National Security and Investment Act 2021: Notifiable Acquisition Regulations

Darren Jones Excerpts

Thursday 12th March 2026 Written Statements

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

I am today publishing the Government’s response to the consultation on the National Security and Investment Act 2021 (Notifiable Acquisition) (Specification of Qualifying Entities) Regulations 2021.

On 22 July 2025, the Government launched a 12-week consultation on the NARs, which set out the areas of the economy subject to mandatory notification under the NSI Act. The consultation provided stakeholders with the opportunity to share their views on our proposed updates to the NARs. Within each schedule of the NARs, our proposals sought to reduce scope where possible, increase scope where necessary and improve clarity for businesses. The consultation closed on 14 October 2025.

Respondents largely supported the proposed changes, including creating stand-alone semiconductors and critical minerals schedules and adding water as a new area. Many stakeholders suggested that some definitions, such as artificial intelligence and critical suppliers to Government, remained too broad or technically complex. Most respondents also requested clearer and more extensive guidance across the NARs.

I would like to thank all respondents for providing thoughtful, thorough and constructive feedback.

Following careful consideration of the feedback received, the Government will:

Make further drafting changes to the following updated schedules to reduce capturing low-risk notifications where possible: critical minerals, semiconductors, artificial intelligence and communications;

Make further minor amendments to the following updated schedules to clarify scope and definitions: critical suppliers to Government, data infrastructure, energy and suppliers to the emergency services;

Finalise the water schedule;

Keep the updated advanced materials and synthetic biology schedules broadly as they are, to ensure that emerging technologies and the diverse uses of these are captured; and

Provide updated and more detailed guidance for the majority of the schedules consulted on, alongside the defence schedule, to address topics frequently raised in feedback.

These reforms will ensure that the NARs continue to capture emerging national security risks proportionately while getting out of the way of secure investment, unlocking economic growth across the UK.

I intend to lay secondary legislation to update the NARs in due course.

[HCWS1394]

Points of Order

Darren Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. He will know that, as Chair, I am not responsible for the answers given by Ministers—

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

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

But I see that the Chief Secretary wishes to respond.

[Darren Jones]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not recognise the discrepancy. As I have said to the House previously, there was a temporary appointment to the role in question within the rules. Permanent appointments to that role will be subject to the normal recruitment processes, but if the hon. Gentleman wishes to write to me with more detail, I will happily respond to him in writing.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I hope that satisfies the hon. Member, otherwise he can obviously pursue this further.

--- Later in debate ---

[Darren Jones]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

But I can see that the Chief Secretary wishes to respond in person once again.

[Darren Jones]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The issues raised in the Cabinet note that has, I understand, been leaked to journalists are important and the Government take them seriously. The Sewel convention is an important framework for the role in which the UK Government respect the devolved responsibilities of devolved Governments, one for which I am the responsible Minister, which is why I have repeated engagement with the First and Deputy First Ministers of the devolved Governments about our relationship working together. I just remind the House that devolved Governments are important but in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland there are two Governments—the UK Government and the devolved Government—and that is why we retain the right to deliver for the people of Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland as well as in England.

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

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. First, I apologise that I have not been able to give you notice of this, but it is in reference to the earlier response and to the documents. I tabled a written parliamentary question about when Peter Mandelson left his employment on 4 February. The emails on 4 February show that officials knew the answer to that question on 16 October. Not only was it late coming back, and I had to table a second question, but no answer was forthcoming. We have a role and a job to hold this Government to account. They knew the answer to the question and they did not answer that question, and I know that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will take that extraordinarily seriously.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Although I did not get prior notice of the hon. Member’s question, I can appreciate how anxious he would be. It is incredibly important that Members, who are sent here by their constituents, have their questions answered quickly—

[Darren Jones]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

The Chief Secretary wishes to respond in person; that is very fast indeed.

[Darren Jones]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I can only apologise to Members of the House if answers to parliamentary questions have not been quick enough to meet their expectations. I just remind Members and the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins) that all the documents that have been published today have had to be subject to checks with the Metropolitan police and the Intelligence and Security Committee so as not to prejudice criminal investigations, which, as I am sure he and all Members across the House will agree, we do not want to interfere with inappropriately.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I am sure if responses to Members were forthcoming, the Chief Secretary might not have to respond at the Dispatch Box to points of order.

Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address Motion

Darren Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I apologise to the House if we were a few minutes short of the standard 45 minutes to an hour prior to the statement in publishing the documents, but I can confirm that they have now been laid before the House and are available on gov.uk.

With permission, I will make a statement to update the House on the Government’s response to the Humble Address of 4 February. The Government committed to responding to that Humble Address, and I can today confirm that we are releasing a first tranche of documents, which have been laid before the House in advance of this statement, and are now published on gov.uk for the public. There are further tranches of documents to come as officials work through the full scope of the Humble Address.

It is important to recognise the strength of feeling across the House—my own included—in our disgust and horror at the nature and extent of the relationship that Peter Mandelson maintained with Jeffrey Epstein despite Epstein’s criminal conviction for abusing a vulnerable young girl. This included encouraging Jeffrey Epstein to fight that conviction.

Jeffrey Epstein was a despicable criminal who committed the most horrifying and disgusting crimes that destroyed the lives of countless women and girls. What he did is, of course, unforgivable, and I know that his victims will be in the thoughts and prayers of all Members across the House as we debate these issues today. Those victims will always be our first priority. Peter Mandelson’s behaviour was an insult to them and their suffering, and I am sorry that these events leave them with no choice but to relive their horrors, with still too little justice being served. That is why there is cross-party consensus in this House for full transparency and accountability, why anybody with knowledge must co-operate with inquiries, whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere, and why the Government are therefore committed to publishing all documents relevant to the Humble Address.

The Prime Minister has taken responsibility for Peter Mandelson’s appointment as ambassador to the United States. He has acknowledged that it was a mistake and has apologised, not least for believing Peter Mandelson’s lies. As the Government have said previously, there are specific documents that this Government would like to have been able to disclose today, but which the Metropolitan police has asked us not to publish yet in order to avoid prejudicing its ongoing criminal investigation into Peter Mandelson. We have agreed to that request and will therefore publish those documents in the future, as soon as the Metropolitan police has confirmed that they will no longer prejudice its investigation.

As the House already understands, the Government must also carefully assess the risk of prejudicing UK national security or international relations posed by the release of any official documents. Any such material will be, and is being, referred to the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament. I thank the Committee for its assistance in this matter and can confirm to the House that it has agreed with a limited redaction, requested by the Government, in relation to one document that we are publishing today. Outside of that 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.

The documents released today relate specifically to the decision to appoint Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United States and the discussions that subsequently led to his dismissal. They include: the Cabinet Office due diligence report, which was passed to No. 10 prior to Peter Mandelson’s appointment; information provided to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister as to whether full due process was followed during Peter Mandelson’s appointment; papers relating to Peter Mandelson’s appointment as His Majesty’s ambassador to the United States and minutes of meetings relating to the decision to appoint him; and details of the severance payments made to Peter Mandelson after the Prime Minister instructed that he be withdrawn as ambassador, thereby terminating his employment by the civil service.

While the documents point to public reports of an ongoing relationship between Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein, the advice did not expose the depth and extent of their relationship, which became apparent only after the release of further files by Bloomberg and then the United States Department of Justice. After the Prime Minister reviewed the Cabinet Office due diligence report, which noted public reporting on Peter Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, questions were put to Peter Mandelson by advisers in No. 10, as right hon. and hon. Members can see referred to on pages 8 and 94 of the bundle, and Peter Mandelson responded. These are matters that are currently the subject of an ongoing police investigation, and we will publish this document when the investigation allows. When we do, Members will be able to see Peter Mandelson’s answers for themselves, which the Prime Minister regrets believing. Peter Mandelson should never have been afforded the privilege of representing this country, and I reiterate to the House that the Prime Minister deeply regrets taking him at his word. It was a mistake to do so.

I can, however, confirm to the House—as agreed with you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and Mr Speaker—that we have shared the documents that are with the Metropolitan police with the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee on terms agreed by the Metropolitan police, to ensure as much transparency to this House as possible.

