Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address

Darren Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I thank Members from across the House for their contributions this afternoon and for sharing the condolences expressed by the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), on the news that we learned during the debate that Sir Alex Younger, the former director general of MI6, had passed.

As I have said to the House before, while it is right for Members to discuss process and how the Government have responded to the Humble Address, we must not neglect to remember the women and girls who are at the very heart of this matter. Their suffering cannot be forgotten in this pursuit of justice—a pursuit that has been denied to them for too long. On that point, I want to start by paying particular thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) for her powerful speech this afternoon and to take this opportunity to thank her for the work she carried out so diligently as part of this Government as the Minister for Victims.

The accounts that my hon. Friend has shared with this House this afternoon from victims such as Lisa are harrowing and should remind us of the anger and suffering that they rightly continue to feel each time we have one of these debates. But my hon. Friend’s speech has made me think that just reading the words on this page alone feels insufficient in the context of the cultural challenges that she raised, and with your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to take a moment to take this opportunity to ask myself questions about my relationship with Peter Mandelson.

Did I consciously ignore the stories that followed Peter Mandelson, or indeed know about many of them, from many, many years ago? I do not think that I did. Did I ever ignore warnings that were put to me about Peter Mandelson? I did not receive any, to do so. But as I reflected on my hon. Friend’s speech, it made me think: did I at best subconsciously treat Peter Mandelson differently because I believed him to have influence and power within the Labour party? I think the answer to that question is yes, I did. Have I benefited from that relationship in the time I have been an elected politician? I think in part the answer to that question is yes, I did. For that I would like to apologise to the House, to the victims, to Lisa, and commit to then doing something about it.

In the first instance, I hear my hon. Friend’s request for a meeting with the victims of Jeffrey Epstein. I know that there is a request with No. 10 for the Prime Minister to do so, but if she thinks it appropriate, I make myself available for that meeting to discuss the issues that she has raised. I know that she will continue to be a strong advocate from the Back Benches for the action this Government are taking to halve violence against women and girls, as well as to pursue the duty of candour on which I know she worked so hard, and I look forward to continuing my work with her on these important issues.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

The Minister has shown once again what a decent man he is, and he is doing a very difficult job in defence of somebody who knew a lot more than he did. He was not chief of staff at the time that the Mandelson appointment was being carried out. On page 8 of the first bundle, we have the note from the private secretary to the Prime Minister, which says:

“We have sought a due diligence review…and your Chief of Staff”—

Morgan McSweeney at the time—

“has discussed Peter’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein which we will go through with you, but your Director of Communications is satisfied with his responses to questions about contact.”

However, we also know from earlier in the bundle that the Prime Minister specifically knew that Mandelson had stayed in Epstein’s flat while Epstein was in in jail for the abuse of an under-age girl. The Prime Minister knew all that at the time. What is the purpose of having a box at the end marked for the Prime Minister’s comments on the alternatives he has been given when in fact, as we now know and as has been clearly explained by the Paymaster General, there has been no redaction—the Prime Minister did not comment? Why did the Prime Minister withhold any remarks on this highly contentious matter? Where did he comment? Where did he give his decision? He certainly did not do it in the place that he was supposed to do it.

[Darren Jones]

In relation to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman’s question, he will know, because I have confirmed it to the House at the Dispatch Box previously, that questions were put by the Prime Minister’s former chief of staff to Peter Mandelson following the due diligence report to seek further information about the stories reported in the newspaper. He will also know that Peter Mandelson replied to those questions, and that information was then considered by those in No. 10.

As I have confirmed to the House, that document—the question and its answers—is one of the documents being held by the Metropolitan police. I have been advised repeatedly that I am not permitted to disclose what I have seen in that document on the Floor of the House, so I am afraid it will have to be one of those questions that remains until such a time as the Metropolitan police publishes its documentation. In relation to the second part of the right hon. Gentleman’s question, I refer him to the Paymaster General’s answer earlier today. That is the answer to that question.

This is my 11th update to the House on this matter, and I am grateful for the opportunity to answer Members’ questions. I will speak to a number of issues first, before turning to some specific questions from Members and setting out what the Government intend to do next.

Since the Humble Address motion was passed on 4 February, the House will know that a huge disclosure exercise has been undertaken by Government officials. The motion called for the disclosure of documents in respect of the appointment and dismissal of Peter Mandelson as His Majesty’s ambassador to Washington, alongside relevant communications. The publication of documents on 11 March, followed by the second tranche on Monday, has done that, in the Government’s view. I hope the Government have provided the House with the reassurance it needs that, with the exception of the small number of documents withheld at the request of the Metropolitan police, which we intend to publish when we are allowed to do so, the Government have discharged their duties to the House in relation to the Humble Address.

[Sir John Hayes]

In those terms, at what point did the Metropolitan police ask for the vetting summary? Clearly it is now a known fact that there was an assumption that that vetting summary, but not the granular detail, was likely to be published, albeit in a redacted form, having been through the normal process.

[Darren Jones]

If the right hon. Member will forgive me, I have noted that question from earlier in the debate, and I will come to it in a grouping shortly.

I note the comments and questions today from Members on the process that officials have led to support the Government in responding to the Humble Address. As I have said each time I have been at the Dispatch Box, the Government have taken their obligations to comply with the Humble Address seriously and, in their view, have done so in full.

I hear the calls of some Members for the Government to provide further detail on Peter Mandelson’s vetting. As I told the House on Monday, we have shared the vetting summary and recommendation with the Intelligence and Security Committee. However, the vetting inputs collected as part of those investigations would never be published, because if the Government did so, people would feel unable to answer those questions honestly and frankly in any UK Security Vetting investigation in the future—a point that was made by the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin), who has been through that process. That would undermine our national security—not just in this instance, but the very basis of the national security system itself. It would have far-reaching impacts that no responsible Government rightly should entertain.

On that basis, I welcome the comments from the Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, Lord Beamish, on Monday night. He said that he

“agrees with the Government that the larger vetting documents shouldn’t be released to the Committee”

because of the potential impact on the vetting system. The former National Security Adviser, Lord Sedwill, wrote in a letter published in The Times today that

“the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) has seen a summary of the issues that vetting inevitably raised. That should be sufficient for Parliament to judge the Prime Minister’s handling of this episode. Any Humble Address requiring disclosure of Lord Mandelson’s detailed submissions or vetting file would be a serious mistake.”

In the other place yesterday, Baroness Manningham-Buller, the former director general of MI5, said:

“I know that security vetting is very detailed—I have been subjected to it many times myself. It goes to your school, education, employers and friends, and people speak frankly. If for one moment they felt it was going to be published, security vetting designed to protect the most secret information would be of little value. Whatever else we do, we must hold on to that. However tempting it would be, for whatever reason, to know the full contents, they must not be revealed. I am talking not about this case but about a general principle.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 2 June 2026; Vol. 856, c. 764.]

I hear the arguments put by right hon. and hon. Members in the House today, but I do say that not just the Government’s position, but the advice from the Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee, a former National Security Adviser and a former director general of MI5 should be taken seriously.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I have been here through the debate and not one person has asked for all that information to be published—not one. People have been asking for the summary at the end, the outcome. Did it say “Red—he should not be granted clearance”?

[Darren Jones]

I have said repeatedly that the summary has been given to the Intelligence and Security Committee. I think the hon. Lady may be confusing the summary and the recommendation from the interview information that was collected between the UKSV official and Peter Mandelson. This is important because, as the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells said, when someone goes into an interview with a UKSV specialist and they say, “You must tell me everything, and it will go no further,” if that were to be handed over to a politician—even a politician on the Intelligence and Security Committee—it would undermine the very basis of that work.

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

We need to be very clear about this: the arguments the Minister is making are right, but as the hon. Lady points out, they are not a response to the arguments we are making. The argument that has been made to him by the Intelligence and Security Committee, as he knows, is that there is no harm to be found in the disclosure of the conclusions of the vetting process. We accept absolutely that the contributing material that led to those conclusions should not be disclosed. I need him to be very clear that it is our view that the conclusions could be disclosed, and there is no harm to be done to national security, which there would be if the contributing material were disclosed, by the disclosure of the conclusions. Will he confirm that?

[Darren Jones]

Again, it is important to distinguish between the notes and information collected in the interview process, which some Members have called to be given to the Intelligence and Security Committee, and the interviewer’s recommendation and summary and conclusions, which, as I say, the Government have already given to the Intelligence and Security Committee. The fact that documents that have gone through the ISC have not appeared in the bundles of this week must be in relation to the fact that categories of information given to the Metropolitan police are relevant to this question.

Moving to the documents that Members may have expected to see in the second tranche, as I said on Monday, some messages may not have been captured where people may have previously changed their phones without having backed up their messages or where they had disappearing messages turned on, and I noted to the House on Monday that that included myself. In my circumstance, to answer the questions from the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, it is not that I took a unilateral decision about messages that I felt were in scope or not in scope of the Humble Address; it is merely that I have access to no messages to disclose.

That is an important distinction because the disclosure process that took place involved the Cabinet Office writing to every Department, to permanent secretary and principal private secretary level for all relevant Ministers, special advisers and officials, to set out the guidance on which the disclosure process should take place—that is, for example, to include WhatsApp and other communication services, emails, personal devices, work devices and other messaging platforms—and a clear set of guidance about what would be in scope and not in scope. Permanent secretaries as the accounting officers to Parliament for each of those Departments were individually made liable for ensuring that that disclosure process took place in line with the guidance. The Cabinet Office did not go to each person in each Department and conduct that itself; it executed it through Departments in line with the process that I have set out.

[Alex Burghart]

I just want to make sure that I understand—I hope the Minister will forgive me if I do not. In his case, was it his permanent secretary as the accounting officer who verified that the messages he had were not admissible to the process?

[Darren Jones]

The hon. Gentleman misunderstands: there were no messages to consider and that is different.

[Alex Burghart]

The reason I brought this up is that on Monday the right hon. Gentleman said:

“I do recall having some limited exchanges with Peter Mandelson over WhatsApp, including those I have already discussed in the media”.—[Official Report, 1 June 2026; Vol. 786, c. 853.]

I do not wish to push this point too far, but I do wish to understand: there were messages, so who decided that they were not to be submitted under the Humble Address? Please can he explain?

[Darren Jones]

I have tried to explain the answer to that question a number of times. There was no decision to disregard any messages because there are no messages to consider. What I confirmed on Monday was that I have had WhatsApp exchanges with Peter Mandelson, but I have not saved them on my devices to be able to share with my principal private secretary. The only person who could release those messages, if they have them, would be Peter Mandelson, who has refused to disclose his phone to the process—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. Mr Burghart, please can you observe the courtesies of the House and ensure that the debate continues in an orderly fashion?

[Darren Jones]

As an extension of that question, the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster asked me to comment on how this relates to Morgan McSweeney’s messages. I am afraid that I did not conduct that conversation or investigation, so I cannot answer on the specifics of that question.

I will now turn to some of the specific questions raised by Members during the debate, which I have grouped in a way that I hope is satisfactory to the House. The first group relates to vetting information, information on mitigations, both commercial and related to national security, and the question of attachments. I have already addressed the issue of vetting information. In relation to mitigations, I confirm to the House that I have not personally seen any of the UKSV information nor the summary, recommendations or any mitigation information that was put in place, so I cannot speak to this question from personal experience. However, I note my comment on Monday that the Metropolitan police have permitted us to confirm that the categories of documents that they are holding include vetting information and conflict of interest process material. Unfortunately, that is all I am able to say on the matter.

[Emily Thornberry]

Does the Minister appreciate that there may be a difference between conflict of interest information and national security mitigations, and that he may be able to tell us about some of that information but not able to tell us whether or not there were mitigations to defend national security?

[Darren Jones]

I share the expectation of my right hon. Friend that there would be a difference between commercial mitigations—for example, what investments there may be in particular companies—and mitigations that may have arisen from national security considerations. What I do not know is whether that was the case and how they were dealt with in any particular instance, because I do not have that information to hand.

Lastly on this first group of questions, the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) asked me to confirm the relevant detail in relation to the Metropolitan police dates and documents. As I have set out previously, I have been advised that I am not permitted to put that on the public record, but I am happy to go back to the Metropolitan police to see if there is anything further that we can add in due course.

[Sir John Hayes]

When the Metropolitan police have concluded their investigation, all of that material will return to the ISC, and presumably the Government will then want to publish the information, albeit in an appropriate and redacted form.

[Darren Jones]

Again, I do not know which documents the Metropolitan police have, so I cannot speak to them specifically, but I share the sentiment of the right hon. Gentleman’s point.

The shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster asked me to confirm that there was a leak inquiry under way in relation to what appears to be information from UKSV being in the hands of Guardian journalists. I can confirm that that leak inquiry is under way but has not yet concluded.

Questions of judgment and due diligence have been put to me. I have already answered the point about the follow-up questions to the due diligence report and can only reiterate to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom), the words of the Prime Minister when he said that he regrets the appointment and has apologised for it.

The deputy Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), made the helpful suggestion that we should think about codifying the precedent on which the Government rely when making redactions for the future. I commit to taking that away and taking advice, not least on what that might mean in terms of House business and Government business.

My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) made some interesting points about how Humble Addresses may be used in the future, given that the House seems to have decided that it wants to use them more often than has been the case in the past. I was then asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) to confirm the Government’s continued commitment to the duty of candour legislation, which I can confirm. As he knows, there have been discussions with families and others about refining some of the final points in that legislation. The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) asked me about freedom of information requests, and I commit to taking that question away and asking officials to try to respond as promptly as possible.

As the Prime Minister has set out, there are clearly significant lessons to be learned from the issues that arose from Peter Mandelson’s appointment, so while the Government consider that they have now duly discharged their obligations in respect of the Humble Address, they will none the less continue work on a number of important areas. Those include our commitment to bring forward legislation to ensure that peerages can be removed from disgraced peers, noting that Peter Mandelson has already been removed from the list of Privy Counsellors, and changing the process for direct ministerial appointments so that due diligence and national security vetting must take place prior to announcement.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I was expecting and hoping that the Minister would come on to Morgan McSweeney’s messages, which were asked about by the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), and be clear about whether those messages exist and where they are. If they are with the Metropolitan police, for example, will the Minister commit to going to the police and asking if he can tell us that those messages exist?

[Darren Jones]

I say politely to the hon. Lady that I have already answered all of those questions.

The Government will continue their review with Sir Adrian Fulford, looking at recommendations for the national security vetting system arising from the lessons of the Peter Mandelson case. We are ordering an examination of any security concerns raised during Peter Mandelson’s tenure as ambassador, which the Government Security Group in the Cabinet Office is now taking forward. We are commissioning an independent review of how non-corporate communications channels, including WhatsApp, are used in Government. In addition, the Cabinet Secretary has written to all heads of department to clarify the rules on record keeping and ensure they are being properly applied across Government. The Government have also noted the Intelligence and Security Committee’s comments on the management of sensitive information; I share those concerns, and have expressed them at the Dispatch Box. The Government are committed to raising information security standards, and will take further action on this issue.

As I have committed to previously, I will return to the House to update it on the progress of this work in due course, but on the basis of my statements today and on Monday this week, the Government now consider that they have duly discharged their obligations in respect of the Humble Address. I thank the Intelligence and Security Committee, the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, the Foreign Affairs Committee, and right hon. and hon. Members for their work on this matter and their contributions to today’s debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the Government’s response to the House’s humble Address of 4 February 2026.

Lord Mandelson Humble Address: Government Response

Darren Jones Excerpts

Monday 1st June 2026 Commons Chamber

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

With permission, I would like to update the House on the Government’s response to the Humble Address of 4 February. Before I do, I think it is important for all of us to reflect again on the impact that this debate will have on the victims of Jeffrey Epstein. Members across the House will be aware of the truly horrific crimes that he committed against countless women and girls; we hold them in our thoughts when discussing these issues again today.

The Government have today laid the second tranche of documents. These were laid before the House in advance of this statement and are now on gov.uk for the public to see. The documents we are publishing today comprise one of the largest Government publications ever laid before the House. This disclosure process has been wide-ranging, costing the Cabinet Office alone over £1 million. As the House knows, this was an official-led process, with judgments made by senior officials, and I am grateful for the careful work that they have undertaken right up until today’s publication.

While the first tranche dealt with Peter Mandelson’s appointment, withdrawal and severance, this second tranche responds to the parts of the motion that requested communications and documents concerning his appointment and vetting, as well as messages between Peter Mandelson and Ministers, special advisers and civil servants in the months prior to, and throughout the duration of, his appointment.

I recognise that the House will need sufficient time to review today’s tranche in full, given the size of the publication. As we have just heard from the Leader of the House, that is why I have secured Government time on Wednesday for a subsequent general debate: so that there is an opportunity for Members to ask further questions after today’s statement. To inform that debate and for clarity and accountability, I draw the House’s attention to the methodology set out in the publication today, which explains in detail how the Government undertook the disclosure process. I will not repeat that in full here today, but I will make reference to a number of areas that I know the House has expressed an interest in previously.

First, on redactions, in line with the motion, over 300 individual documents were referred under a process agreed between the Government and the Intelligence and Security Committee. I confirm that no material has been redacted on the grounds of prejudice to national security or international relations without the Committee’s approval. For clarity, all redacted material agreed with the ISC is labelled in the bundles today with three asterisks. Outside this arrangement, this process does not change the important and well-established constitutional principle that national security and international relations judgments are ultimately for the Government. I once again express my thanks to the Intelligence and Security Committee for its engagement in this process. Further limited redactions have been made outside the ISC process in respect of information that relates to junior officials’ names; contact details, like telephone numbers and email addresses; the personal or commercially sensitive data of third parties not relevant to the motion; and, where relevant, legal professional privilege.

I would also like to confirm that no redactions have been made to references to Global Counsel, other than to protect the identity of individuals who worked there and are not public figures. Officials have sought to be transparent in the material where the individual is a Global Counsel employee. Also, no redactions have been made to references to Palantir and Anduril outside the scope of the existing ISC redactions process, and no clear references to current or former UK politicians have been redacted on the basis of their being third parties.

I can also confirm to the House that no Government Minister or special adviser has determined any of the redactions themselves. The redaction process has been overseen by Cabinet Office officials and, where relevant, in agreement with the ISC. In addition, the Cabinet Office Humble Address team have taken advice from an independent King’s Counsel—this has included review of the methodological approach followed by officials—and acted on that advice to inform their work. This has helped to ensure that the Government are confident that their approach is compliant with the Humble Address and the Government’s legal obligations.

These additional targeted redactions, made outside the agreed ISC process, have been made in line with the Freedom of Information Act 2000, the ministerial code, and the resolutions on ministerial accountability passed by both Houses in 1997. This is important because it goes to the question of whether the Government have complied fully with the Humble Address. That question should be answered in the context of the established rules and precedents that relate to Humble Addresses. If these rules were not relevant, the Humble Address would have required extensive additional detail on the face of the motion dealing with these procedural issues. However, I recognise the level of interest in the House in respect of these redactions not related to national security and international relations, so, on the recommendation of the ISC, I can confirm that the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, has reviewed our approach to third-party redactions this morning. He has confirmed that we have applied the methodology set out in the document and that, in his view, the redactions are sensible, reasonable and proportionate. I thank the ISC for this recommendation and the hon. Member for the additional reassurance he has provided on this point.

As the House is aware, the Metropolitan police has also asked the Government to withhold some material in scope of the motion that it considered could be prejudicial to its ongoing criminal investigation or any subsequent prosecution. This request remains in place and I am very grateful, again, to the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, with whom we have also shared this information in order to provide additional accountability for the Government’s actions. I hope that Members will appreciate the need not to prejudice the investigation and understand that I will not be able to answer questions about certain documents that have been withheld. No responsible Government would wish to undermine a criminal investigation and put at risk the justice that it seeks, and I am sure that the House will share this position. I can, however, confirm that this material does include questions put to Peter Mandelson by the Prime Minister’s then chief of staff, and Peter Mandelson’s responses.

