boards have been deleted from the latest list of Cabinet Committees. Has there been any change at all from the plan for change?

[Darren Jones]

I welcome the introduction of the plan for change to the debate today, and the hon. Gentleman will be as excited as I am about the promise of change being delivered: five interest rate cuts; mortgage rates coming down; wages growing faster than the cost of living; NHS waiting lists down not by 2 million, 3 million or 4 million, but by 5 million appointments; a better start in life for young people across the country—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Telephone directories are not required in the Chamber.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

The Minister does not know who in the Labour party signed off on Lord Alli’s pass to No. 10. It is an important question. Please could he find out and write to me and tell me who?

[Darren Jones]

I will certainly do my best.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Further to the question from the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), most food insecurity in Northern Ireland comes from a lack of money, not a lack of food. What discussions has the Minister had with his counterparts in Northern Ireland on improving the root causes of food insecurity among all our constituents?

[Darren Jones]

I know that through the finance interministerial and the interministerial standing committee, leaders and relevant Ministers discuss a whole range of issues relevant to Northern Ireland, including this, with colleagues from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and others. I am always happy to have those conversations with the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, if that is of help.

[Mr Speaker]

I am going to have to suspend the House until 10.30 am.

Impact Economy Partnerships

Darren Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Written Statements

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

The social impact investment advisory group’s final report was published on 3 November 2025 and sets out recommendations on how the Government could better partner with the impact economy to contribute billions to national priorities, such as supporting early years and health. A key recommendation from the report was to create an office at the heart of Government to drive this change.

In response to the social impact investment advisory group’s final report, the Government are launching the Office for the Impact Economy. Strategically housed within the Cabinet Office, this new team will report to me, as Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, as I serve as the ministerial lead.

The Office will function as a clear front door to enable the Government to partner more strategically and effectively with the impact economy, including philanthropists, social and impact investors, purpose-driven business and civil society. The office will help ensure that every pound of public funding works harder, and that impact capital and purpose-driven business are harnessed and grown in support of national renewal.

The Office for the Impact Economy will employ a hub-and-spoke operating model to facilitate cross-governmental collaboration. The office will bring together Departments across Government, including the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, HM Treasury, the No. 10 partnerships unit, and the Department for Business and Trade, all of which will continue to hold their established policy and delivery relationships. The Office for the Impact Economy will work closely with the Office for Investment, which works with large pools of impact aligned investment and with the Office for Responsible Business Conduct.

[HCWS1041]