As soon as the truth became apparent, following reporting by Bloomberg, the Prime Minister acted to withdraw Peter Mandelson from his role. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members across the House will also read in these documents with interest how Peter Mandelson conducted himself after his withdrawal as ambassador. As the documents show, Peter Mandelson initially requested a sum for his severance payment that was substantially larger than the final payment—not just two or even three times, but more than six times the final amount, despite the fact that he was withdrawn from Washington because he had lost the confidence of the Prime Minister.

The Government obviously found that to be inappropriate and unacceptable. The settlement that was agreed was to avoid even higher further costs involving a drawn-out legal claim at the employment tribunal, given Peter Mandelson’s employment as a civil servant, rather than a Minister. As the House will know, Ministers can be dismissed without recourse to the employment tribunal, but civil servants are treated differently.

The Government are committed to complying with the Humble Address, and further work is ongoing to compile the rest of the information in its scope. The Government recognise the urgency with which this work must be completed and will keep Members updated as that work progresses.

We know that these documents also reveal that the due diligence process fell short of what is required. We have already taken steps to address weaknesses in the system and to ensure that when standards of behaviour fall short of the high standards expected, there will be more serious consequences. We have launched the Ethics and Integrity Commission to promote the highest standards in public life and we are changing the process for direct ministerial appointments, including politically appointed diplomatic roles, so that where the role requires access to highly classified material, the candidate must have passed national security vetting before such appointments are announced or confirmed.

Ministers will now be expected to forgo severance payments following a serious breach of the ministerial code, and we have given the independent adviser the power to initiate investigations into ministerial misconduct without the need to seek the Prime Minister’s permission first. The Prime Minister has also strengthened the ministerial code, with stricter rules on gifts and hospitality, and we have asked the Conduct Committee in the Lords to review the code of conduct to consider what changes are required to ensure that peers can be removed when they have brought the House into disrepute in the other place. We are also exploring whether the Committee can tighten rules on lobbying and paid advocacy to bring the Lords in line with Commons procedures.

I want to note that the vast majority of individuals who apply to public service do so with the best of intentions. However, it is right that following the Peter Mandelson case, we have asked questions about how we can further strengthen the rules and processes that underpin the operation of government. We have appointed Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent in the upper House to support this work on standards and constitutional reform as a new Minister in the Cabinet Office. I can also announce that the Prime Minister has asked the Ethics and Integrity Commission to conduct a review of the current arrangements relating to financial disclosures for Ministers and senior officials, transparency around lobbying and the business appointment rules, and we are conducting a review of the national security vetting system to ensure that we learn the lessons from the policy and process weaknesses related to Peter Mandelson’s case.

Let me conclude by reiterating that the whole House will agree that Jeffrey Epstein was a disgusting individual, and that Peter Mandelson’s decision to put their relationship before his victims and the vulnerable was reprehensible. As the Prime Minister has said,

“the victims of Epstein have lived with trauma that most of us can barely comprehend. They have had to relive it again and again. And they have had to see accountability delayed and too often denied.”

We must all learn this hard lesson and end a culture that dismisses women’s experiences far too often and too easily. Peter Mandelson should never have been appointed, and the Government will comply with the Humble Address. I will update the House further in due course. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

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

I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your remarks at the outset of this statement. I also thank the Minister for advance sight of the statement, which I received at 1.30 pm. This whole business is really about transparency. The Government have had to be dragged to do this by Members on both sides of this House, so producing a 135-page document and putting it online 23 minutes before this debate is really not acceptable at all. I respect the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister for coming to the Chamber and making this statement, but it really ought to be the Prime Minister sitting there, because all of this is about the Prime Minister’s judgment. It is very convenient that this document was published after Prime Minister’s questions, during which the man who made the decision—the man whose judgment is in question—could have been put under scrutiny by hon. Members. Very many questions arise from the documents published. I will put a few on record, and then return to the central theme.

There is the issue of severance pay, to which the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister referred. Why did Ministers agree to any severance pay, given what had happened? Many of our constituents will be disgusted that Peter Mandelson received £70,000. Will his full declaration of interests, which he was supposed to have handed over when he was appointed, be published? I do not believe that they are included in the tranche of documents published today. Is that because of a police request, or is it for some other reason? Will the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister publish a register of withheld and delayed documents, so that the House can be aware of what is being held back? Will he give us a little more information, either now or in the future, on redactions? It is important that this House understands who is deciding on what will be redacted.