In addition, a small number of documents have been withheld at the request of the police, which fall broadly into the following categories: national security vetting material; conflict of interest process material; and relevant internal correspondence with Peter Mandelson. Such information will, of course, be published at the conclusion of the investigation or at the point at which it would no longer be prejudicial to the police investigation to do so.

The documents published in the first and second tranches contain the entirety of the documents the Government have available for disclosure, except those few documents I have just referred to in relation to the Metropolitan police. Members will no doubt have questions about what might be perceived to be “missing” messages and meeting notes, which I would like to address in turn. On messages that some might expect to be included, I can confirm that we have conducted multiple rounds of discovery from relevant Ministers, special advisers and officials, in line with the motion passed by the House. This has involved requesting searches of email, messaging platforms such as WhatsApp, and other related communications services on both work and personal devices.

However, the House should note that some messages may not have been backed up where devices may have been changed or disappearing messages turned on, for reasonable and permitted reasons, including before the dismissal of Peter Mandelson or the passing of the Humble Address—my messages included. I do recall having some limited exchanges with Peter Mandelson over WhatsApp, including those I have already discussed in the media, but these conversations did not involve transacting Government business and were in line with official guidance on the use of non-corporate communications channels at the time.

I share the view put by the Intelligence and Security Committee to the House that there are lessons for the civil service to learn in respect of better note-keeping, archiving and the use of appropriate levels of secure IT systems in the future. The Government have already committed to a review of the use of non-corporate communications channels, the terms of reference for which we will shortly publish, taking into account the concerns that have been raised in this House and the two tranches of documents that we have published in response to the Humble Address. I will of course keep the House updated as we progress that work.

I now turn to the material relating to Peter Mandelson’s national security vetting process. I can confirm that the vetting process summary and recommendation that was put by UK Security Vetting officials to the Foreign Office has been shared with the Intelligence and Security Committee. It was shared for the purpose of agreeing redactions, as part of the agreed process, so that it can be published when we are in a position to do so. What have not been shared are the highly sensitive personal data inputs collected during the interview process. These could, for example, relate to how much money an individual might have in a particular account or who a person may have had a personal relationship with in the past. If those participating in the vetting process cannot trust that the information they feed into that process is confidential, that will harm the integrity of the whole system. Anything less than full candour would be hugely damaging and profoundly negative for our national security; this would be felt by this and future Governments and, ultimately, by the British people. Sharing this data for any person undergoing developed vetting would therefore undermine the very basis of our national security vetting system.

This is the 10th update to the House on this matter that I have provided. With the exception of the small number of documents that are withheld at the request of the police, which we intend to publish when the police are content for us to do so, the Government now consider that they have duly discharged the duties set out in the Humble Address. I will, however, return to the House for the general debate on Wednesday to provide a further opportunity for colleagues to ask questions. On that basis, I commend this statement to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Burghart]

It was on the news. The case of Peter Mandelson’s appointment remains of the utmost national importance simply because it touches on national security and on the Prime Minister’s honesty, integrity and competence. I want to make two basic points about the material before us today: the first is about disclosure, and the second about the process by which Peter Mandelson was appointed.

On disclosure, although we have a huge number of documents, it is clear that very many are missing. Some have been withheld, some have been lost, and it is clear that some have probably been destroyed. Because of the approach the Government are taking, however, it is impossible for hon. Members to know which documents fall into which category. We are told that the Metropolitan police has requested that certain documents be retained, but the Government have refused to tell us which documents are being retained.

I respect the fact that the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister has told us about three broad categories now—this is progress. We did ask for those categories some time ago and were told that we could not have them, but it turns out that we can have them. We know there is no good legal basis for the Government not to disclose to this House which documents are being withheld. The Government should tell us. Indeed, it would be possible for them to disclose those documents to the ISC or to certain Members of the House on Privy Council terms. Again, this is obfuscation. It is an unnecessary attempt to defer or deny scrutiny, and the Humble Address did not allow for the Government to redefine the request in this way. If the Government wish to retain documents because the Met police has asked them to do so, they should come back to the House and change the terms of the Humble Address. They have not done that and, consequently, they risk being in contempt.

Some Ministers have duly handed over their WhatsApp messages; it is clear that some have not. Are we to believe that there was no WhatsApp exchange at all between the Prime Minister and Peter Mandelson? We know that there was, because it has been reported in the press, and yet those messages reported in the press do not appear in the release today. It is clear that some messages have gone missing.

It is also the case that, in all these documents, the Prime Minister’s presence is almost non-existent. Despite the fact that he was appointing a man to be head of our most senior mission, we have almost nothing in his name. It is as though somehow he appointed Peter Mandelson as ambassador without leaving any documentary trace of that decision at all. It really beggars belief.

Take, for example, the former Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, well known to be a friend and ally of Mandelson. He appears to have submitted a nil return on his WhatsApp messages. I hope the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister will tell us why. Why was it that there were never any messages? That seems unlikely. Was it that those messages have been deleted? The House has a right to know. The House has a right to know in each case whether information has gone missing or it has not been handed over.

We know that Peter Mandelson has refused to hand over his phone—it is in the document. We know that he was asked to give over his phone on 31 March, some time after the Humble Address. He has declined to do so, and it is simply not acceptable that the Government should allow this to pass without some sort of pushback. The Government has within their power the opportunity to take legal action to recover the exit payment they gave to Peter Mandelson if he is not playing ball with the Humble Address.

There is then the matter of redactions. There are acres and acres of white space, a constellation of asterisks—perhaps all too appropriate for a Labour document. It is clear from the reports in the press that the ISC has had serious concerns about the redaction process. I listened to what the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister said, and I will listen with interest to what members of the Committee say in a moment. There are a huge number of redactions under the heading “Third Party”. On what grounds have those redactions been made? For example, on page 251 of part III, Mandelson refers to someone who is “currently staying” with him in Government property. This name is redacted. Why has it been redacted? Why cannot the House be told who was staying in Government property with the ambassador?

On the national security vetting material, it seems once again that the Government are happier to provide The Guardian with more information than they are prepared to provide to Parliament. Preparation of the security vetting document for publication appeared in recess, leaked by someone in Government who was familiar with it, and then we have seen that The Guardian has multiple sources saying that concerns were raised by the vetting agency about Peter Mandelson’s foreign contacts with the Chinese Minister, with Oleg Deripaska, with Tamir Hayman and so on. There were multiple sources, and yet we are being asked to believe that this information was only seen by a tiny handful of people within Government. Someone somewhere is not being frank with us.

If we had time, and we will have time on Wednesday, we could talk about the concerning information about Chagos. We could talk about the fact that Peter Mandelson, after he had been appointed, asked whether he could do paid work in Shanghai on a private basis. We could talk about the fact that Peter Mandelson wrote to the then Foreign Secretary saying,

“if you were minded to appoint me I would make sure you never regret it.”

The truth is that we must return once again to the process by which Peter Mandelson was appointed. Everything in the documents released today shows that the Prime Minister did not follow the instructions he was given by the then Cabinet Secretary on 11 August 2024. He was told to get security vetting done before the appointment was confirmed, which he did not do. He was asked to do that because the Prime Minister had been provided with a due diligence document by the Cabinet Office that said that Peter Mandelson had an ongoing friendship with Epstein after he had been sent to prison, that he had been a director of a Russian defence company that had supplied arms to Putin during his invasion of Crimea, and that he had maintained unhealthy business relations in China.

Despite this, the Prime Minister did not get the security vetting done before he made the appointment: he went ahead and made it anyway. The rest of the system was then scrabbling around afterwards to try to make up for the error, but it was the Prime Minister’s error. It was clear that due diligence was not followed. It is a failure that is visible from space, it is a failure that will define this Prime Minister’s premiership and it is a failure that will be written as his political epitaph.

[Darren Jones]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. There were three broad questions: first, on access to the documents; secondly, on what documents are available or not; and thirdly, on the redactions process.

On access to the documents, as I said in my response to the urgent question before the recess, I have been mindful of the fact that given the significant number of documents published today, we wanted to create as much time as possible for the House to scrutinise them and to be able to ask the Government questions. I agree that had I published these documents 45 minutes before standing up to give a statement for 45 minutes, that would have been insufficient in the circumstances. I hope that the hon. Gentleman welcomes the lengths that I and the Government have gone to, not only to provide the documents in advance to him, the Leader of the Opposition, the Chairs of the relevant Select Committees and other stakeholders, but to publish them much earlier than is normal, and to secure a general debate on Wednesday.

In respect of the documents that are available, as I said in my statement, this tranche plus the first tranche of documents represent the entirety of the documents that the Government have available for disclosure, except for those that have been made available to the Metropolitan police. The hon. Gentleman invited me to list the documents that have been given to the Metropolitan police. As I have said from the Dispatch Box before, I am acting on the advice of the Metropolitan police in not being able to do that, but I am pleased that he welcomes the commitment that we have secured from them to give a little more shape by setting out the categories of the documents that are being held. I remind him and the House that we have also shared the documents directly with the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, so that there is an additional check and balance within Parliament, without being able to share the documents more widely until the Met police tell us that we can do so.

The hon. Gentleman asked me about notification of the Prime Minister’s decision to appoint Peter Mandelson as ambassador. I refer him to the first tranche and the document from the Prime Minister’s principal private secretary in No. 10 communicating that decision to both the Foreign Office and the palace.

Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked me about the redactions process. As I set out in detail in my statement, that process was predominately with the Intelligence and Security Committee, where the information relates to national security or international relations. Secondly, non-national security redactions were undertaken in line with established process and precedent, with the additional check provided this morning, again by the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, in relation to third parties. I understand that the Chair has confirmed that he is happy with the process that the Government have followed.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

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

I thank the Minister for giving me access to the papers at 9.30 this morning. However, is it right that among the 1,500 pages of documents released, there is no written evidence of any mitigations being put in place either to minimise Peter Mandelson’s conflicts of interest or, more importantly, to reduce the risk to our national security that vetting had flagged, due to Peter Mandelson’s close connections with Russian oligarchs, senior Chinese officials, retired Israeli spymasters and a debt of £1 million to buy shares in a secretive Israeli start-up? Will the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister please tell us whether we will see such documents later because the police have got them, or whether they just do not exist?

[Darren Jones]

Without being able inadvertently to name specific documents, the best I can say to my right hon. Friend on the potential conflicts of interest, as I made clear in my statement, is that that nature of document has been made relevant from the perspective of the Metropolitan police criminal investigation.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Darren Jones]

The hon. Lady invites me in her first question to comment on the intent of conversations between people other than myself. I am sure the House will understand that all I can do at the Dispatch Box is refer to the documents disclosed in the bundle, given that I was not privy to those conversations.

The hon. Lady asks me a number of questions about the use of non-corporate communication channels. The guidance is very clear that non-corporate communication channels can be used, but, where government is being transacted, the decision needs to be recorded on official Government channels. None the less, WhatsApp has been used extensively, which has raised a number of questions for the Government to consider. We will do that as part of our review of the use of non-corporate communication channels, the terms of reference for which I will announce very shortly.

The hon. Lady asks me about the peerages Bill, which was confirmed in the King’s Speech recently and which we will bring forward in due course. We share the ambition to use it as a piece of legislation to modernise the House of Lords in respect of peers who have brought the House into disrepute.

The hon. Lady asks me again about putting the ministerial code on a statutory footing. We have had exchanges a number of times across the Dispatch Box, and I point to the fact that the changes this Government have already made have proven to be effective, given a number of Ministers who have had to resign.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

Any cases that are clearly a real risk to national security should alarm everyone around this House. I think back to some of the questions that I put to then Prime Minister Johnson, as you will recall, Mr Speaker, about his relationship with Alexander Lebedev, for example. We have heard about the case of Oleg Deripaska with George Osborne and Peter Mandelson, as well as other characters, which is deeply concerning.

Let me land on a point about the non-corporate communication channels and IT systems. I am delighted to hear that the Government are reviewing those, but this is a matter of urgency, because it has become the norm for civil servants and those in Government, including in previous Governments, to use the likes of WhatsApp as the normal operating system. When will that review be published?

[Darren Jones]

The first part of my hon. Friend’s question goes to the point I made in my statement about the importance of allowing the developed vetting interviews to be fully confidential. We need to ensure that when people join the Government and undertake a DV interview, they are fully transparent with the Government about any relationships they have with individuals. Turning to the review of non-corporate communications channels, I hope to be able to announce its terms of reference very shortly.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

As far as the House of Commons generally is concerned, this statement is fairly meaningless, because it is impossible to ask questions about hundreds of pages, having had a few minutes to read them. So many general debates are damp squibs, so will the Minister undertake to answer every single question that has been put to him by the time he opens the debate on Wednesday?

[Darren Jones]

indicated assent.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I see that he is nodding; that is very helpful. In my experience, these scandals are always made much worse by any covering up, so I am sure that the Minister will want to be completely open. I listened to the Opposition spokesman, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), and it is strange that the Prime Minister seems to have so little involvement in this whole affair. I am reminded of the wartime film, “The Man Who Never Was”. Does that sum up this premiership—the man who never was?

[Darren Jones]

I look forward to engaging with the right hon. Gentleman in the general debate on Wednesday, in which, of course, I commit to the House that I will do my best to answer questions that are put to me. On the Prime Minister’s communications, I point out to the House that Prime Ministers do not sit at computers, sending emails from Outlook. They have officials who action their decisions on their behalf, and that is what is represented in the disclosure.

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

It seems that Mr Mandelson’s business interests permeated every aspect of government. This afternoon, we are to debate the Health Bill and the federated data platform. Palantir, a client of Peter Mandelson’s, will clearly have a specific interest hardwired into the Bill, and we are expected to vote on it without seeing the full documentation, or having time to digest it. What exactly was the relationship between Mr Mandelson and Mr Thiel, and was that disclosed in the interview process?

[Darren Jones]

I am afraid that I am not at the Dispatch Box to speak on behalf of Mr Mandelson, and I was not in the developed vetting interview process; nor have I seen that information, so I cannot answer the specific questions that my hon. Friend has asked me. What I can do, though, is point her to the relevant comments in my statement: the Government have gone to lengths to ensure that references to Palantir have not been redacted in the documents, other than in line with normal commercial processes, given the level of interest in that company in the House.

[Mr Speaker]

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

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

First, through the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, may I thank all of the officials at the Cabinet Office who have dealt with this matter in a very thorough, professional and—as far as I am concerned—courteous way? For that, I am grateful.

Casting forward, it is probably perfectly correct that a Prime Minister should be able to make a political appointment to an ambassadorial position, but there seem to be two key lessons that need to be learned here, and I wonder whether the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister could say a word or two on both. The first is that as a matter of course, vetting should be conducted prior to making public an announcement of appointment. The second is that there seems to be confusion—the earlier pages of part I, published today, indicate this—about what being a member of the Privy Council, a Member of the House of Lords, or a former member of the Cabinet means for what type of vetting is required. Can the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister assure the House that those key lessons have been learned, and that very clear direction has been given to those who are charged with this important and sensitive job, so that they know precisely how and when to do it, and so that there is a level playing field for applicants?

[Darren Jones]

Again, I thank the hon. Gentleman, as Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, for providing oversight of the Government’s processes on behalf of Parliament. On his first question, about security clearance being concluded before an announcement is made, he is right. That is something that the Government have learned from this process, and that policy has already been changed.

The second issue he asked me about is represented in this bundle by the uncertainty about how the developed vetting policy applies to members of the Privy Council and/or Members of the House of Lords, given that Ministers are not put through the DV process, because it would be undemocratic interference with the electorate if a democratic process could be overturned by unelected civil servants. The documents show that the Government came to the right conclusion—that Peter Mandelson should go through DV clearance, even though he was a Member of the House of Lords and a Privy Counsellor—but they also show that there was some uncertainty about that. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we should strengthen the guidance to make that clear in the future.

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

The challenge for all our constituents is that every time this subject comes up, they cannot shake the sense that Peter Mandelson’s business interests hang like a grubby layer over decision making in this Government. I know that the Minister will want to challenge that, and challenge the concern that Mandelson’s behaviour was a symptom, rather than the cause, of the problem that we face. When we were last in the Chamber discussing this matter on 27 April, I asked the Minister explicitly about the Adrian Fulford review, and he assured me that the investigation of the vetting process would be completed within three to four weeks. We are now past his deadline. He will understand the concern that our constituents might have that there may be more to come. Can he reassure me that that review will be published? What will be in it?

[Darren Jones]

My hon. Friend is right to pull me up. That review has not concluded in the time in which I had initially hoped it would. Adrian Fulford is conducting the review at the moment, and knows that we want to be able to report on it shortly. I cannot tell the House what is in it yet, because I have not seen it, but as soon as I have received it, I will return to the House.

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

The documents show that in July 2025, Peter Mandelson contacted No. 10 to suggest that the Prime Minister should make time to meet Peter Thiel while he was in London. Peter Mandelson described Mr Thiel as a “celebrated techie”, and this followed the meeting in February 2025 with Palantir in Washington. First, can the Minister confirm whether that meeting with the Prime Minister happened? Secondly, is it the view of the Government, as expressed—unchallenged—by their former ambassador to the US, that a man who described Nazi Carl Schmitt as a major influence on his thinking, and who also said that freedom and democracy are incompatible, is indeed just a “celebrated techie”? Finally, can the Minister confirm that the Government will review all links and contracts between Palantir and the Government, the NHS and the police, following the revelations around Mandelson, Global Counsel and Palantir?

[Darren Jones]

On the question about whether there was a follow-up meeting further to that request, I do not know the answer, so I will not make an assumption one way or another. If the hon. Gentleman tables a parliamentary question, I am sure that we will be able to check and confirm for him. He asked me about Peter Thiel. I will not take the opportunity to give personal views about Mr Thiel, but the hon. Gentleman’s are on the record. Thirdly, he asks about a review of Palantir contracts. I think the Health Secretary has confirmed that there is a review under way on its contract with the Department of Health and Social Care.

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

I thank the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister for his statement. He has talked before about the potential implications for vetting, due diligence and non-corporate communications. Can I ask about one further area in which Ministers are keen to improve: our lobbying transparency regime? When might the House expect some progress, or to hear thoughts about how we could make that more effective, given the learnings from this episode?

[Darren Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for his excellent work in this area. The Government have learned a great deal from his expertise. The House knows that this area sits alongside other areas—non-corporate communications channels, peerage removal in the House of Lords, lobbying, transparency and the work of the Ethics and Integrity Commission—as a portfolio of work that the Government are in the process of reviewing. Now that we have completed the publication of the second tranche of these documents, we will want to accelerate our work on those subsequent areas of review. I look forward to coming back to the House with an update in due course.

[Paul Holmes]

The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister is well known for being courteous and passionate at the Dispatch Box, and I am a fan. [Hon. Members: “Hear, Hear.”] This is where I get to the bad part: he is not necessarily known for answering everybody’s questions when they ask them. On the question asked by the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), will the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister commit to opening the debate on Wednesday and, with the leave of the House, closing it, so that every Member of this House can ask him questions?

[Darren Jones]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I would not want to displease a fan with an inadequate performance from the Dispatch Box. We have considered whether I should open and close the debate on Wednesday, which would be unusual, but we have decided instead that my colleague the Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), will open the debate. I will be here for the entirety of the debate, and I will certainly do my best to answer all the questions in closing it.

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

Given that Morgan McSweeney’s name has been copied into so many messages, these disclosures show the need for us to return to the role of Labour Together. Can the Minister tell us whether any third-party redactions relate to any figures associated with Labour Together and, now that its former director has left his seat in this place, will he also tell us when we can expect a full and independent investigation of its activities?

[Darren Jones]

I refer my hon. Friend to my earlier answer at the Dispatch Box in relation to calls for an investigation of Labour Together, which is a privately owned organisation outside Government and public service. As for to her invitation to name individuals who have been protected in the disclosure by third-party redactions that do not have a direct relationship with what we are discussing today, I am not at liberty to do that, but as I said in my statement, we have put those redactions before the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee for additional checks and balances.

[Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)]

Given that the key person in this scandal, Lord Mandelson, refused to hand over his personal WhatsApp messages, how can the Government guarantee that Parliament and the public have seen the full truth? Was the Prime Minister misled, or are the Prime Minister and the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister accepting partial disclosure?

[Darren Jones]

Let me gently remind members of the Scottish National party that Nicola Sturgeon was very effective at deleting messages during the covid inquiry. It is important that Ministers do not do that, and I am sure that the SNP has learned those lessons as much as everyone else. I made it very clear in my statement that the documents that we have available in front of us—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I just say that I am not responsible for the answer? It is no use appealing to me. The Minister can answer by means of his own ability; he does not need my help.

[Darren Jones]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, but any encouragement is welcome. As I said to the hon. Gentleman, the documents relating to his questions are clearly set out in the bundle, and they speak for themselves.

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

It is very clear that Peter Mandelson should never have been appointed as our ambassador, and I know that we will all have Epstein’s victims in mind today.

It is right that the Prime Minister has called for the removal of peerages from disgraced peers. In view of the comments from the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart), can the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister confirm that the removal of peerages Bill, which appeared in the King’s Speech, will actually have teeth, and will enable us to radically reform the upper Chamber?

[Darren Jones]

We are concluding internal drafting of the peerages Bill, and will look to secure time to introduce it in this Session. I can assure my hon. Friend and the House that we want to introduce legislation that is effective and meaningful; that is certainly our intention.

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

I think the country has a right to know how the Prime Minister reacted at the end of Mandelson’s vetting process. Have the Prime Minister’s comments on the outcome of the vetting been released, are they being withheld, or are we expected to believe that he made no comment about it at all?

[Darren Jones]

Let me make two points. As I made clear in my statement, vetting documents have been withheld by the Metropolitan police, although some of the documents have gone through the Intelligence and Security Committee, but I refer the right hon. Gentleman to what the Prime Minister said previously. As has been clear, the Foreign Office did not flag this information with the Prime Minister; he was not aware of it until it had been leaked to The Guardian.

[Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)]

I thank the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister for his statement, and I associate myself with his comments about Epstein’s victims, who must be at the forefront of our minds. However, a significant amount of material in this tranche was reviewed by the Intelligence and Security Committee. Is the Chief Secretary able to tell the House what steps officials took to ensure that any documents relating to national security and our international relations have been shared with the ISC?

[Darren Jones]

As I confirmed in my statement, more than 300 individual documents were put before the ISC for its consideration of proposals from the Government for redaction. There were a small number of redaction hearings towards the end of that process, when agreement was sought between the Government and the Committee, and all redactions currently published in the documents have been made with the full agreement of the Committee.

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

Like many of us here in this Chamber, I have not yet had the time to read the 1,000-plus pages of material released today, but the release shines the light of disinfectant on the political culture of how we treat the victims and survivors of heinous abusers of women and girls, and on the scandal of how Mandelson, despite being matey with the convicted child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, was allowed back into the highest possible office. Does the Minister agree that it is essential that this sorry episode in British political history leads to a fundamental change in political culture, so that the voices of women and girls who survive abuse at the hands of people like Jeffrey Epstein are always listened to and put front and centre?

[Darren Jones]

I certainly agree with the sentiment of the hon. Lady’s question. In relation to the time made available to read the documents, I refer her to the general debate on Wednesday, which she is perfectly able to attend.

[Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

Peter Mandelson should never have been appointed, and I look forward to the day that we can remove him as a peer. Even now, he makes a mockery of this process by not releasing his messages. Is there anything that the Government can do to compel Peter Mandelson to provide the information that this House seeks?

[Darren Jones]

I am afraid the Government have powers to compel disclosure from Government employees, Ministers and special advisers, but do not have powers to compel disclosure from third parties outside our employment. However, the Metropolitan police will be conducting a criminal investigation, and I am sure there will be disclosure through the court process, should a case be put forward by the Crown Prosecution Service in due course.

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

Further to the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), we have seen in the first tranche the box note that was sent from the Prime Minister’s private office to the Prime Minister setting out the issues and asking whether Peter Mandelson should be appointed, but that piece of paper bears no comment. When I asked the permanent secretary at the Cabinet Office about this, she said that she would have expected there to be a record of the Prime Minister having written a comment or held a meeting to discuss it. There is apparently no record of either. Is the Minister saying that it does not exist, and if it does not, why not?

[Darren Jones]

The communication of the Prime Minister’s decision does exist in the first tranche, where his principal private secretary drafted a letter communicating the Prime Minister’s decision to the relevant stakeholders.

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

All of us have a significant amount of reading to do to fully understand how the good friend of a convicted sex offender was rewarded with a top job, but it remains obvious that Epstein’s victims simply were not on the radar of the boys’ club in control at No. 10. The Minister can come to his place again and again and again, but how does he justify the culture that was in power at the time?

[Darren Jones]

I gently point out that No. 10 is not occupied solely by men; there are very senior women who work in the Labour party and the Labour Government. In relation to the sentiment of the right hon. Lady’s question, which I agree with, it is important that we have a diversity of views and a diversity of inputs into the decision-making process, regardless of whether decision makers are in Government, business or elsewhere.

[Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)]

Can the Minister confirm that the Prime Minister has not deleted any of the messages that he received electronically on any personal or Government devices in relation to Peter Mandelson?

[Darren Jones]

All of the Prime Minister’s messages have been disclosed in the bundle, in the same way as those of every other Minister.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

May I take the Minister back to the answer given to the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) earlier? Palantir is a very big and very dangerous outfit. The Government are developing a close relationship with Palantir—platforming and so on. Could the Minister assure the House that everything to do with Palantir will now be paused until we can get to the heart of the matter of how it first became embroiled in Government contracts, how it gained them and what its influence over this Government is, particularly via Peter Mandelson?

[Darren Jones]

I slightly challenge the assumption that the Government are developing a “close relationship” with Palantir. As far as I am aware, that is not true. I think Palantir has been awarded two or so contracts for Government services, and it continues to bid for services. In line with our procurement policy, it is for Departments to decide whom they give contracts to, but the right hon. Gentleman is right: there are a whole range of issues that, in line with procurement policy, Ministers and officials will need to consider, including the protection of people’s personal data, the conduct of companies, and their ability to deliver public services in line with our values.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for his statement. The media are going to have a frenzy over the tittle-tattle of all this stuff during the next three days, but to my mind the whole Mandelson affair represents a very serious breach of national security. Can the Minister reassure me and the House that the Foreign Office and the security services are turning over with a fine-toothed comb every minute of Lord Mandelson’s time as ambassador to make sure his actions in that office were in the national interest?

[Darren Jones]

I can confirm, as I think I have from the Dispatch Box before, that officials are conducting that review of documentation. We are also making sure, through the review conducted by Sir Adrian Fulford, that we avoid these situations happening in the future. In particular, Departments will have the right not to take the recommendation of UK Security Vetting when appointing people to developed vetting status.

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

I was staggered to find in the 1,500 pages published today that the victims and survivors of Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes are not referred to in any of the documents dated before Peter Mandelson’s appointment. The only reference to Epstein’s victims is an email sent after Mandelson was sacked. Victims and survivors should never be an afterthought, and they clearly were in this case. How will the Government ensure that the trauma of Epstein’s victims and survivors is never betrayed again?

--- Later in debate ---

[Darren Jones]

I would first say to the hon. Member that the disclosure of information from Bloomberg and subsequently from the United States Department of Justice showed a depth and extent of relationship between Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein that nobody was aware of—nobody was aware of that until that information became public—but that does not excuse the point he makes in his question. He is right that, as I have said at the start of every statement from the Dispatch Box on this issue, while we debate all these procedural issues about WhatsApp, security vetting or who was given a job on what basis, at the heart of this are the most atrocious crimes—unimaginable to all of us—by Jeffrey Epstein in relation to many young women and girls. We know that this is not just confined to Jeffrey Epstein; sadly, violence against women and girls is a more widespread issue. The Government are working hard in trying to tackle that issue, in line with our commitment to halve it over the course of this Parliament.

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

The central figure in this entire saga is someone who enjoyed a cosy relationship with Ministers at the heart of this Government, yet he has refused to hand over his mobile phone and Ministers, many of whom he had as close friends, seem simply to have accepted that refusal. Does the Minister really expect this House to believe that full transparency has been achieved when Mandelson continues to be able to pick and choose what evidence he allows us to see?

[Darren Jones]

I share the right hon. Lady’s sentiment, but the Government do not have the legal power to require the disclosure of Peter Mandelson’s device. As I have said in earlier statements, other powers are available—for example, to the Metropolitan police and others, should the CPS proceed to put a criminal investigation before the courts—so that may become clearer in the future. However, the Government have done everything we can to ensure we have provided full disclosure in compliance with the Humble Address.

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

On page 243 of volume II part III, the Minister’s predecessor, talking about Labour MPs, states:

“Every meeting I have is ‘who can we tax in order to pay benefits to others’.”

Is that the same experience the Minister is having in every meeting he has?

[Darren Jones]

No.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister is obviously well liked by me and this House, and we appreciate his honesty in his answers, although they may not have all the information we are seeking. I very gently remind him that the general public view these continued delays as obstructive. The Government’s goal must be to show that no one is beyond scrutiny and accountability, and any further delays or redactions will not help to reach that goal. Will he undertake to ensure that these delays end, the material is released and the general public are assured that we are all accountable for our mistakes and hat these lessons have to be and must be learned?

[Darren Jones]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. He knows, because I have said it repeatedly at the Dispatch Box, that I take very seriously the role of Parliament holding the Government to account, in particular, as a former Select Committee Chair, the role of Select Committees as well as the statements and questions we make and answer on the Floor of the House. That is why I have gone to lengths to ensure that the Intelligence and Security Committee, the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, and the Foreign Affairs Committee—the lead Committees on this—have been given as full and as transparent access to the process and the documents as I have been able to make available, and why I have secured additional time for Members to be able to ask further questions on Wednesday.

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

On pages 115-116 in volume II, part I of the documents released today, there is an email from Olly Robbins dated 16 September 2025 in which he writes to another senior civil servant in Downing Street saying that he has still not yet seen “potentially crucial documents” in relation to the appointment of Peter Mandelson. That date is important: it is the same day that Chris Wormald, the former Cabinet Secretary, wrote to the Prime Minister saying that all “appropriate processes” had been followed in appointing Peter Mandelson. Can those two things be true? Can appropriate processes have been followed if Mr Robbins himself had not seen these “potentially crucial documents”?

[Darren Jones]

That is an important question, Mr Speaker, but a question I am unable to answer given I was not privy to those discussions at the time. Maybe if other Select Committees are able to ask questions in the future, they might put that to the relevant people.

Senior Civil Service

Darren Jones Excerpts

Thursday 21st May 2026 Written Statements

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

I am today announcing the Government’s decision to accept, in part, the recommendations of the Senior Salaries Review Body on pay for the senior civil service for 2026-27. This is being laid in Parliament today and published on gov.uk.

This Government greatly value the independent expertise and insight of the SSRB and broadly accept its recommendations for the SCS for the 2026-27 pay round.

In January this year, I set out the need to reward the doers, not the talkers, in the civil service and my intention to award higher, but fewer, bonuses to those exceptional senior civil servants who go above and beyond, in order to incentivise faster delivery and innovation.

Following this, the Government received the SSRB’s 2026 report on 6 March. The SSRB recommended:

That all members of the senior civil service should receive a 3.5% consolidated increase to base pay from 1 April 2026, setting the following changes to the SCS pay ranges from 1 April 2026:

SCS pay band 1: £86,000 to £117,800.

SCS pay band 2: £105,000 to £162,500.

SCS pay band 3: £135,000 to £208,100;

and a central pot, comprising 1.0% of the total SCS pay bill, is allocated for the introduction of pay progression for the SCS from 1 April 2026, supporting our commitment to incentivise and reward the highest levels of performance.

The Government have very carefully considered the advice provided by the independent SSRB and fully understand the justifications by the SSRB for reaching its recommendations. Improving the pay system for the SCS is an important and long-standing objective and the Government are grateful for the SSRB’s work and recommendations.

This is just the start of improving our pay system. It represents an important milestone in modernising a framework to foster a dynamic and innovative civil service. Alongside the changes I announced to the bonus scheme in January, I am proud to announce that for the first time ever, we are introducing performance-based pay progression for the senior civil service—with those who deliver for the public being rewarded with salary increases. This is one of the many steps I am taking to power up the system to make sure words are turned into action and what happens in Westminster is followed through to the streets, schools and livelihoods of people in every part of the country.

In the light of the overall constraints posed by the current affordability context, as well as fairness across the wider public sector, the first recommendation on consolidated increases to pay is only partially accepted. The Government have decided that the total increase in SCS pay should be 3.5%. This means that base pay increases for all members of the SCS will be limited to a 2.5% increase in base pay, as well as the 1% of the SCS pay bill designated to the introduction of pay progression. The Government accept all other recommendations in full.

In addition, as outlined in the former Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster’s letter to the SSRB Chair of 22 July 2025, recommendations made by the SSRB in relation to the Permanent Secretary group will be additionally considered by the Permanent Secretary Remuneration Committee.

The Government are also publishing their civil service pay remit guidance, which includes the introduction of a voluntary pay compression framework to allow Departments to address pay compression affecting the lowest paid.

This Government value the leadership role that senior civil servants play in driving their ambitions on public sector modernisation and delivery. After years of cuts to public investment, and lack of support for innovation, the public sector has become disjointed, overworked and often resourced in the wrong places.

The implementation of these recommendations will support the ambition for a modernised and simplified pay structure that is driven by increased performance and delivery. Through shorter pay ranges and the introduction of performance-based pay progression, these recommendations enable the Government to drive a more productive, and incentivised senior workforce to lead the country through increasingly complex challenges—so that together, we can build a Britain that is richer, fairer and stronger.

I am grateful to the chair and members for their report.

[HCWS64]

Lord Mandelson: Government Response to Humble Address

Darren Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 19th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the Government’s approach to redacting or withholding documents within scope of the Humble Address agreed by the House on 4 February 2026.

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

As I have set out to this House on previous occasions, the Government are working to comply with the motion passed in February. I can reassure the House that this remains the case, and I can provide the following update today.

The Government confirmed before Prorogation that we had referred more than 300 documents to the Intelligence and Security Committee. At the time, that represented all the documents in scope of the motion where the Government believed that publication would be prejudicial to UK national security or international relations. The Government have repeatedly assessed all the documents we have collected to make sure that all of those that need to be referred to the ISC are referred to the Committee. As part of this quality control process, the Government identified a small number of further documents that we felt should be reviewed by the ISC, and we immediately submitted those documents to the Committee. As Friday’s statement from the Committee set out, it has now considered all those documents.

As I have previously said to the House, the Government will be publishing a second tranche of material. This is currently being finalised and will be one of the largest Government publications ever laid in this House. That is reflective of the breadth of the motion, and also the Government’s commitment to transparency in responding to it. It constitutes a very significant disclosure exercise involving sensitive material from across Government. The Government have taken seriously our obligations to comply with the Humble Address in full, while also upholding other public interest issues, such as our duty of care to junior staff. The Government have carried out this work according to a robust process, with assurance from an independent KC.

Given that the House is due to rise on Thursday, and given the length of the publication, the second tranche will now be published after Whitsun recess to give the House sufficient time to review the material and to be able to ask me and the Government questions. It could have been published this Thursday, but I felt that the House would have deemed that to be inappropriate, given that it will be such a significant publication. [Interruption.] To refer back to my previous comments, this will be the largest publication—other than, I think, the Chilcot inquiry report—ever published to the House.

When the Government publish the second tranche of documents, we will also publish a methodology confirming the process we have followed, and the basis on which content has been redacted will be clear from the published information. The targeted redactions made to the material, beyond those relevant to national security or international relations, have been made in line with clear precedent set by previous Administrations in responding to Humble Addresses.

As I set out to the House on 23 February, and again when we published the first tranche of material on 11 March, we have taken the normal approach to redacting junior officials’ names, contact details such as telephone numbers and email addresses, the personal data of third parties where that is not in scope of the motion, and, where relevant, legal professional privilege. That has been done using the principles set out in the Freedom of Information Act 2000, and in line with the ministerial code and the resolutions on ministerial accountability passed by both Houses in 1997. Those resolutions state:

“Ministers should be as open as possible with Parliament, refusing to provide information only when disclosure would not be in the public interest, which should be decided in accordance with relevant statute”.

I am sure that Members across the House will recognise that there is no public interest in the Government publishing the names and contact details of junior officials or their telephone numbers.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Minister, you have been in the House for some time. Ministers have three minutes to respond to an urgent question, and it is over three and a half minutes now. I was not given notice of extra time being needed, and other people would obviously need to know that, too. I set out the rules of the House, and we should adhere to them. We have broken them once again, and we have only been back a few days.

[Darren Jones]

Forgive me, Mr Speaker. In that case, I will sit down and provide further detail in answer to questions from Members.

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question, and I thank the Minister for what he has said. As you and the House know, the Intelligence and Security Committee has been considering redactions to documents on the grounds that, if unredacted, those documents may prejudice national security or international relations. It has become apparent to us that the Government also intend to redact documents for other reasons not specifically permitted in the Humble Address or, in some cases, to withhold documents altogether.

As the Minister says, the Government issued a list of further grounds on which they intended to redact along with the first tranche of documents that they published. Those grounds include email addresses, phone numbers and what is described as personal data. There is no mechanism for the House to confirm that those redactions are limited only to what is necessary, but I want to ask the Minister about material that the Government intend to withhold for yet further reasons, such as commercial confidentiality or to protect the monarch. The Government also intend to withhold some documents related to vetting in their entirety.

I should make it clear that my Committee has considerable sympathy with the substantive arguments that the Government may make for withholding information beyond that currently justified in the Humble Address. There are, for example, valid concerns about the disclosure of information given in a vetting process inhibiting future subjects of vetting, or those who are asked about them, from being as open and forthcoming as they need to be for vetting to be effective. However, we cannot accept that the Government are entitled to ignore, or unilaterally alter, the terms of the Humble Address.

Does the Minister accept that if the Government want to argue that the Humble Address is too broad as drafted and needs to be refined, they must come to the House and make that argument, and secure the House’s consent to any alteration? Does he further accept that without doing so, when the next set of documents is published with information withheld, the Government will not succeed in persuading the House or the wider world that this matter is closed? Finally, does he accept that if the Government took it upon themselves to redact or withhold information contrary to the terms of the Humble Address by which they agreed to be bound in February, that would be an issue not just of process, but of parliamentary sovereignty?

[Darren Jones]

In response to the questions from the right hon. and learned Gentleman about compliance with the Humble Address, I refer him to the statement that I have made previously in relation to the principles set out in legislation and the motions of the House.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman was, I think, asking me specifically about personal data that was collected as part of the security vetting process. As I think he suggested, the raw data that is collected as part of those investigations—perhaps relating to how much money someone has in a particular account, or with whom that person may have had a personal relationship in the past—would never be published, because if we did so, people would feel unable to answer those questions honestly and frankly in any UK security vetting investigation in the future, which would undermine the very basis of our national security system.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

My first concern is about the number of WhatsApp and other channels that have been used for very informal but important communications between officials and Ministers—a practice that seems to have started very actively under the Johnson Government and continued thereafter. My second concern is about the use of low-level IT systems for quite serious documents of record. Can the Minister update the House on what is being done to tighten up those important channels?

[Darren Jones]

I share those concerns as well as similar concerns that have been raised by the Intelligence and Security Committee, not only about the extensive use of what we call non-corporate communications channels but about information that should have been on a higher level of classification that was shared at “official sensitive”. I have already announced to the House the imminent start of a review of the use of non-corporate communications channels, and I shall be taking further action to ensure that sensitive information is shared at the appropriate classification.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

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

The House gave the Government a clear instruction that the only documents that could be redacted were those that might prejudice UK national security or international relations, and all those documents were to be referred to the Intelligence and Security Committee, so for my incredibly respected right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) to say that the Government have applied redactions to documents sent to the ISC, beyond the scope agreed by the House, and have also withheld documents entirely from the ISC, is an extremely serious matter that completely undermines what the House agreed. There may be legitimate reasons why the Government do not want to place certain matters in the public domain, but if the Humble Address motion does not allow for redaction on those grounds, the Government cannot just unilaterally decide to ignore the will of the House.

Sadly, this pattern of backsliding fits a pattern of behaviour. The Prime Minister’s chief of staff had to resign over the Mandelson scandal, but apparently he is already back and advising the Prime Minister. We forced the Government to hold an inquiry into the grooming gangs, but then they sabotaged it and dragged their feet for a whole year. We said that it needed to be harder to obtain indefinite leave to remain; the Home Secretary said she would do it, but Labour Back Benchers did not like it, and now it is not in the King’s Speech. Again and again, as soon as attention moves elsewhere, the Government start backsliding.

We now expect the Government to discuss their approach to the Humble Address constructively, and we would welcome such discussions. Let me therefore ask the Minister some questions. Now that the ISC has reviewed all the documents, when will the Government release all the rest of the Mandelson files? The Minister has said “after Whitsun”; when after Whitsun? Will the Government return to the House to ask permission for the redactions that they clearly wish to make which go beyond the scope of the Humble Address? Will the Minister brief Opposition Members, on Privy Council terms, about the broader redactions that the Government clearly wish to make?

Labour Members voted for a cover-up when they voted against referring the Prime Minister to the Privileges Committee over this matter. [Interruption.] They do not like it, but it is true. This House, and the people of this country, deserve better than yet another cover-up.

[Darren Jones]

I take these matters very seriously, as I am sure Members across the House would recognise, and I will not for one instant countenance the idea that, as loud as the hon. Gentleman may want to shout it, there is a cover-up. If there was any suggestion of a cover-up, I would not be standing at this Dispatch Box to defend the process; I would resign. That has not been the case, and I suggest the hon. Gentleman may want to focus on the substance of the matter at hand.

On the questions the hon. Gentleman has put to me, I have answered them in the statement and in my answer to the deputy Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, and I refer him to my previous answers.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I rise to support the ISC in its carefully considered concerns, and I am disappointed at the answer that the Government have given. It seems to me that one of the questions on the Mandelson appointment is: why, when the United Kingdom Security Vetting document had two red boxes ticked, including “This man should not be appointed”, was that somehow or other translated into “He should be appointed”?

It is very important that the public know and understand that we are learning from the mistakes that were clearly made, and we cannot know that lessons have been learned unless the documents are checked. My Committee and the ISC are trying our best to get to the truth, and we are having obstacles put in our way. For that reason, I believe that the ISC should be allowed to look at the file, with proper redactions, to understand how mitigations could be put in place to make us safe when it came to the appointment of Peter Mandelson.

[Darren Jones]

To confirm, the documents that relate to the recommendation put to the Foreign Office and the Foreign Office’s decision to appoint Peter Mandelson irrespective of the recommendation that was put to it have been referred to the Intelligence and Security Committee. What has not been referred is the raw data collected as part of interviews undertaken with Peter Mandelson, which in any circumstances we would not share in relation to any appointment. I confirm that neither I nor any decision maker in this process has seen that level of personal detail, because it is kept so securely to ensure that, when people go through this process, they feel able to give full and frank answers, without a wide range of politicians or others seeing their deeply personal information.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

This House did not pass the motion on the Humble Address so that Ministers could decide, four months later, which inconvenient information they would prefer that Parliament did not see. Given the ISC’s concerns that the Government are redacting information far too broadly, we must ensure that the Government are not just withholding documents and information from Parliament on their own say-so. Every day this pantomime drags on, public trust erodes further. Parliament asks for transparency, Epstein’s victims deserve justice and the public deserve answers, not redactions. The point is not that any Member of this House wants a junior civil servant’s personal data to be published, but that it is not the Government’s decision where the line is to be drawn.

Given that documents on Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s trade envoy role are also due to be laid before this House shortly, will the Minister confirm that he will personally ensure that those are produced without redaction, too?

[Darren Jones]

On the first part of the hon. Lady’s question on the assumptions about the Government withholding information that we should not withhold, I am afraid that that is just incorrect. This is the most extensive disclosure of information, I think ever, in relation to a Humble Address. The sheer depth of the document when it is published will illustrate the point that the Government have gone to great lengths to ensure that we are complying with the Humble Address. That is why we established the process with the Intelligence and Security Committee and the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, with independent KC oversight: to ensure that the process is done properly.

On the hon. Lady’s question about the motion in relation to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, that Humble Address is being administered by the Department for Business and Trade, and I understand the document is due to be published very shortly.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

I have asked the Minister, both in this House and through written questions on numerous occasions, to give the House reassurances that Morgan McSweeney only ever handled documents for which he had the appropriate level of security vetting when working in Downing Street. The vagueness of the Minister’s replies has been noted by Members of this House and journalists, so today I again give the Minister a chance to put this issue to bed by stating clearly on the record that, at all times while working in Downing Street, Morgan McSweeney had the appropriate level of security clearance for all the documents he handled.

[Darren Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and I refer him to my previous answer.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

The Minister will be aware that on 21 April the ISC, on which I sit, made it clear that the

“Humble Address does not allow for documents to be withheld from Parliament, only for redactions to be made where the ISC has agreed to them.”

Last week, we were obliged to issue a further statement saying that it had come to our attention that documents were being withheld from the ISC. The right hon. Gentleman may feel that that is justified, but the Humble Address does not permit it. The point is that he is confusing scrutiny with disclosure. The ISC is well used to making judgments about what is made public. That is why the House chose the ISC as the mechanism to deal with these matters. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, in line with the Humble Address, all material will be submitted to the ISC? In particular, will he confirm that there was no document or any communication—emails and so on—related to the mitigation of any risks associated with Peter Mandelson’s appointment?

[Darren Jones]

All documents that are in the scope of the Humble Address will be published in the normal way. On the right hon. Member’s question about the work of the Intelligence and Security Committee, any redactions that had any relationship with international relations or national security have been submitted to the Committee for its consideration. As he knows, and as I have confirmed to the House, that process has concluded. I think he is asking me again about personal data, and I refer him to my statement, which makes the point that compliance with the Humble Address sits in the context of the Freedom of Information Act, the ministerial code and motions passed by both Houses about how to comply with such a motion. As I have said, all further information will be published in due course.

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)]

I am very concerned that it appears that No. 10 is still continuing to cover up Mandelson’s dodgy dealings by redacting and withholding certain information. What was Mandelson’s role in the Prime Minister’s meeting with Palantir, why did the former Health Secretary grant Palantir unlimited access to identifiable NHS patient data, and what assurances can the Minister give us that any information relating to Mandelson’s involvement with Palantir will be exposed to full public transparency and scrutiny?

[Darren Jones]

I can confirm to my hon. Friend that all documents will be published in relation to the Humble Address, as I have set out today and previously, but I again reassert the fact that any suggestion of a cover-up is merely a conspiracy theory.

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

When Olly Robbins appeared before us on the Foreign Affairs Committee, he was asked why he did not view the summary document produced by UK Security Vetting. He pointed to the sensitivity of the vetting interviews—what the Minister calls the raw detail—and said that those detailed vetting files should remain in a “hermetically sealed box”. We have heard that that box was not opened for sharing with the Prime Minister, and it has not been opened for sharing with those of us who sit on the Intelligence and Security Committee. The Government do need the consent of Parliament to keep the full details sealed and inaccessible to the ISC. In the future, does the Minister intend the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to have the discretion to award developed vetting, or will that sit solely with UKSV?

[Darren Jones]

As I have said, any summary documentation and recommendation that was put by UKSV to the Foreign Office has been shared with the hon. Gentleman’s Committee. What has not been shared was the raw data collected in interviews with Peter Mandelson. As I have said repeatedly to the House, and as I am sure the hon. Gentleman agrees, there is not such a mechanism for that level of personal detail—I am talking about how much money someone has in personal accounts, and who they may or may not have had a relationship with in the past—because if it was known that that could be made public to politicians, people going through the security process would not feel able to give full and frank answers, and that would undermine the very nature of our national security system. I am sure that, as a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, he would not wish to advocate for that.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

I would like to thank the ISC and the Foreign Affairs Committee for their roles in this process. Although it has not been mentioned today, would the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister provide the House with an update on the Government’s proposed legislation to remove peerages from those disgraced peers?

[Darren Jones]

I was delighted to see it confirmed last week in the King’s Speech that that legislation will be introduced in this Session. We will be bringing it forward shortly.

[David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)]

I press the Minister on his lack of answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes). When it became apparent that Mandelson posed an obvious and serious security risk to the state, it was said that ongoing mitigations were put in place to control that risk. Will the ISC see those ongoing mitigations? And if not, why not?

[Darren Jones]

I think this is a question specifically to the Foreign Office in relation to evidence given by the former permanent secretary, and it is about how mitigations can be put in place to manage risks. For example, as I understand it, Mr Speaker, if you previously had a client in a commercial relationship with a business, you would not be allowed to meet them privately while you held public office. These are the types of mitigations to which I think the Foreign Office was referring, and I think they sound legitimate in the circumstances.

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

I thank the Minister for his response to the urgent question and for the way he conducts himself on this very sensitive issue. I know that when he stands at the Dispatch Box to talk about it, his thoughts are with the victims of Jeffrey Epstein. Will the second tranche of materials include materials that have previously been referred to the ISC?

[Darren Jones]

The second tranche of information will publish all remaining documents except those that are currently with the Metropolitan police in relation to ongoing criminal investigations. As I said to the House, this will be a very significant publication, which will warrant careful consideration from Members across the House. We want to publish it with sufficient notice to allow Members to consider it before coming to the House to ask any questions they may have of the Government, which is why we are now publishing it after the Whitsun recess.

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

In more than 30 years of its existence, the Intelligence and Security Committee has never once suffered from a leak. Therefore, anything that is disclosed to it, no matter how sensitive, is not going to be published. Therefore, the question of it undermining the security vetting process if such raw data were published does not arise, because the ISC is the one parliamentary body guaranteed to ensure that that does not happen. So can the Minister stop obfuscating on that aspect and can he confirm that, irrespective of the question of the raw data, what will definitely be made available to the ISC, if it has not been already, are the annotations and the documents that show how an initial failure to pass vetting for Lord Mandelson became a decision to approve him and state that he had been successful in getting through the process?

[Darren Jones]

I can confirm that all documents that need to be referred to the ISC have now been referred to it. That process has concluded, which is why we can move to publication after the recess.

[Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)]

The Minister must accept that there is no more august Committee in this place than the ISC. He must further accept that it is the least partisan organ of this Parliament. It is against that incomprehensible reality that the pedlars of chaos in No. 10 have sought to confound the ISC by withholding information and deviating unilaterally from the terms of the Humble Address. The Minister has given himself and No. 10 till after the Whitsun recess. Will he say very clearly when after Whitsun recess he will release the next tranche of documents?

[Darren Jones]

Let me reassert: I really do not think Members are advocating that the raw information collected as part of national security screening interviews with people who are becoming public servants ought to be shared with Parliament. The summary of those recommendations and the advice put to Departments should be and have been shared, and I think that is the appropriate way to handle that. The hon. Gentleman asks me specifically when after the Whitsun recess the document will be published. We stand ready to do so as soon as we are able to secure the time in the House.

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

This is a deeply unhappy and unacceptable situation. It is completely unacceptable, after writing and raising questions informally with officials and the Minister himself, for the Chair and members of the ISC to have to come to this House to pose an urgent question. Will the Minister confirm that if there are any changes to permissions, he will come to this House and seek approval from the House for those changes?

[Darren Jones]

I think I am right in saying that the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam, who secured the urgent question, made the point that the Committee was in some agreement in relation to the Government’s argument about sharing raw data. I do not think that is the issue in dispute, so I am not sure that any suggestion of withholding information against the will of the motion is in contention. The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith) asks me about compliance with the motion more generally; I refer him to my previous answer.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

I simply repeat that the House, surely, has a right to know when we are going to get the report. The ISC said that it was unhappy with the amount of WhatsApp messaging being used by the Government. The image being created among the public is that of a Government who are avoiding the issue and are incompetent, and that is undermining public confidence. The Minister started off by saying he could have presented the document this Thursday. If he knows he could have done that on Thursday, will he tell us when after Whitsun we will see it?

[Darren Jones]

As I say and as the House will see when the document is published, if I had published the document on Thursday, with the House rising on Thursday afternoon, Members would rightly have criticised the Government for not being able to have sufficient time to read it and ask questions of the Government. I am keen for it to be published as soon as possible after the Whitsun recess and I am arranging that with business managers.

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

I am afraid that the answers about publication simply are not good enough. The Minister may think that he is putting an argument to this House, but he is treating this House and the public as a bunch of mugs. The reality is that one of his own Back Benchers said that, as a result of what has happened, his party is being called the paedo protectors party. Will the right hon. Gentleman publish the data before the unnecessary and costly by-election—yes or no?

[Darren Jones]

The information will be published to the House after the Whitsun recess, as I set out. I am afraid that I just disagree with the right hon. Gentleman’s sentiment.

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

I add to the comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine). The Minister outlined a date this week that the information could have been published, so why can he not commit to a timetable so we can hold him to account? That is the key point. This whole grubby saga has highlighted why the public do not seem to think that the ministerial code and responsibility in government count for anything any more. As a lesson from this grubby saga, will the Minister bring forward legislation to make the ministerial code binding and ensure consequences, so that action is taken when Ministers fall short and do not honour their end of the deal?

[Darren Jones]

The Government believe the ministerial code is functioning as it should. We have increased the accountability measures associated with it. Where legislation is required—for example to remove peerages from disgraced peers in the other place—we will bring it forward shortly.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

Do Labour MPs not realise that it is because of high-handed behaviour like this that they suffered such a drubbing on 7 May? The Minister has said that the documents will be published after we return from Whit on 1 June, but he has repeatedly refused to answer whether or not they will be published by the Makerfield by-election on 18 June. Let me ask him yet again: can he guarantee to the House and the constituents we represent that this large batch of documents will be published in advance of the Makerfield by-election on 18 June—yes or no?

[Darren Jones]

The right hon. Gentleman knows we have to secure time in the House with business managers. I am ready for the document to be published as soon as we are ready to do so, and I have committed to do so after the recess.

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

One thing this sorry episode has achieved is to make the Minister an absolute expert on warm words and platitudes. I want to go back to the issue of disappearing messages, which was raised earlier. Obviously, those messages are not retrievable, but the very minimum we should get is a detailed breakdown of all those who were asked to supply information and said they could not do so because they had disappearing messages on their phones. We are entitled to know which Ministers’ communications and which conversations are no longer accessible to us.

[Darren Jones]

All of the documents that have been made available through the Humble Address will be published in the second tranche.

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

In 2021, the Prime Minister wrote an essay in which he said,

“Where the current Tory government has muddied the waters of transparency…I want to make it easier to hold government to account.”

He said that a Labour Government must

“play its role in restoring honesty, decency and transparency in public life”—

and yet here we are. Does the Minister agree that after all the redacting of messages, it is not only the Labour party that is being damaged, but democracy itself?

[Darren Jones]

The hon. Gentleman is making assumptions about redactions that he has neither seen nor read. Redactions have been made in relation to personal data or national security and international relations—that is it.

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

The Government stand accused by not one but two of the most august Committees in this House of not playing fair in giving across the information. The Minister’s argument is simply that the Government have done nothing wrong. If that is the case, why would both of those Committees come to this House and lay those accusations?

[Darren Jones]

That is a question for those Committees.

[Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)]

The Foreign Affairs Committee heard about the pressure that the Foreign Office was under to move quickly on the appointment of Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United States. Now, concerns have been raised about the lack of transparency surrounding the papers connected to that appointment. If the Government have nothing to hide, why are they changing the terms and scope of the Humble Address, and withholding and redacting documents from the Intelligence and Security Committee? Will the Minster ensure that the UKSV summary document will be shared with the ISC?

[Darren Jones]

The Government are not trying to amend the terms or scope of the Humble Address—that is a factually incorrect statement. The hon. Member asked me about documents that can be shared with the Intelligence and Security Committee in relation to UKSV’s recommendations and the decisions made by the Foreign Office. I can confirm that those documents have been shared.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his response to the urgent question. Constituents have contacted me regarding the overreach of Government bodies and their refusal to stay within their parameters, as displayed in the last few days by the legal judgment that the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland’s claim of collusion in the Royal Ulster Constabulary exceeded the ombudsman’s legal powers. Today we have an urgent question, and constituents are again highlighting overreach and a refusal to be accountable to the public. Rebuilding trust is vital, and I believe the Minister is committed to doing that, but will he start the process of rebuilding trust in all aspects of public life when appointed individuals refuse to stay within their limits? What steps can be taken at every level of public service?

--- Later in debate ---

[Darren Jones]

I share the hon. Member’s sentiment on public trust, which is why the Government have initiated the Ethics and Integrity Commission, updated the ministerial code, and are bringing forward legislation on the removal of peerages from disgraced peers in the other place. We are undertaking what is probably the most wide-ranging work on ethics and standards in public life for many decades.

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)]

When Parliament passed the Humble Address, it was very clear that the House did not trust the Government on this issue, which is why we wanted the ISC involved. It is clear that there are redactions happening beyond the will of Parliament. If that is the case, does the Minister accept that he has to come to the House to ask for permission, and if he does not do so, then he needs to tell us why?

[Darren Jones]

I refer to my opening statement in relation to compliance with the Humble Address and the right for the Government to withhold information subject to public interest duties—for example, the names and contact details of junior officials. All redactions that are in relation to national security and international relations have been submitted to the Intelligence and Security Committee and agreed in line with the Humble Address.

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

Given the scale and significance of the Mandelson files due to be released, why does the Minister not accept that the review of those files over the Whitsun recess would be a good use of everyone’s time, with questions to Ministers being put after 1 June when we return? Is it because Ministers intend to limit scrutiny by this House? That is exactly what it looks like to me and to my constituents.

[Darren Jones]

The hon. Gentleman is wrong. The intent is to increase scrutiny, not to decrease it.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

Does the Minister recognise just how damning it is of the Government’s lack of regard for transparency and accountability that the ISC finds itself in the position of having to publicly condemn their actions?

[Darren Jones]

Questions about the Committee’s statement are for the Committee. As I have set out, we have complied fully with the Humble Address and the work of the Intelligence and Security Committee.

[David Davis]

On a point of order, given that this applies directly to the Minster, I draw the House’s attention to the motion tabled by the now Prime Minister on 4 December 2018 following non-compliance with a previous Humble Address. It starts:

“That this House finds Ministers in contempt for their failure to comply with the requirements of the motion for return passed on 13 November 2018”. —[Official Report, 4 December 2018; Vol. 650, c. 668.]

That motion was passed by this House.

We have just debated an area where the Government may potentially be in contempt of the House; indeed, the obfuscation we have heard looks like that. It is important that the House and the Government know that there is precedent in this area. I give notice that if, after we have received the next tranche of documents, the Humble Address has not been met in full, or if we have not been told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, I will seek to table such a motion.

Lord Mandelson Humble Address: Government Response Update

Darren Jones Excerpts

Monday 27th April 2026 Commons Chamber

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

Given the upcoming Prorogation and state opening of Parliament, I thought it would be helpful to return to the House to provide an update on the progress the Government have made to respond to the Humble Address of 4 February as quickly and thoroughly as possible.

As Members will know, the Government published the first tranche of material on 11 March. That first tranche primarily related to the aspects of the motion regarding Peter Mandelson’s appointment and his subsequent dismissal as ambassador, in addition to the details of his severance payment provided to him by the Foreign Office. Following the publication of the first tranche of material, we have been working at pace to lay a second tranche before the House. The House will recognise, given the breadth of the motion, that a very significant number of documents have been found to be in scope and that it is taking time to process them accordingly.

The Cabinet Office team responsible for the Government’s response to the Humble Address has been working through a large quantity of material, working closely with many officials across Whitehall, particularly in the Foreign Office. The team has been seeking to take an approach to sifting and publishing information that allows it to respond to the will of this House thoroughly but expeditiously, and in line with the approach taken by previous Governments in responding to Humble Addresses. This includes co-ordinating a number of requests to Government Departments to identify documents potentially in scope of the Humble Address, particularly electronic communications and the minutes of meetings between individuals and Peter Mandelson. This is the section of the motion that has the broadest scope.

As Members will have seen from the first tranche, the Government cannot publish certain details, such as the names of junior officials, personal information or legally privileged information. Separately, in line with the process agreed by the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament, the Government will not publish information that undermines or threatens our country’s national security or international relations. As colleagues will appreciate, both those processes require detailed consideration. The Government are very grateful to the ISC for its constructive engagement in that process, which we recognise has constituted significant additional work on top of its existing responsibilities. As I have set out previously, the Cabinet Office has also been working with the Metropolitan police to avoid prejudicing a live police investigation.

I can confirm that by the end of today, the Cabinet Office will have passed to the ISC all the material it has processed as part of the Humble Address and judged to be prejudicial to national security or international relations. This has amounted to over 300 individual documents. It includes a number that are relevant to the processes of Peter Mandelson’s security vetting, too. As I mentioned earlier, I am very grateful to the ISC for the important role it continues to play in the Humble Address process, and for the speed with which it is processing the documents.

I would like to reassure colleagues that Parliament will receive the second tranche of material as soon as possible following the state opening and the conclusion of the work of the ISC, and I will return to the House at that point. I commend this statement to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

I thank the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement and for taking this statement himself; it is good of him not to delegate. This was not his mess—that was the 2024 Budget—but I am afraid it is now his mess to clear up.

I have to ask: where are the documents? The Humble Address was nearly 12 weeks ago. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that on that occasion the House asked for a huge range of things: the due diligence document that was passed to No. 10; the conflict of interest form; the material that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Cabinet Office provided to UK Security Vetting about Peter Mandelson; papers for and minutes of meetings relating to the decision to appoint Lord Mandelson; electronic communications; and so on. Where are they? Since February, the Government have asserted that they are working with urgency and that everything will be available very shortly, that they are working, in that least reassuring of Government phrases, “at pace”, and—today’s favourite—that the information will be available as soon as possible. That is, no doubt, as soon as possible after the local elections.

In the documents that have been released, what we appear to see is either an enormous cover-up or a very significant breakdown in the expected process of government. We have seen nothing from the Prime Minister, nothing from his chief of staff and nothing from Peter Mandelson himself; we have seen no minutes of meetings, no billets-doux, no annotations and no box returns. The official civil service guidance on this matter says explicitly:

“Keep submissions with ministers’ comments. If ministers write on a hard copy, keep the minister’s handwritten comments. Keep correspondence reporting ministers’ responses along with background provided to ministers in the medium in which they were created”.

We have seen none of this. This is either a cover-up or a terrible return to the days of sofa government under Tony Blair.

Simon Case told the Prime Minister that in order to complete due process, there had to be security clearance before he made the appointment, and a conflict of interest declaration had to be made by Peter Mandelson. To date, we have seen none of that information. I am pleased to hear the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister say that material associated with Mandelson’s vetting is now being handed to the ISC, but where is the conflict of interest form? I hope it is not the case that this is being disguised as personal information of the sort that the right hon. Gentleman said would not be disclosed, and I would be grateful if he could confirm that it is not.

I would also like the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister to confirm that that declaration of interest form exists. There is no good reason why he cannot tell us whether it does. Indeed, the former Attorney General wrote the other day in the papers that there is no legal reason why the Government cannot tell us which documents are being retained by the Metropolitan police. There should be a catalogue of all documents that exist; even if the House cannot look at them, we should be allowed to know what is out there and what will come to us in due course. The titles of documents will themselves not prejudice a trial.

The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister has today talked about the non-disclosure of personal information. I ask him again to tell us about the conflict of interest form and whether Peter Mandelson’s personal information is considered to be in scope of that ruling. Will he set out the Government’s precise approach to redactions vis-à-vis the documents that will be given to this House, rather than the ISC? It will be useful to understand his thinking.

On electronic communications, despite this being in the Humble Address on 4 February, I understand from the Cabinet Secretary, who wrote to me over the weekend, that there was no instruction to hand over non-corporate comms until 13 March—about five weeks after the Humble Address. Why this delay? Is the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister confident that no material was deleted in that five-week period? How can he be sure?

I again ask the right hon. Gentleman to confirm or deny whether the ISC release contains the information about Lord Mandelson’s interests. This is of specific concern to the House, given how Peter Mandelson may have behaved when he was ambassador in Washington and given the meetings that he may have taken the Prime Minister to.

It is time the Government come clean—not on their own terms or to their own timetable, but on the terms set down by the House. Will the right hon. Gentleman finally tell us a hard deadline for when these documents will be handed over?

[Darren Jones]

The hon. Gentleman asked me a number of questions, which I will take in turn. To the question of where the documents are, those in scope of the Humble Address are currently in one of three locations: first, with the Government waiting for the publication of the second tranche; secondly, with the Intelligence and Security Committee; and thirdly, with the Metropolitan police. We have sought to publish all those documents—those that the Government hold and those that the Intelligence and Security Committee are considering—in a combined bundle, in order to aid the House to see the documents in a chronological order. Otherwise, I suspect there would be questions about what documents were missing, subject to the conclusion of the Committee’s work.

I can confirm that documents that relate to Peter Mandelson’s security vetting have been passed to the Intelligence and Security Committee today, and that we intend to publish those as part of the second tranche, subject to discussions with the Intelligence and Security Committee.

I was asked specifically about the documents that have been given to the Metropolitan police. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I have been advised by the Metropolitan police that I am unable to list those documents, and so I will not seek to do so. He asked me about redactions policy; obviously the key redactions policy is in relation to information that the Government consider to be prejudicial to national security or international relations. That goes through the Intelligence and Security Committee for consideration. If there is a disagreement between the Government and the Committee, there is a process of redactions hearings between them to resolve that.

As I mentioned in my statement, other redactions relate merely to information such as the names and contact details of junior officials, in line with established freedom of information policy as it relates to the publication of Humble Addresses.

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

The whole House came together around the Humble Address on the basis that Parliament had found its way forward to deal with the evidence around the appointment of Peter Mandelson. Will my right hon. Friend guarantee the House that no documents are being withheld? Around the time that it was reported that the Prime Minister had not been told that Peter Mandelson had failed his security vetting, there were civil servants who were seeking to withhold documents. Can he give an assurance that that is no longer the case?

[Darren Jones]

As has been alluded to at the Dispatch Box, there were documents that the Humble Address warranted to be published as part of that process. The Cabinet Office was very clear about that. It took some time to get access to some of those documents, specifically in relation to UKSV recommendations. That has now concluded and the documents are going through the Intelligence and Security Committee, as I set out in my statement.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

I thank the Chief Secretary for advance sight of his statement. The women and girls who spoke out against Jeffrey Epstein and those connected to him did so at enormous personal cost. We must never lose sight of the fact that their bravery is the reason we are having this conversation at all.

The Prime Minister promised honesty, integrity and accountability. Instead, we have a tawdry saga of a political ally waved through despite serious security concerns, a senior civil servant forced out, and a Government who have descended into recrimination and infighting rather than dealing with the very serious issues the country faces. Parliament asked for transparency, and the public deserves answers. Every day this drags on, trust in our institutions erodes further.

Even though Lord Mandelson has stepped away from the House of Lords, will the Government bring in formal legislation to revoke his peerage? Will the Chief Secretary confirm whether the Government plan to bring in further legislation for much-needed reform of the other place? The deputy Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), asked in business questions on Thursday about potential further redactions made on grounds other than national security or international relations. Will the Chief Secretary confirm that there have been no redactions in what he said will be sent to the Committee by the end of today?

It has been reported that the Prime Minister is set to whip Labour MPs to oppose his referral to the Privileges Committee. Even Boris Johnson did not block his MPs from voting for scrutiny. Labour MPs must surely be given a free vote and not be forced into feeling like accomplices to a cover up. Will the Chief Secretary confirm whether Labour MPs will be whipped on tomorrow’s vote or not?

[Darren Jones]

It is not for the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister to speak about whipping arrangements at the Dispatch Box. I will leave that to the Chief Whip and the usual channels. The hon. Lady asked me two questions about reform to the other place, in particular the removal of peerages. I can confirm that legislation will be introduced shortly to bring forward the proposals that I have talked about at the Dispatch Box. She asked me further questions about redactions policy; I refer to my previous answer on that question.

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

The pain of the Epstein victims sits heavy with all of us in this House because we expect the highest standards of all of us. The challenge with this incident is that it involves a convoluted process that raises difficult questions about Government vetting and appointments. Given that, can my right hon. Friend tell us when he expects the Adrian Fulford review, which is to identify whether any other cases of concern have come to light about how appointments have been made, to be completed?

[Darren Jones]

My hon. Friend is exactly right to raise that question. The terms of reference have been confirmed with Adrian Fulford. That work has been started, and I expect it to complete in three to four weeks’ time.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for his kind words about the hard work of the Intelligence and Security Committee. He will recognise and want to reflect with the House that we cannot work any faster than the speed at which the documents are given to us by the Government; the last of them, as he said, is being given to us today. The process will not be complete by Prorogation, as perhaps it should have been.

I would like to raise two points of concern in what the Minister has said to us this afternoon. The first is about redaction. He has made it clear that the Government intend to redact for reasons beyond the Humble Address exemption related to international relations and national security; he has described that as the names of junior officials, personal information or legally privileged information. On Thursday, I put it to the Leader of the House that the Government document describing their approach to redactions is substantially wider than that. It says:

“It may also be necessary for the government to make further redactions in future publications based on other public interest principles, including”—

but of course not limited to—

“commercially sensitive information.”

Will the Minister please, either today or in writing, explain clearly on what grounds the Government intend to redact these documents? If, as I suspect, some of the grounds on which the Government propose to redact are beyond the scope of the Humble Address, will he confirm that the Government must return to this House and seek consent so to do?

With your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, my final point is also about redaction. The Minister has said in his statement that the Government will not publish information that undermines or threatens our country’s national security or international relations. As he knows, in accordance with the process agreed, it will be for the Intelligence and Security Committee to determine those questions, not the Government—won’t it?

[Darren Jones]

I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his question and confirm that the Government share the view that it is not the fault of the Intelligence and Security Committee that documents are not yet ready to be published; we hope that they will be ready shortly after the state opening of Parliament.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked me about redactions policy. I refer him to my earlier answer, but he did ask me some specific questions; I commit to seeking further advice on those and returning to the Dispatch Box. I hope that he and the House know that my intention, from the beginning of when I was asked to do this process, has been to ensure proper transparency with Parliament, which I and the Government take very seriously. If there is any suggestion otherwise, I will answer questions about that here at the Dispatch Box.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman’s second question has fallen out of my mind.

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

Forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker. It was about whether the Minister would confirm that it will be the ISC that determines redactions on the basis of international relations and national security.

[Darren Jones]

I can confirm that the Government’s agreed process with the Committee stands.

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

I thank the Chief Secretary for his statement. I am interested in the costs. We know about the £75,000 payout, and obviously a police inquiry is incredibly costly. There are the costs to his Department in complying with the Humble Address. Will he publish the costs? Will he also publish the costs in relation to Global Counsel? Its clients included Palantir, with which the Government have £800 million-worth of contracts. Will he publish how much money Global Counsel had been able to procure from the Government for being able to advance Palantir’s business interests at the time of Peter Mandelson’s appointment?

[Darren Jones]

My best answer is to refer my hon. Friend to the contracts finder tool, which publishes all public procurement contracts and their value. In relation to questions of the internal cost of processing the Humble Address, I cannot commit to give a round number; essentially it involves lots of hours of civil servants’ time across Government. They are working very hard to be able to publish these documents as quickly as possible.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

May I, through the right hon. Gentleman, thank the officials in the Cabinet Office who have assisted me in the work that I have been doing in this area as Chairman of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee? He will know that not all Government communications are carried on Government devices. Will he, for the benefit of the House, explain what is being done and what can be done to secure and get into the right domain correspondence between the principal players who have used their personal devices, rather than their Government devices? Will he also assure the House that when he and his colleagues do the sift as to who sees what and when, parliamentary privilege and all that that means is still absolutely at the heart of the decisions that he and his officials take?

[Darren Jones]

The tranche of documents will be published in the normal way to ensure that parliamentary privilege is attached to those documents and any debate that we subsequently have in relation to them. The hon. Gentleman asked me questions about personal devices and personal communications channels, which we refer to as “non-corporate communications channels” or “NCCCs” in the documents that we have published. I confirm that all relevant stakeholders who had to consider submissions to the Humble Address process have been told that that includes their personal devices and personal channels as well as any Government-owned devices and Government channels. I thank him again for his work and confirm to the House that he, as Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, kindly agreed to look at documents given to the Metropolitan police in relation to the police investigation so that we had a way—albeit a closed way—of showing due process and transparency to the House in relation to the Humble Address.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

Further to the security vetting issue in relation to Peter Mandelson, last week in the Chamber I asked questions—including to the Minister and through a point of order to the Speaker —three times, but I have not had an answer, so I would really appreciate an answer. At the point at which the Prime Minister’s former chief of staff Morgan McSweeney was involved in the appointment of Mandelson, did he himself have security vetting? On what date was Morgan McSweeney granted developed vetting clearance? Prior to that date, did Morgan McSweeney ever handle documents for which he would have required developed vetting clearance? I asked that three times in the Chamber but have not had an answer. I would be really grateful if the Minister could answer.

[Darren Jones]

The House will appreciate that I cannot comment on individual applications of policy in relation to private individuals who are no longer employed by the Government, but I reassure my hon. Friend and the House that all appropriate processes were followed.

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

In respect of the Humble Address, perhaps contrary to what was suggested earlier, the House agreed to it only on the basis that Labour MPs were about to rebel against the position that the Government had adopted. Tomorrow, something similar may arise in respect of a potential referral of the Prime Minister to the Privileges Committee. Surely the Chief Secretary has an opinion as to whether his Members behind him would want to have a free vote in respect of whether the Prime Minister has misled the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Darren Jones]

I always enjoy the right hon. Gentleman’s interventions, but that did not pertain to the statement before us. [Interruption.]

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

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. [Interruption.]. Are we all finished? I thank the Chief Secretary for returning to the House again on this issue. Will he reiterate how due process for the conducting of security vetting before appointments are announced will change as a result of this affair?

[Darren Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. As has been said at the Dispatch Box before, it was previously due process that for the appointments of ambassadors and direct ministerial appointments, vetting took place after the announcement and before the commencement of the contract for employment. Given the problems that have been shown to be applicable to these processes, that has now changed.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

A referral to the Privileges Committee has always been considered a House matter—a matter for the individual judgment of Members of Parliament. It would be an abomination if it were to be whipped by either side, wouldn’t it?

[Darren Jones]

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

[Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)]

Could my right hon. Friend the Minister please confirm whether any documents that were previously in the scope of the Humble Address have been deemed no longer to be within its scope due to the application of litigation privilege in respect of the dismissal of Olly Robbins?

[Darren Jones]

I am afraid I do not know the answer to that question, but I commit myself to taking it away.

[Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

I am just a humble Member of this House, and it is our job to hold the Government to account. It was unclear from the Minister’s first response what the process will be, so could he clarify again whether, if the ISC members disagree with the Government, that matter will be brought back to the House for a decision? I do not believe it is right for the Government to judge and mark their own homework.

[Darren Jones]

I refer to my previous answer about standing by the commitment made between the Government and the Committee. There is an established process for any disagreement through a redactions hearing.

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

The worst outcome from this process is that a police investigation is compromised by materials making their way into the public domain before time. While Opposition MPs seek to rush this process through, can the Chief Secretary confirm that no documents of interest will be put in the public domain until they have been cleared by the Met police? [Interruption.] If Opposition Members want to know how Labour voters are going to vote tomorrow, they just need to join the Labour party.

--- Later in debate ---

[Darren Jones]

My hon. Friend asks an important question. As has been said before, at the heart of this entire scandal are the victims of the most heinous crimes who have yet to see any justice whatsoever, apart from this becoming part of big political debates here in the UK and in other countries. That is why the Government have been absolutely committed to supporting the Metropolitan police in its criminal investigation. We continue to do so, and we would not do anything to undermine that process because the victims have to come first.

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

I am grateful to the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister for his statement. He said that,

“in line with the process agreed by the Intelligence and Security Committee, the Government will not publish information that undermines or threatens our country’s national security or international relations.”

That sentence is correct, but it implies that this is a Government process that the ISC has acceded to, and that is not quite right. Rather, the Government propose redactions and the ISC directs that redactions be made on the basis that full publication would be prejudicial to national security or international relations. This matters because we want to maintain trust in the Intelligence and Security Committee, of which I am a member. Does the Chief Secretary accept that the Government propose redactions and that the ISC considers them and directs which ones should be made?

[Darren Jones]

The hon. Gentleman sets out the process that has been agreed between the Committee and the Government and, as I have said to other members of the Committee, that process stands.

[Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)]

This has been a very damaging issue. Peter Mandelson should clearly never have been made ambassador, and I am pleased that the Prime Minister has rightly apologised. There are, however, lessons to be learned already before the end of this Humble Address process. Can the Minister confirm that his Department has already started learning and implementing those lessons?

[Darren Jones]

My hon. Friend is right. There is a whole series of processes that this Government inherited as the status quo, including the due process from the previous Administration that was used in the past for other political appointments and direct ministerial appointments. This episode has shown that those processes needed to be updated, and the Government are working on modernising those rules and will bring those reforms to the House in due course.

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

Is there any truth in the claims that the delay in the Government adhering to the Humble Address motion is because Cabinet Ministers are refusing to hand over their mobile phones because of the messages between them and Mandelson that they contain, and the embarrassment that that will cause them?

[Darren Jones]

Cabinet Ministers have received instructions from the Cabinet Office about the declaration of the information that they hold on either corporate or personal communications channels, and they have all complied with that direction.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

With regard to the release of these Mandelson documents, there is genuine concern about what may be redacted and what may not. Given the ongoing dispute as to the pressure brought to bear between No. 10 and the Foreign Office, can the Minister confirm that nothing will be redacted with regard to pressure brought to bear on the Foreign Office about the vetting process?

[Darren Jones]

Redactions are done in line with the policy I set out previously.

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

I politely say that the Minister’s overly sincere, butter-wouldn’t-melt-in-his-mouth act is beginning to wear thin—the way he suggests that the process he is going through has not put a foot wrong. He has repeatedly failed to answer questions that I put to him with candour around Mandelson, despite the fact that this evening we will pass a Bill that makes it law for Ministers to answer questions.

Can I follow up on the questions around mobile phones? Ministers will be asked whether they have any communications left on their personal phones. Are they also being asked to tell you, and will we be told, if those messages have disappeared because they have disappearing messages on their phones?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Let us keep our questions short and omit the word “you” because I am not responding.

[Darren Jones]

I am sorry that the hon. Member is not happy with my performance—I will try harder in future. In relation to his question, I refer him to my previous answer.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

What is the Department’s internal deadline for concluding the release of the Mandelson files? If there is an internal deadline, who will be held accountable if the Department fails to meet it?

[Darren Jones]

The Department has now handed over all the final documents that it needs to hand over to the Intelligence and Security Committee. Once that process is able to conclude, we will publish the second tranche shortly after that.

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

The truth of the matter is when the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister says that process was followed to appoint a diplomat, a professional diplomat would not have been appointed if they had taken dodgy loans, tried to flog passports and leaked to the Chinese and the Russians, so that was not the case. The motion on the Humble Address got through this House because it said that all documents would be handed to the ISC, because that is the most secure place for them to go. It is not in the gift of the Government not to hand this over—that was the view of the House. This is not being done in good faith. When will all these documents be given to the ISC, which was exactly what this House said should be done?

--- Later in debate ---

[Darren Jones]

I answered that question in my opening statement. All final documents relevant to the ISC process are being handed over today.

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

Today’s statement is interesting, but we need to remember how we got here in the first place: the Prime Minister is facing allegations that he misled the House about the process by which an individual was appointed who had well-documented associations with a convicted paedophile and human trafficker. The Chief Secretary said yesterday that the Committee of Privileges is reserved for the most serious allegations. Does he recognise how that belittles what has been suffered by the victims and survivors?

[Darren Jones]

I am not quite clear what the question was in relation to the Humble Address. In relation to the Committee of Privileges motion before the House tomorrow, I refer to my previous answer.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

Last week, I asked the Prime Minister if he would publish his decision note on the box note given to him on 11 November from Simon Case. The Prime Minister said he could not remember the answer in that box note, and in the debate last week, the Minister himself said that redactions are only in black. The decision response on the box note has been left blank. Was there a decision, why has it not been published and will the Minister now undertake to publish the decision on that request from Simon Case, because this House and I believe that it will be fundamental to see whether the Prime Minister is actually telling the truth?

[Darren Jones]

I am happy to reconfirm that all redactions are in black in the documents that are being published in the Humble Address tranches. All documents that the Government hold in relation to that period of time have been published in the first tranche. Of course, decisions are communicated sometimes orally and sometimes in writing. The hon. Gentleman also asked me specifically about Simon Case’s advice and the process that was followed subsequently. I refer him to the letter published this afternoon from the previous Cabinet Secretary, who confirmed to the Prime Minister that due process had been followed.

[Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)]

How does the Prime Minister’s promise of delivering honesty, integrity and accountability reconcile with the potential blocking of a motion to the Committee of Privileges? If the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister is not willing to comment on the Government’s voting intentions tomorrow, will he commit to accountability by ensuring that he votes in favour for it being referred to the Committee?

[Darren Jones]

I am not sure that I should declare my voting intention from the Dispatch Box, but I refer the hon. Gentleman to my previous answer.

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

The Government are keen to emphasise their transparency in the course of dealing with the Humble Address requests and demands, so here is an opportunity to put that to the test. Last Tuesday, I put down a question for written answer by the Prime Minister:

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

It was accepted and published as such by the Table Office. Subsequently, it has been transferred to the Cabinet Office, for which he has responsibility. It is due to be answered tomorrow. Will the Minister give the answer to that question tomorrow, on time and substantively?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister’s responsibilities are just growing and growing!

[Darren Jones]

I am deeply grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker. I always ensure that I honour parliamentary questions in a timely fashion.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his statement— he is a decent and honourable man. In phone calls to my office only this morning, Strangford constituents have expressed their dismay about Government cover-ups. Even my constituents’ bank account comings and goings are questioned, and when they make withdrawals, they are asked where their money is from and what it is for. There is a perception out there that there is one rule for the Government of the day and another for everyone else. How can the Minister begin to show people that we are all accountable to scrutiny?

[Darren Jones]

The Humble Address is an example of Parliament holding the Government to account, and of the Government being accountable to Parliament.

[Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)]

Could the Chief Secretary confirm that responses to submissions are written on the paper of the submissions, and not on Post-it notes?

[Darren Jones]

I assume that to be the case.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for his statement, in which he said that

“the Government will not publish information that undermines or threatens our country’s national security or international relations.”

My question is: in whose judgment? Ultimately, is that the judgment of an official or of a Minister? If it is that of a Minister, which one?

[Darren Jones]

In the first instance, officials make those judgments and refer those requests to the Intelligence and Security Committee, where parliamentarians take a view.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

One of the glaring omissions in the first release of documentation was the Prime Minister’s response to his box notes about the proposed appointment of Peter Mandelson. The Government have now had three months to think about it. Will the Minister set out whether there is any reason why those documents will not be part of the next release?

[Darren Jones]

All the documents that the Government hold in relation to the initial appointment and subsequent dismissal have been published in the first tranche, and all subsequent relevant documents will be published in the second.

[Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)]

When he was asked on 20 April why there is no record of his and Peter Mandelson’s meeting with Palantir in Washington, the Prime Minister said:

“That was a routine meeting in the course of a visit I was on in the US.”—[Official Report, 20 April 2026; Vol. 784, c. 62.]

Does the Minister agree that that was a routine meeting, and if so, where is the record of it, as required by the ministerial code?

[Darren Jones]

As the Prime Minister said, that was part of a series of visits that he was undertaking. It is of course proper that closed-door meetings between Ministers and stakeholders are attended by officials, minuted and reported in the normal way, but when visits are undertaken, they are managed differently. This was no secret to anyone; photos were taken and published on the Government’s social media account.

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

The shadow Chancellor for the Duchy of Lancaster has asked today and previously, as have other Conservative Members, about the existence or not of a declaration of interests form for Mandelson. Does that form exist?

[Darren Jones]

All relevant documents will be published in the normal way.

[David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)]

The Minister says that 300 documents have now been shared with the ISC, but how many are left to be processed? More importantly, what has the process been in ascertaining a document’s relevance, and who decides whether a document is important?

[Darren Jones]

The Cabinet Office has now processed all the documents ready for the second tranche. In relation to the Intelligence and Security Committee, those final documents have been sent or will be sent today. In relation to who decides whether a document is referred to the Committee, that is based on officials screening each document to see whether they engage international relations or national security, and whether they warrant a redaction request.

Oral Answers to Questions

Darren Jones Excerpts

Thursday 23rd April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)]

1. What assessment he has made of the adequacy of the ministerial code.

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

Good morning, Mr Speaker. It is nice to be back in the Chamber. [Laughter.]

Since coming into office, the Prime Minister has published a new and strengthened ministerial code that places emphasis on the importance of public service and new principles on gifts and hospitality, and includes strengthened powers for the independent adviser on ministerial standards. The Prime Minister has also introduced new rules on severance. Ministers who leave office after having been found to have seriously breached the code are expected to forgo their severance pay, and former Ministers who are found to have seriously breached the business appointment rules are expected to repay any severance too. Colleagues across the House will remember the spectacle of former Tory Minister after former Tory Minister receiving it during the last Parliament, but that has now ended under this Labour Government.

[Olly Glover]

I was reading the ministerial code just yesterday evening. Paragraph 2.1 states:

“The Prime Minister is the ultimate judge of the standards of behaviour expected of a minister and the appropriate consequences of a breach of those standards.”

That provides clarity on how Ministers can be held to account by the Prime Minister. However, as the old saying goes, “Who watches the watchmen?” When there is a concern about whether the Prime Minister’s conduct goes against the ministerial code, does the Minister agree that the code itself needs strengthening so that the PM can be held to its standards?

[Darren Jones]

I reassure the hon. Member and the House that the ultimate accountability for the Prime Minister is both to this House and to the public at a general election.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

It is really great that Ministers have rapidly set about reforming the ministerial code so that never again will the public purse be forced to pay out £253,720 for ex-Ministers who were in post for less than six months, as happened in 2022 under the Tories. Now that we hear about Peter Mandelson, the payoff he wanted and the payoff he got, are the Government open to the logic of applying the same principles of the ministerial code to disgraced ex-political appointee ambassadors, perchance? That way, we can restore consistency.

[Darren Jones]

My hon. Friend will recognise that appointments to the civil service are made on the basis of employment law, which is different from the situation for Ministers and Members of this House, but it is right that the Government have changed the rules to ensure that disgraced politicians do not receive payouts for wrongdoing, which is what happened under the last Conservative Administration.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

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

Paragraph 1.6.c of the ministerial code states:

“It is of paramount importance that ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity.”

Yesterday, the Prime Minister said to the House that Sir Olly Robbins

“went on to say: ‘I…have complete confidence that… recommendations to me and the discussion we had and the decision we made were rigorously independent of’ any ‘pressure.’”—[Official Report, 22 April 2026; Vol. 784, c. 316.]

What Sir Olly actually said to the Foreign Affairs Committee was:

“I also have complete confidence that their recommendations to me and the discussion we had and the decision we made were rigorously independent of that pressure.”

Sir Olly said “that” pressure, not “any” pressure. The Prime Minister materially changed Sir Olly’s meaning. Robbins was clear that he had been put under pressure. Does the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister know whether the Prime Minister intends to correct the record?

[Darren Jones]

I think the difference between the words “that” and “any” is not of material relevance to the question that the shadow Minister is putting to the House. The Prime Minister has not misled the House. The testimony of the Prime Minister and of Sir Olly Robbins is very clearly on the record, and that makes the case.

[Alex Burghart]

The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister is perfectly intelligent enough to know that there is an enormous difference between those two words. I will remind him that the Prime Minister is bound by the ministerial code.

Yesterday, the Prime Minister also told the House:

“Sir Olly was absolutely clear that nobody put pressure on him to make this appointment”—[Official Report, 22 April 2026; Vol. 784, c. 316.]

but that is not what Sir Olly said to the Foreign Affairs Committee. He actually said:

“Throughout January, honestly, my office and the Foreign Secretary’s office were under constant pressure.”

Again, he said that

“while I think the Department felt under pressure, we were proud of the fact that we had not bowed to that pressure.”

Again, he said that Philip Barton’s handover to him

“contributed to my strong sense that there was an atmosphere of pressure”.

To avoid being in breach of the ministerial code, Ministers must correct the record at the earliest available opportunity. At the very latest, the earliest opportunity is now. Will the Prime Minister correct the record?

[Darren Jones]

It is not the view of the Prime Minister or the Government that the Prime Minister needs to do so.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

At Prime Minister’s questions yesterday, when asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), the Prime Minister failed to deny that he knew that his team were lobbying for a head of mission role for Matthew Doyle, and that they were doing so with his authority. Under the ministerial code, he has clear duties of transparency to this House. For No. 10 to ask the Foreign Office to find a plum diplomatic job for another Labour mate who was friends with a convicted sex offender, let alone to then keep it secret from the Foreign Secretary, is completely shocking. The Prime Minister has shown another catastrophic lack of judgment. Will the Minister ensure that an inquiry is launched by the Cabinet Secretary to determine who did the lobbying and why, and what the Prime Minister knew and when?

[Darren Jones]

The Prime Minister has spent very many hours at the Dispatch Box this week being held to account and answering questions on a whole range of issues. In respect of the particulars of the hon. Lady’s question, I refer her to the Prime Minister’s words of only yesterday.

[Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)]

2. What steps he is taking to improve transparency in public procurement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

20. What recent progress he has made on implementing the Humble Address agreed on 4 February 2026.

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

On 11 March the Government responded to the Humble Address by releasing a first tranche of documents in respect of Peter Mandelson’s appointment and subsequent dismissal as ambassador to the United States. I would like to reassure Members across the House that we are proceeding at pace to publish a second tranche of documents to comply with the Humble Address, and we will provide a further update to the House as soon as possible.

[Mr Mohindra]

Will the Minister reassure me that the Intelligence and Security Committee will be prioritised when new information comes to light, as per the terms of the Humble Address, as opposed to information first being given to Downing Street or to journalists to then publish at their own convenience, as was the case when it was discovered that Peter Mandelson had failed security vetting?

[Darren Jones]

I can confirm that the Government are working closely with the Intelligence and Security Committee on processing documents relating to the Humble Address, and we thank the Committee for its work.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

Happy St George’s day, Mr Speaker. The Minister is working diligently to produce all those documents. Will he ensure that they are provided before Parliament is prorogued at the end of the Session?

[Darren Jones]

A number of documents are still being worked through by the Intelligence and Security Committee. In line with the process that I have set out, we want that to conclude before the documents are published to the House.

[Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)]

21. What steps his Department is taking to improve cross-departmental working.

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

In January I announced that I was giving Government Departments more freedom, hand in hand with greater accountability, to take the initiative to move fast and fix things. Project Reset went live this month, slashing the number of central approval processes to streamline decision making across Government. We will also shortly announce the first delivery taskforces to break down departmental silos and accelerate delivery of the Prime Minister’s priorities.

[Richard Quigley]

Happy St George’s day, Mr Speaker. My right hon. Friend may have heard me say what a fantastic place the Isle of Wight is to live, work and learn. Does he agree that our island is uniquely well placed to test exciting new policies and initiatives across all Departments to speed up national roll-out, as evidenced in an article this week in Computer Weekly by James Findlay, and that rather than being left behind, as we were under the previous Conservative Government, it is now time for the Isle of Wight to be a leader in building the better country that this Government want and that we all deserve?

[Darren Jones]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on being such a champion for his constituency. I am sure that he will agree with me, and certainly with those of us on the Government Benches, that the previous Conservative Government failed the Isle of Wight, as well as the whole country, during their 14 years in office. This Administration have launched a “test, learn and grow” programme so that the Government can work more closely with local partners to test and innovate on the design of public services more locally in the places where people need them. Given my hon. Friend’s keen interest in those approaches, I will arrange for him to engage with the TLG network within my Department and will be in touch in due course.

[Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)]

22. What steps his Department is taking to improve national security.

--- Later in debate ---

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

May I begin by wishing the Parliamentary Secretary at the Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Frith), a happy birthday, and noting the generosity and co-ordination of the House in not submitting a single question for him to answer today? I encourage Members to submit particularly difficult questions for him in future.

I will update the House on some of the work that I am leading in response to the war in the middle east. As part of our work with the new middle east response committee, I am chairing a new contingency planning ministerial group. It will focus on preparing for and mitigating, where possible, any impact on our economy and domestic security as a result of the conflict. I am convening relevant Secretaries of State twice a week, with their permanent secretaries, to scrutinise plans and ensure that we are prepared for different outcomes across major and relevant UK supply chains. The conflict in the middle east is not our war, and while we do not know how long it will last, we are acting now to protect the British people. I look forward to keeping the House updated on this work in the coming weeks and months.

[Steve Race]

I am sure that the Minister will join me in welcoming the result of the Hungarian election where, in part, anti-LGBT policies were roundly rejected at the ballot box. As LGBT rights suffer from backsliding around the world, will the Minister commit to working with our EU partners to promote LGBT human rights across the world, including by putting the topic on the agenda at the next EU-UK summit?

--- Later in debate ---

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

Last week, someone in the heart of Government leaked some extremely sensitive documents to The Guardian. This appears potentially to be a crime under the National Security Act 2023. Has the Cabinet Office reported it to the Metropolitan police?

[Darren Jones]

As I confirmed to the House, I think, a day or so ago, a leak inquiry has begun. When further facts are established, we reserve the right to do so.

[Alex Burghart]

Cat Little, the permanent secretary, has just told the Foreign Affairs Committee that a very, very small number of people have actually seen the document in question. Will the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister commit to the House that when he has identified who leaked it, he will report them to the Metropolitan police?

[Darren Jones]

I can confirm that we take this matter deeply seriously and, as I say, we reserve the right to do so once the facts have been established through the inquiry.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)]

T4. Last week, a former Attorney General wrote that there was no legal reason for the Government not to publish a list of the Humble Address documents being withheld by the Metropolitan police. Will the Government publish that list?

[Darren Jones]

We are working in co-operation with the Metropolitan police. As the hon. Member would expect, and as I am sure the House would agree, we do not want to do anything that would interfere with the police process.

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

T3. The UK rightly committed 1.5% of GDP to boosting our national resilience, along with our NATO partners. Ahead of the next NATO summit in Ankara in July, can the Minister confirm whether the Government will publish a departmental breakdown of how the UK will meet its commitments?

[John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)]

T5. Happy St George’s day, Mr Speaker. We face many threats, but happily dragons are no longer one of them.The Government maintain that the messages between Morgan McSweeney and his mentor Peter Mandelson are under the aegis of the Metropolitan police and therefore cannot be released, but surely the questions are critical to our understanding of what has gone on here and should be available to the House. Will the Government at least commit to publishing the questions?

[Darren Jones]

As I have said from the Dispatch Box, the victims of Jeffrey Epstein want to see justice. A criminal investigation by the police is under way, and it is right that the House does not interfere with that process and works with the Metropolitan police to allow them to undertake their work.

--- Later in debate ---

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

T7. Happy St George’s day, Mr Speaker. When was Jonathan Powell appointed as the Prime Minister’s special envoy to the British Indian Ocean Territory, and what security clearance was he given on appointment.

[Darren Jones]

I do not have that information to hand.

[Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)]

Happy St George’s day, Mr Speaker.

When Jaguar Land Rover was the victim of a cyber-attack, it had a devastating impact on the supply chain in Redditch. Will the proposed cyber-resilience index, which is part of the Government’s welcome focus on improving cyber-security and national security, be subject to parliamentary scrutiny?

--- Later in debate ---

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

If the Government are so confident in the Prime Minister’s decision to sack Sir Olly Robbins, will the Minister today rule out settling any employment tribunal in advance of a hearing or imposing any gagging orders on Mr Robbins?

[Darren Jones]

The House will understand that I am not at liberty to comment on a potential ongoing employment dispute.

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

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister for confirming that he will chair a new contingency planning ministerial group to develop resilience to the threats caused as a result of the conflict, which is not, of course, ours, but is having an impact on many other countries across the world, potentially resulting in shortages and inflation. Our resilience is dependent on their resilience. In that light, will my right hon. Friend agree to consider convening a global summit to increase resilience through co-operation and collaboration?

[Darren Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for her excellent question. I can confirm that the Foreign Office is part of our contingency planning work at the centre of Government. On all issues, we look at the international data available to us, and the Foreign Office will keep that in consideration when trying to support allies and partners, as well as ensuring security and resilience for the UK.

[Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)]

Over the Easter weekend, a 6-acre site in the Chilterns national landscape saw a massive unauthorised development. Despite swift action from Dacorum borough council to issue a temporary stop notice and an injunction, the work continued, with the police powerless to stop it and the council without the resources. What will the Minister do through cross-departmental work to uphold the rule of law and protect our precious landscapes?

[Darren Jones]

I think any constituency MP would find those circumstances utterly unacceptable. If the hon. Member writes to me, I will ensure that I pass the information to colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to see what we can do.

Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment

Darren Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Commons Chamber

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

Today’s motion asks this House to consider the Government’s accountability to this place for Peter Mandelson’s appointment. The Government have been, and remain, fully committed to keeping the House informed of all relevant information related to Peter Mandelson’s appointment and subsequent dismissal as ambassador to the United States. Ministers have addressed the House on a number of occasions on this matter.

The Prime Minister has set out to the House that, while much of the debate on this issue has focused on process, at the heart of it all is the decision to appoint Peter Mandelson in the first place. The Prime Minister has been up front about that and takes responsibility for it. He knows that he should not have made the appointment. He regrets the decision, and he apologises for it, in particular to the victims of Jeffrey Epstein. Those women and girls have been subjected to intolerable cruelty and disgusting abuse, and are to date without justice. Their experiences should be taken seriously and they should be listened to.

I do not come to the House today to defend that decision—it was the wrong one. I am here to account for the Government’s accountability to this House on the process that followed. I take the Government’s responsibility to this House seriously, so I will not take the opportunity this evening to try to score party political points, or to defend a decision that the Prime Minister has said is wrong and for which he apologises. I do, however, commit to returning to this House as often as required.

[Ed Davey]

In taking that wrong decision, did the Prime Minister follow due process?

[Darren Jones]

The Prime Minister followed the process that was in place, and I will turn to some of the details of that in the remainder of my speech.

On 11 March, I addressed the House in response to the Humble Address, as we released the first tranche of documents relating to Peter Mandelson’s appointment and subsequent dismissal. I committed to keep the House updated as we worked to publish documents relevant to that Humble Address, and I recommit to doing so today. I reassure the House that we are proceeding at pace to process the outstanding documents, a number of which are currently being reviewed by the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament, with the aim of publishing the next tranche of documents as a matter of urgency.

In the debate, I was asked specifically about redactions in documents published in relation to the Humble Address. I will be clear: redactions are visible on the documents by the black marking out of information. If there is no marking out, it is not a redaction. All redactions are agreed via the Intelligence and Security Committee before they come to the House.

[Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)]

We have heard a lot from Labour Members today about process, but will the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister please tell my constituents, the House and the country why on earth the Prime Minister appointed Peter Mandelson to be ambassador to the United States?

[Darren Jones]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Prime Minister’s words, and I reiterate his apology for having made that wrong decision in the first place.

I will now move to the specific matter of security vetting. As the House heard from the Prime Minister yesterday, on the evening of 14 April he was told for the first time that last year, before Peter Mandelson took up his position as ambassador, the Foreign Office had granted Peter Mandelson developed vetting clearance against the recommendation of the United Kingdom Security Vetting authority, UKSV. In today’s debate there have been accusations that the Cabinet Office had suggested that developed vetted status or the process to seek that was not necessary. Those accusations are inaccurate. I can confirm to the House, based on advice that I have received, that a question was asked by the Foreign Office of the Cabinet Office team whether, on the basis that Peter Mandelson was already a Member of the House of Lords and a Privy Counsellor, further developed vetting status was required. That then subsequently took place, as Members of the House know.

The Foreign Office officials who made the decision to overrule the recommendation of UKSV then failed to notify the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary or her predecessor, the Deputy Prime Minister, or any other Minister, including myself, or the former Cabinet Secretary, Sir Chris Wormald. That has been confirmed today in evidence given by Sir Olly Robbins to the Foreign Affairs Committee.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

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

I have been listening to the description of this entire saga and it is confusing even to someone who is a Westminster insider, in the Westminster bubble. May I ask a question about process? My right hon. Friend mentioned 14 April, when the Prime Minister was notified that there had been a breach in the security vetting and that it had failed on one aspect. Will he explain to me the process at that point and what the Prime Minister would have had to do to gather all the information before coming to the House? Who would he have to speak to, what legal advice would he have to take, who would he have to consult and what permissions would he have to have? [Interruption.] This is important. What information did he need to have before he came back to the House? I want to know and my constituents want to know.

[Darren Jones]

As the Prime Minister has made clear to the House and via the publication of a minute of the meeting in which he was informed of this information, the Prime Minister made it immediately clear to his officials that he intended to come to this House to inform Members of Parliament of the situation about which he had just been told, but that he urgently needed a set of information about who had made what decision and when, in order to be able to provide the full facts to Parliament.

On Tuesday 14 April, the Prime Minister instructed officials to establish the facts urgently. I agree with the Prime Minister that he should have been informed of this a long time ago, as should this House. There were multiple opportunities for this issue to have been raised, not just when the decision to grant Peter Mandelson developed vetting status was initially made, but subsequently when the Prime Minister asked the former Cabinet Secretary to assure him that all due process had been followed—and he had been assured of that—and then subsequently again when the Foreign Secretary and the then permanent secretary to the Foreign Office provided a signed statement to the Foreign Affairs Committee confirming:

“Peter Mandelson’s security vetting was conducted to the usual standard set for developed vetting in line with established Cabinet Office policy.”

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Darren Jones]

I will give way to the right hon. Lady.

[Esther McVey]

The Prime Minister has clearly said that he was right to sack the senior civil servant Oliver Robbins, so can the Minister guarantee that the Government will contest any employment claim from Sir Oliver Robbins for unfair or constructive dismissal all the way to the employment tribunal, and will not use taxpayer money to pay off this gentleman to avoid that outcome?

[Darren Jones]

The right hon. Lady will know that I am not at liberty to comment in respect of any potential claim to the employment tribunal.

Peter Mandelson’s security vetting was carried out by UKSV between 23 December 2024 and 28 January 2025. That included collecting relevant information and interviewing the applicant, in this case on two occasions. One issue has been raised in the debate about that time period; there is a suggestion that No. 10 applied pressure on officials at the Foreign Office in relation to the security vetting process. It was confirmed in testimony today before the Foreign Affairs Committee that no such pressure was applied beyond asking for the process to be completed as quickly as possible, and confirmed by Sir Olly Robbins that there was no personal contact by telephone or message. That is testimony from the official himself in front of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

On 28 January 2025, UKSV recommended to the Foreign Office that developed vetting clearance should not be granted to Peter Mandelson. The following day, on 29 January 2025, Foreign Office officials made the decision to grant developed vetting clearance for Peter Mandelson none the less. This was an established process for the Foreign Office, which had the authority to be able to make those decisions. It is worth reiterating for the sake of clarity, as the Prime Minister did yesterday, that UKSV makes decisions for many Government Departments, but not for the Foreign Office. The final decision on developed vetting clearance is made by Foreign Office officials, not by UKSV.

When I became aware of the details of Peter Mandelson’s case following the publication of reporting in The Guardian last Thursday, I was briefed on the matter that evening at the Cabinet Office by officials in respect of both the case of Peter Mandelson and the existing policy on UKSV recommendations and the Foreign Office’s decisions. I immediately suspended the right for the Foreign Office to overrule UKSV recommendations pending further investigation. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger), I can confirm that the review that Adrian Fulford will conduct for the Government should be completed in around four weeks, so that we can take a quick decision on the proper functioning of the process.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

In Olly Robbins’ letter to the Foreign Affairs Committee today, he countermands what the right hon. Gentleman has said from the Dispatch Box. He says:

“I believe the Cabinet Office (CO) raised whether Developed Vetting (DV) was actually necessary. I understand the FCDO insisted that DV was a requirement before Mandelson took up his post in Washington.”

After due diligence, the Cabinet Office was insisting that it was not necessary. Surely the right hon. Gentleman needs to retract his remarks.

[Darren Jones]

I repeat my words and refer back to them.

Much has been said about the ability of officials to disclose sensitive vetting information. As the Prime Minister has set out, I accept that the sensitive personal information provided by an individual being vetted must be protected from disclosure. If that were not the case, the integrity of the whole process would be compromised. However, neither the Prime Minister nor I accept that the appointing Minister cannot be told of the recommendation made by UKSV. Nor do the Government accept that Foreign Office officials could not have informed the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary or the Cabinet Secretary of UKSV’s recommendation while maintaining the necessary confidentiality that vetting requires.

The civil service code on this issue is clear, not just in normal practice but especially in relation to when Ministers are giving evidence to Parliament, as was the case via correspondence from the current Foreign Secretary to the Foreign Affairs Committee. There is no law that stops civil servants sensibly flagging UKSV recommendations while protecting detailed, sensitive vetting information in order to allow Ministers to make judgments on appointments or to explain matters to Parliament.

The Government have also changed the direct ministerial appointments process so that due diligence is now required as standard. The Prime Minister has also changed the process so that public announcements about direct ministerial appointments can now not be made until security vetting has been completed.

What clearly came to light about Peter Mandelson following the release of files by the United States Department of Justice was clearly deeply disturbing. In February this year, the Prime Minister instructed officials to carry out a review of the national security vetting process to ensure that it is fit for purpose. I can confirm that the terms of reference for that review have been updated to include the means by which all decisions are made in relation to national security vetting. The Government have appointed Sir Adrian Fulford to lead that review and, for completeness, have separately asked the Government Security Group in the Cabinet Office to look at any security concerns raised during Peter Mandelson’s tenure as ambassador to the United States, in answer to the question raised by the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas). We will publish terms of reference, and the Government commit to return to the House on their findings and recommendations.

On two other questions that were raised during the debate, accusations have been made of the Prime Minister both in this House of misleading and outside this House of lying. Those have been shown today by evidence in the Foreign Affairs Committee not to be true in any way. I am sure the House will be as concerned as I am that while officials felt unable to provide this information to Ministers, it was made available to The Guardian. As a consequence, I can confirm that a leak inquiry is now under way.

I thank right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions to today’s debate. This is my sixth address to this House on the appointment of Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United States of America. I recognise that the House will want to know about the next steps in respect of the publication of the remainder of the information relevant to the Humble Address that was not included in the first tranche. I commit to the House that we will release that further material shortly, subject to the processes ongoing with the Metropolitan police and the Intelligence and Security Committee, and we will continue to keep Members updated as we make progress. I commend this statement to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Leader of the Opposition.

Cabinet Office

Darren Jones Excerpts

Monday 13th April 2026 Written Corrections

[Steve Barclay]

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.

[Official Report, 23 February 2026; Vol. 781, c. 32.]

Written correction submitted by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the right hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones):

[Darren Jones]

…What I can say is that the senior civil servant who is currently acting as the director general of the propriety and constitution group 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.

Lord Mandelson: Government Response to Humble Address

The following extract is from the statement on the Government response to the Humble Address relating to Lord Mandelson on 23 February 2026.

[Matt Bishop]

… 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.

[Official Report, 23 February 2026; Vol. 781, c. 47.]

Written correction submitted by the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister (Darren Jones):

[Darren Jones]

… The last time peerages were removed was in 1917, so it is not something that has been done recently.

Covid-19 Inquiry Module 2: Government Response

Darren Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2026 Written Statements

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

On 20 November 2025, the covid-19 inquiry published its second report, which examined core decision-making and political governance across the UK and put forward 19 recommendations for the Government to consider. Today, the Government published their response and set out the actions we are taking to address them.

The covid-19 pandemic was a traumatic chapter in our country’s history. Families lost loved ones, businesses suffered or were forced to close, and many across the country were left with life-long health impacts. The Government debt built up to cover the economic impact of the crisis is still being paid back today; the impact on NHS waiting lists remains a long-term challenge.

The Government welcome the inquiry’s module 2 report and I want to express my gratitude to Baroness Hallett and her team for their rigorous examination of the issues it raises.

It is a sobering read. Responding to the pandemic was a highly significant logistical challenge to our system of government, and indeed to Governments all around the world. However the module 2 report nevertheless exposes several failures of the Government at the time: a failure to respond quickly enough; to treat the impact on vulnerable people and children seriously enough; to provide clear, unequivocal public health messaging; and to turn scientific advice into coherent policy in a transparent, methodical way. There are many lessons to learn from the mistakes, failures—and successes—where they were made.

This Government have already made significant changes to their crisis response structures in response to the covid-19 inquiry module 1 report. Without effective governance, we cannot expect to respond to crises effectively. The Prime Minister, Cabinet and civil service must be structured, willing and able to make fast, evidence-based and compassionate decisions that will save lives and livelihoods, informed by the scientific evidence. In July 2025, we also published our resilience action plan which explains this Government’s strategic approach to increasing the UK’s resilience. Our response to the module 2 report today builds on that.

We have already updated the UK Government’s crisis management doctrine, known as the Amber Book, which sets out the decision-making framework for responding to a crisis. This includes establishing the principles for a successful taskforce structure, to oversee the response to protracted whole-of-system crises, and has informed the development of internal risk-specific operational plans for catastrophic risks like pandemics.

The report also notes that clear and inclusive communication is integral to a successful Government response to an emergency. The Government Communication Service crisis communications operating model has been updated to clarify communications roles and responsibilities before, during, and in the aftermath of a crisis. We have issued new advice to help Departments create robust communication plans for their specific risks, and our STOP model for crisis planning now mandates that all communications consider people with additional needs. This ensures that our messaging is accessible and inclusive by default, in line with the Equality Act 2010, the public sector equality duty, and the British Sign Language Act 2022.

As recommended by the module 2 report, we are also working towards commencing the socioeconomic duty under section 1 of the Equality Act 2010 in England. Additionally, in 2025, we published updated guidance for identifying and supporting vulnerable people during an emergency.

We have also worked closely with our counterparts in the devolved Governments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to draft our response to this report. Our shared aim is to ensure that intergovernmental machinery is configured to enable better co-ordination between Governments while respecting the importance of local accountability. The devolved Governments should be invited to COBR and taskforce meetings during an emergency where relevant. Furthermore, guidance has been updated to ensure the three chief scientific advisers from the devolved Governments are invited to Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies meetings from the very outset of an emergency.

As the Government implement our response to the module 2 report, our progress will be recorded and tracked transparently using our covid-19 inquiry dashboard. These may seem like technical changes, but in an increasingly disruptive global context, having processes in place to make the right marginal call in moments of volatility can have profound and long-lasting impacts.

Many will naturally want to put the difficulty of covid-19 behind us, but given the long-lasting impact on the British economy and public services, it is right for Government to take these lessons seriously. And we owe it to those who died, suffered and struggled during the pandemic too. I am grateful to Baroness Hallett and her team for their rigorous examination of what went wrong, on the basis of which we are acting, to make sure this and future Governments can do better next time.

[HCWS1456]

Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address

Darren Jones Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2026 Commons Chamber

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

(Urgent Question): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the Government’s compliance with the Humble Address of 4 February 2026 relating to the appointment of Peter Mandelson as His Majesty’s ambassador to the United States of America.

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

I updated the House last Wednesday on the Government’s response to the Humble Address motion of 4 February, after the first tranche of documents were laid in both Houses in response to that motion. The Government have been clear that they are committed to publishing all documents relevant to the Humble Address, and that further material will be published in due course as officials work through its full scope.

The first tranche, as the title of the document made clear, represented,

“Part of a Return to an Address of the Honourable the House of Commons dated 4 February 2026”.

It responded directly to a number of specific elements contained in that motion, namely papers relating to Lord Mandelson’s appointment as His Majesty’s ambassador and the discussions that subsequently led to his dismissal. As the Government have said previously, there are specific documents that we would like to disclose but which the Metropolitan police has asked us not to in order to avoid prejudicing the ongoing criminal investigation into Peter Mandelson. The Government have agreed to that request. We will publish those documents in the future once the Metropolitan police has confirmed that it will no longer prejudice its investigation.

As a consequence of that, and as I set out to the House on 11 March, the Government have therefore taken the extraordinary step, as agreed with Mr Speaker, of briefing the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), on terms agreed by the Metropolitan police to ensure that there is as much transparency to the House as possible.

As the House understands, the Government must carefully assess the risk of prejudicing UK national security or international relations posed by the release of any official documents. Again, this process is subject to parliamentary oversight. Any such material will be and is in the process of being referred to the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament. I thank the Committee for its assistance and can confirm that this process was also followed regarding the first tranche of material published last week. Outside of this arrangement, the important and well-established constitutional principle that national security and international relations judgments are ultimately for the Government has not changed.

We are continuing the disclosure process for other documents across Government within the scope of the address. Given the breadth of the motion agreed by the House and the large number of materials and Departments involved, this process will take time and necessarily requires careful consideration. Where relevant documents are held, they are being prepared for release through an established process, including the appropriate checks relating to national security, international relations, legal privilege and the protection of personal data.

The Government have acknowledged that the documents published reveal that the appointment process fell short of what is required. As previously set out, the independent adviser looked last week at the process and concluded that he saw no grounds for the investigation that the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), has requested, but as the Prime Minister set out this morning, the inherited process itself was not strong enough. That is why the Prime Minister has already strengthened the process and is committed to strengthening it further in the future. This forms part of wider changes that the Government are bringing forward to improve the system, including a review by the Ethics and Integrity Commission relating to financial disclosures, transparency around lobbying, and the business appointment rules, alongside a review of the national security vetting system.

As I have said, and I know Members across the House will agree, Jeffrey Epstein was a disgusting individual, and Peter Mandelson’s decision to put their relationship before his victims and the vulnerable was reprehensible. That is why there is cross-party consensus across the House for transparency and accountability and why the Government are committed to publishing all material relevant to the Humble Address. I will continue to keep the House updated as a matter of priority, as I have done to date, and I commend this statement to the House.

[Alex Burghart]

Since last Wednesday, it has become increasingly clear that either the Government did not follow due process in their appointment of Peter Mandelson or that they have not disclosed all the relevant documents. In different terms, either the Prime Minister’s assurances that full due process was followed were misleading, or the Government have not complied with the Humble Address. Either would be a contempt of Parliament.

Last Wednesday, the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister said:

“All the documents that are available in relation to Peter Mandelson’s appointment and dismissal are published…today, subject to those that have been held back by the Metropolitan police.”—[Official Report, 11 March 2026; Vol. 782, c. 371.]

But many, many documents are missing. I have detailed 56 documents in a letter that I sent him. To give a few examples, there is no prime ministerial readout on the advice that the Prime Minister received. This is a breach of protocol. A prime ministerial decision, even if made orally, should be formally recorded. Where is that record? It starts to stink of the sofa government that we had under Tony Blair.

There are no minutes of any meeting at which this appointment was discussed, by anyone, at any time. Were there really no meetings about this? Most suspiciously of all, we have no material from the Prime Minister, from his chief of staff or from Peter Mandelson: no box returns, no emails, no forms, no WhatsApps—nothing. It is as though their fingerprints have been forensically removed.

To narrow this down, on 11 November 2024 the Cabinet Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted to make a political appointment, the civil service would

“develop a plan for…the necessary security clearances and do due diligence on any potential Conflicts of Interest”.

That was the process, so let me ask the Chief Secretary two very specific questions. First, did Peter Mandelson receive security clearance, and if so, on what date? There was no such document in the release. Secondly, did Peter Mandelson make a full declaration of his interests? Again, there was no such document in the release.

I remind the Chief Secretary that noting the existence of a document does not prejudice an investigation in any way. The Government have already told us about one document that they are holding back at the request of the Met police; they are more than able to tell us about others. It is time for the Government to level with us. What is missing, and why?

[Darren Jones]

As I informed the House last week, the documents that pertain to tranche 1 are the documents the Government own, and they have been published in line with the Humble Address. The shadow Minister asks about the process followed for the appointment of Peter Mandelson. As the Prime Minister and the Government have said, the process that was followed was the process that was inherited; however, this has shown that that process is not sufficient, which is why it is being strengthened.

The shadow Minister made reference to questions about WhatsApps and other messages. I can confirm that those types of documents will be subject to a further tranche being published in due course. He also asked me about security clearance for Peter Mandelson. I refer him to the answer I gave last week in respect of that question, and to further comments from the Foreign Office.

[Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

As an alumnus of Manchester Metropolitan University, I noticed that it has stripped Peter Mandelson of all the honours that it gave to him while he was chancellor of that institution between 2016 and 2024. Can the Chief Secretary confirm that any contacts with Government and the Department for Education during that period are not currently subject to this investigation?

[Darren Jones]

I can confirm that any documents that are within the scope of the Humble Address and refer to communications between Ministers and others and Peter Mandelson are part of the disclosure process currently being undertaken by the Government.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

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

We may debate whether the Prime Minister’s appointment of Peter Mandelson showed a weirdly rushed, catastrophic lack of judgment or just a stunning level of disengaged naivety. Either way, the British public are rightly wondering whether decency in public office is just too much to ask. I reassure them on behalf of the Liberal Democrats that no, it is not too much to ask.

As well as confirming that Mandelson’s ongoing relationship with a convicted sexual predator was known, the files also revealed that he was given top-level briefings before his vetting was finished—a vetting process that clearly failed by any measure. Trust in politics is already stretched thin, and I am sure that everyone in this House wants to see it restored. If the worst fears of this sorry saga are found to be true, that trust will take another body blow, boosting only the populists on the left and the right.

I therefore ask the Minister, if the Prime Minister really wants to rebuild trust and ensure that the proper procedures are always followed, will he commit to taking up Lib Dem calls to make the ministerial code binding in law, and will he refer himself to the independent ethics adviser to determine whether, in the course of this long, sorry saga, he has breached the code or not?

[Darren Jones]

Who?

[Luke Taylor]

The Prime Minister.

[Darren Jones]

I thank the hon. Member for his questions; I just wanted to clarify whether he felt that I should refer myself to the independent adviser.

I refer the hon. Member to the letter from the independent adviser, which came out on Friday of last week and concluded that there were no grounds for an investigation into the Prime Minister’s conduct, because the process that the Government inherited for these types of appointments had been followed appropriately. The process itself, as the Prime Minister said again this morning, is clearly not sufficient, which is why it needs to be changed for the future.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

Peter Mandelson’s appointment has done serious damage to public trust, but the deeper issue, as we are finding out, is the culture that made this possible. When a small clique is able to wield this much influence, confidence in public appointments is of course badly undermined. What structural changes are being made to ensure that factionalism and cronyism can never again override the national interest?

[Darren Jones]

I refer my hon. Friend to the part of my statement in relation to the work of the Ethics and Integrity Commission and the work that the Prime Minister has set it in reviewing the rules around transparency and lobbying, business accounting rules and other such related processes.

[David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)]

Last week, the Government withheld the questions the Prime Minister put to Peter Mandelson and his responses, apparently at the request of the Metropolitan police. This is perhaps the most important documentation we could see and, as Madam Deputy Speaker confirmed, “Erskine May” confirms that:

“In criminal matters, proceedings are active when a charge has been brought”.

That is the balance between justice and democracy. Given that Mr Mandelson has not been charged, this matter does not fall under the sub judice rule, and he might not be charged for a year or more, if ever. There appears to be no other statutory bar to the Government releasing information: the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 does not apply; the Freedom of Information Act 2000 does not apply; and the Contempt of Court Act 1981 does not apply because section 5 of that Act excludes public debate of matters of public interest. Given the lack of statutory bars preventing the Government from acting, will the right hon. Gentleman release that documentation?

[Darren Jones]

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman and Members across the House would not want to do anything to prejudice a criminal investigation that might finally result in justice for the victims of Jeffrey Epstein and his associates. As I have said to the House repeatedly, where the Metropolitan police has asked for documents to be held back, we have consented to that. However, recognising the points the right hon. Gentleman makes, we have agreed a process with the Chair of the relevant Select Committee—a Member on the right hon. Gentleman’s side of the House—so that the Chair is able to see those documents and so that any accusations of any cover-up by the Government can be shown to be inaccurate.

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)]

The Chief Secretary has just mentioned that the process was not strong enough, but I have to say that that was a massive understatement. The due diligence checklist published last week screamed reputational risks, yet its red flags were ignored and dismissed, exposing a deeply embedded culture of deception. Mandelson’s appointment has dragged our party into the gutter, and the apparent collusion between key figures in Labour Together and the Prime Minister’s top team signals their clear complicity in this failure of judgment. Will the Government now take responsibility and support a full independent inquiry into Labour Together and those in the UK Prime Minister’s office who enabled this?

[Darren Jones]

Where the Government have the ability to take action to ensure transparency and accountability on this matter, they are making sure that they do so. For organisations that are outside of Government, it is for those organisations to consider such requests.

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

It is not much good blaming the process when it is as plain as a pikestaff that the Government knew that Peter Mandelson’s appointment was, to put it mildly, extremely dodgy. If there were any conversations held, over the telephone or face to face, or any private emails sent from people’s personal email addresses, will they be made available to this House?

[Darren Jones]

The documents that fall within the scope of the Humble Address will be made available to the House in the way that I have set out.

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

It would be very useful to know what proportion of the documents we have already been able to set our eyes on, but also what proportion is being held back by the police, so that we can make a calculation of how much more is to come. But it all sounds too casual, not least when my right hon. Friend talks about WhatsApp messages. We need to ensure that there is proper due process across Government, not least when we are talking about the business associations of Peter Mandelson with the client of his own PR company, Global Counsel. How much more work is there to come that this House will see with regard to what was known about Peter Mandelson’s relationship with Palantir?

[Darren Jones]

It is a reflection of the depth and extent of the work being undertaken by Government to comply with the Humble Address that it is taking some time to be able to process the documents. We moved at pace to publish the first tranche of documents last week and, as I have said to the House, we are going to publish the second tranche as soon as possible.

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

My hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) referred to very specific documents—meeting notes and decision notes—that have not been disclosed. May I point out that the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister himself must not mislead the House? So, do these documents actually exist? Are there decision notes and meeting notes that have been withheld, or do they not exist?

[Darren Jones]

Documents owned by the Government that are within the scope of the Humble Address have been published, as I have set out.

[Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

Peter Mandelson’s behaviour was disgraceful, and his continued relationship with Jeffrey Epstein is difficult to comprehend. It is an insult to the victims and survivors of Epstein’s horrific crimes. Clearly, the Government are putting in place standards and tightening their appointments and vetting process, but could the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister tell the House what work Baroness Anderson will undertake in the Cabinet Office and when we can expect a further update on her progress?

[Darren Jones]

I know that Baroness Anderson in the other place will be listening with great intent to my hon. Friend’s question. I was pleased to get the Prime Minister’s support to appoint Baroness Anderson as an additional Minister in the Cabinet Office to take on this additional work, given the seriousness with which we take the need for modernisation and reform. I look forward to the proposals that she will bring forward in due course.

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

It has been revealed that Peter Mandelson was given top-level briefings before his vetting was finalised. Who did that, and who will hold those people to account? Will the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister write to me if he is not able to answer that question now?

[Darren Jones]

As the Prime Minister has already said, the length of time it takes between an ambassador’s appointment and agreement from the host country, and for certain vetting to take place, meant that in the past there had been an established process to allow for ambassadors to start work and to be announced before the vetting was completed. We are reviewing that process to make sure that there are not such gaps in the future.

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

Aside from the response to the Humble Address, 90 Members from parties across the House are calling for an independent statutory inquiry into the relationship between Jeffrey Epstein and British public figures and institutions, including whether due diligence was undertaken in the case of any appointments to public roles. Can the Minister confirm that it is the Government’s position to support such calls and establish an inquiry? If not, can he confirm that there is no influence from Labour Together on such a position?

[Darren Jones]

My hon. Friend will know that there are legal proceedings under way, with actions by the Metropolitan police and others. The Government agree that there should be justice for victims, and anyone who has any insight, knowledge or experience of Jeffrey Epstein, his associates or the events involved should come forward and share it.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

Did the Prime Minister’s chief of staff communicate with Mandelson via a private email address?

[Darren Jones]

Any communications that are subject to the Humble Address will be published in the second tranche.

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

The Prime Minister rightly called for the removal of peerages from disgraced peers, so could the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister tell the House when we might expect further updates on the proposed legislation?

[Darren Jones]

I think there is cross-party agreement that we should introduce legislation that removes life peerages from those in the other place who bring the House into disrepute or suffer a criminal penalty for their behaviour. That is why the Government are working to introduce legislation that not only deals with Peter Mandelson but is available as a sanction for others who behave in that way in the future. We are getting towards the end of this Session, but we are committed to bringing forward that legislation. We look forward to presenting it shortly.

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

No matter how many Ministers the Government sent out over the weekend to try to spin their way out of this crisis, the story remains unchanged. The Prime Minister chose to ignore the fact that Mandelson remained friends with the convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein; he chose to ignore Mandelson’s own scandal-laden political history; and he even chose to ignore the advice of the security services, which questioned Mandelson’s suitability for the job. Given the Prime Minister’s appalling lack of judgment, can the Minister understand why so many people across these islands believe that he simply cannot be trusted to remain in office?

[Darren Jones]

On the second half of the hon. Member’s question, the public are looking to the Prime Minister and seeing the important leadership role that he is playing in the world, given the events in the middle east, Ukraine and elsewhere. That is important for domestic conditions for families struggling with living standards and worried about the future. On the first part of the question, the Prime Minister has apologised for appointing Peter Mandelson, which he regrets—it was a mistake. If he had had information on the depth and extent of the relationship, which became available after the publication of documents at the point of the appointment, he would not have appointed him in the first place.

[Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)]

Gloucester residents rightly expect that nobody be above the law, so will the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister update the House on what steps the Department is taking to ensure that the Metropolitan police have all the support they need for their investigation?

[Darren Jones]

Of course, the Government take the Humble Address with the utmost seriousness, and respect the sovereignty of Parliament in exercising its own powers, but my hon. Friend is right to remind the House that justice for victims will be delivered only as a consequence of criminal investigation and criminal prosecution, not by motions of this House. It is important that none of us seeks to undermine those criminal investigations so that victims may, for once, see justice come in their direction.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

Of course, nobody would expect the Government to contravene the indications of the Metropolitan police by publishing documents, but most people would expect that the first step for somebody applying for such an important job—the most senior diplomatic post—is to submit a declaration of interests. It is unclear whether that declaration of interests was submitted, or whether it actually exists, because we have not seen it yet. It is difficult to understand how such a basic first-principles requirement would not be disclosed in the first tranche of documents. Why is that?

[Darren Jones]

The right hon. Gentleman invites me to itemise the documents that have been held back by the Metropolitan police. I am advised that I am not at liberty to do that from the Dispatch Box, but I say again to him and the House that all documents that the Government have and are able to publish at this time have been published.

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

Much of the discussion has been about tightening up the process. It has become increasingly clear from the documents already in the public domain that this is as much to do with the personnel delegated to make this political judgment. Will my right hon. Friend explain how tightening up the process might ensure that such personnel are not in a position to make political judgments of this kind in future?

[Darren Jones]

I refer my hon. Friend to the content of my statement, and the very wide-ranging review by the Ethics and Integrity Commission into the process not just for appointments but for vetting, as well as into transparency on lobbying, declarations of interests and business appointment rules. The Government hope that the work of the commission will allow us to have a process that avoids these problems in future.

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

For four months, I asked the Government what severance payments Mandelson received. According to the permanent secretary of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, I received no reply due to an “error”. Now, we have the failure to release 56 documents. Mandelson should have been dismissed for gross misconduct, yet the British people had to fork out for a payout. Even though Treasury rules say that severance payments cannot be used

“to avoid…unwelcome publicity or reputational damage”,

Foreign Office advice to the Prime Minister said:

“Given the reputational impact for HMG, a modest settlement as proposed is the recommended course of action.”

Does the Minister maintain that no rules were broken with Mandelson’s payoff?

[Darren Jones]

I repeat for the House that, in line with the Humble Address, all documents that the Government have were published. The hon. Lady’s reference to 56 documents is a reference to 56 documents that the Opposition like to think exist, as opposed to those that have been published by the Government. On severance payments, the documents were published in a bundle last week, and they speak for themselves.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

For five years before my election, I led services for adult survivors of childhood sexual abuse. It is a cause that means a lot to me, and I know it is a cause that means a lot to the Prime Minister too.

We on the Labour Benches are furious with Peter Mandelson; he hoodwinked left, right and centre, requiring the Prime Minister to ring him up in the embassy in the middle of the night to fire him. The Prime Minister has said that if he had known then what is now known, he would not have appointed him.

There is a criminal investigation under way that we cannot cut across, and there are critical pieces of information that have not yet been disclosed, including the follow-up questions and Peter Mandelson’s answers to them. Will the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister outline when we might hear about the next steps and the release of those questions and answers? I think we should be reserving judgment until we see the totality of the evidence; as politicians, we are here to be led by the evidence.

[Darren Jones]

As I have said from the Dispatch Box, there are documents that the Government would have wished to have been able to publish as part of the response to the Humble Address, but the Metropolitan police asked us not to do so. It is right that we have honoured that request, given the ongoing criminal investigation. As soon as the Metropolitan police have informed us that they have discharged their duties, we will publish those documents for the House.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

The Prime Minister admitted to this House that he knew about the relationship between Jeffrey Epstein and Peter Mandelson. From the documentation that has been released so far, it appears that the Prime Minister did not actually interview Peter Mandelson for the job or make a decision on that; it was left to staffers. Despite that, there are newsreels showing both the Prime Minister and Peter Mandelson in public places, obviously having convivial discussions. Will the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister confirm that the Prime Minister did not formally interview Peter Mandelson for the job—and if not, why not?

--- Later in debate ---

[Darren Jones]

The documents that were published in the tranche last week in relation to the Humble Address show the process that was followed, which was the proper process at the time.

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

I thank the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister for his answers so far. Will he outline that this Government will do everything they possibly can to support the police investigation? Does he agree that whether we are Members of this place or the other place, or former princes, it is hugely important for public trust that nobody is above the law? The victims of these vile crimes deserve nothing less.

[Darren Jones]

I think all Members across the House would recognise the primacy of the criminal investigations that are under way as the best route for justice for the victims of Jeffrey Epstein and his associates. With that in mind, the Government have committed to comply with the Humble Address and their transparency obligations to Parliament while holding back the documents that the Metropolitan police have asked us to hold back.

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

The shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), and other Conservative Members have asked last week and this week about the declaration of interests. Either it exists and the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister does not want to say so, or it does not exist and he does not want to say so. Out of respect for this House, the public and the victims of Jeffrey Epstein, will he confirm now whether or not it exists?

[Darren Jones]

The hon. Lady should listen carefully to the answer I give. Given our obligations, I am not able to itemise all documents, as I have already set out from the Dispatch Box. What I can say to her, as I have said to her right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen), is that all documents that the Government have and are able to publish at this time have been published. The only documents that have not been published are those being held either by the Metropolitan police or by agreement through the Intelligence and Security Committee—which is not relevant to the tranche 1 documents that were published last week.

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

Mandelson wanted more than half a million pounds to walk away from his job. This Government gave him £75,000; that went to someone who the Prime Minister said was clearly dishonest and lied. Will the Government be seeking to recover that public money—taxpayers’ money?

[Darren Jones]

The Government did not wish to give £1 to Peter Mandelson, but, as the documents from tranche 1 revealed last week, the decision was based on advice that the quickest possible route to removing him from civil service employment was to provide a severance payment on the terms provided, and that that sum was lower than the anticipated cost of legal fees associated with an employment tribunal dispute.

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

Two weeks ago, the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister gave me two pithy answers, so I ask him to do the same this week. First, did Peter Mandelson receive top-secret so-called STRAP security clearance? Secondly—we will try this question once again—did Peter Mandelson submit a declaration of interests? I want a yes or no to both those questions.

[Darren Jones]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to my previous answer.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

Does the Minister believe that a declaration of interests form should have been submitted for a role as significant as this?

[Darren Jones]

I agree that all process should be followed, yes.

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

The problem with these sorts of scandals is that as time moves on, more and more people are tarnished by them. Last week, when the papers revealed that Mandelson received £75,000, I asked the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister whether the Government were worried about what he might say at an employment tribunal. He said,

“That was not the rationale. The documents will speak for themselves.”—[Official Report, 11 March 2026; Vol. 782, c. 367.]

Of course, the documents do speak for themselves. They say that part of the business case for the payout—which the Minister was aware of, because it was sent to him—was that

“Given the reputational impact for HMG, a modest settlement as proposed is the recommended course of action”.

They also say that

“the individual has a high profile which could give rise to reputational damage to the FCDO and HMG were a court or tribunal claim to be pursued”,

which is exactly what I suggested based on what was in the papers, but which the Minister denied was part of the reasoning. Does he want to apologise for inadvertently misleading the House, and does he agree that those papers show that the Government broke Treasury rules on how such payments should be made?

[Darren Jones]

I think I said to the House last week, for the sake of clarity, that while I recognise that correspondence in the bundle mentions the business case being referred to me for my approval, that was never sent and was never received, so I was not privy to it as the hon. Gentleman suggests. On the basis of the severance payment, as I have said to the House, it was, based on advice, deemed to be the quickest way to get Peter Mandelson off civil service employment, and cheaper than maybe incurring the legal fees of a dispute at the employment tribunal.

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

I welcome the first tranche of documents being released. One of those documents—the due diligence checklist, “11-12-2024 Advice to the Prime Minister”—has an entire section about Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, yet on 4 February at Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister said that

“If I knew then what I know now, he would never have been anywhere near Government.”—[Official Report, 4 February 2026; Vol. 780, c. 258.]

What additional information did the Prime Minister get to come to that conclusion?

--- Later in debate ---

[Darren Jones]

I think the hon. Member is referring to the initial release of documents by Bloomberg, which exposed the extent and depth of the relationship between Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein—which was not made clear to the Prime Minister prior to that appointment —and was subsequently confirmed by the US Department of Justice documents.

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

In our country—and I fully support the Government’s national inquiry into grooming gangs and child sexual exploitation —the Epstein scandal exposes a global sex ring, with many hundreds if not thousands of under-age girls and women being trafficked for sex for the sake of political, financial and global influence. It is right that the Government are publishing details about the appointment of Peter Mandelson, but will the Minister confirm what other steps the Government are taking to go through all the millions of pieces of evidence and documentation that are being released by the US Department of Justice, to find and prosecute every single British person who took part in the exploitation of women and girls?

[Darren Jones]

The hon. Member is right to remind the House that while we have important questions about process, documentation and the appointment and dismissal of civil servants, above and beyond all of that was the most horrifying set of crimes that are imaginable to any of us in this House. The fact that they were able to happen in the way they did reminds us that we have much further to go to deal with male violence against women and exploitation of women by the powerful and rich. That is why the Government are committed to our strategy on violence against women and girls, and it is why we will of course comply with any investigation where we can be of assistance, to ensure that justice is being delivered for those victims.

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

What level of security clearance was Peter Mandelson granted prior to his appointment as ambassador to the United States?

[Darren Jones]

I can confirm to the House my previous answer about the process for his appointment, agrément, and the security vetting that then took place. For particular details, I will need to refer the hon. Member to the Foreign Office.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister for making himself available on every occasion that the House asks him to come along and answer questions. As each week passes, the attention on this matter is not diverted but intensified, and with each seeming redirection, the British public become even more dejected and less confident in the Government structures that are in place to hold staff and Ministers to the highest possible standard. Will the Chief Secretary outline what additional steps can be put in place to assure Members of this House and the British public that the current job application route has been completely shut down, and that political persuasion will cease to be the top qualifying criterion in Government employment shortlists?

[Darren Jones]

As I think I have said to the House before, the vast majority of people who apply to public service do so to serve the public and are honourable people who acknowledge and live the Nolan principles in every day of their work. What the Peter Mandelson example has shown—there have been others in the past—is that for all the rules in place that serve the majority well, there are still too many opportunities for those who wish to get around the rules. That is why the work that the Ethics and Integrity Commission is now doing will be vital in trying to prevent that from happening again.

[Gregory Stafford]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker—and I apologise for not being able to give you notice of it. The ministerial code clearly states that Ministers must provide accurate information to this House. Under the duty of truthfulness, it states that Ministers are required to

“be as open as possible with Parliament”

and maintain high standards of accountability. That is not just in what they say, but what they fail to say. I know that you do not enforce the ministerial code, Madam Deputy Speaker, but would you expect a Minister who has misled the House by omission to return to the House to correct the record?