This awful saga involving Jeffrey Epstein continues. I understand that, as this House meets, one of his ranches in New Mexico is being investigated because there are reports that bodies are buried there. At the centre of this scandal was a very rich and powerful man who despicably abused his position, and he was helped to become rich and powerful by his associates, one of whom was Peter Mandelson. Although I of course associate myself with the remarks made by the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister about Epstein’s victims, it is very clear that those victims were not in the Prime Minister’s mind when he appointed Peter Mandelson. The Prime Minister has already admitted that he knew Mandelson had maintained his friendship with Epstein even after the latter’s conviction for his terrible crimes. That was a bad choice, and it is a choice that we can now read about in black and white on page 11 of the publication. It says:

“After Epstein was first convicted of procuring an underage girl in 2008, their relationship continued across 2009-2011, beginning when Lord Mandelson was Business Minister and continuing after the end of the Labour government. Mandelson reportedly stayed in Epstein’s House while he was in jail in June 2009.”

The Prime Minister claims that he was lied to; he was not lied to by this due diligence document. It may be that Mandelson denied those claims, and if so, perhaps the Prime Minister was lied to, but by an inveterate liar who had been fired twice before. We are supposed to believe that the Prime Minister, who was once the chief prosecutor in this country, could not see through this nonsense. It beggars belief.

Over the coming hours and days, we will see whether these documents reveal why the Prime Minister’s judgment failed so badly, but we must suspect that it was because his then chief of staff was Mandelson’s protégé. Morgan McSweeney had set up Labour Together, the Prime Minister’s private campaigning organisation. Peter Mandelson had advised Morgan McSweeney on the establishment of that organisation, which had been responsible for breaking electoral law so that it could hide the sources of its funds from the public and from the Labour party. Labour Together then sought to intimidate and smear journalists who revealed that wrongdoing, and it provided hundreds of Labour MPs and many of the top brass in the Cabinet with free money and free services. This was the ultimate “jobs for the boys”. The Prime Minister knew all that he needed to know. It was on him; it is on him now. He let his party and his country down. I very much doubt that either will trust him again.

[Darren Jones]

The shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster asked me a number of questions, which I shall take in turn. The first was on the severance payment. He asked me why that payment had been made, and who approved it. As I set out in my opening statement, Peter Mandelson was employed as a civil servant, not as a Minister. That meant that on his summary dismissal by the Prime Minister, he had the right to take a claim to the employment tribunal. As we can see in the documents, Peter Mandelson asked for a much larger sum, with the implied threat that there would be legal proceedings, with associated costs. The Government would not have wanted to pay £1 to Peter Mandelson, but they reluctantly agreed to the award, given the contrast between the cost to the taxpayer of employment tribunal legal fees, and the cost of a payment; in the advice, the latter cost would have been higher than the amount that was given. The Prime Minister has since said that Peter Mandelson should either return that money or donate it.

On the question of who approved the severance payment, the House will see from the documents that the request from the Foreign Office was made to the Treasury. The payment was approved, in line with Treasury business rules, albeit reluctantly, and with an express condition that a non-disclosure agreement was not allowed in these circumstances. For the sake of completeness, there is reference in the bundle to that business case requiring my approval. I can confirm to the House that I did not receive that request, or indeed approve it.

The shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster asked me about some of the documents, namely about redactions and a register of withheld documents. On the question of a register of withheld documents, I would need to take advice from lawyers in the Metropolitan police before I could say whether these documents are being held for their criminal investigation. I hope that the House is somewhat reassured by the mechanism that we have been able to establish with the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, which has sight of these documents, albeit in a contained and controlled way. Government redactions to the documents are to protect only the names and contact details of junior civil servants, as is the practice. Other redactions that relate to international security and international relations are done with the approval of the Intelligence and Security Committee.

Lastly, the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster asked me about the report from the Cabinet Office to the Prime Minister. As I said in my opening statement, the Prime Minister did ask subsequent questions of Peter Mandelson following that report being submitted by the Cabinet Office. His advisers at No. 10 undertook to answer those questions. Although that is a document that we cannot publish at this time, the Prime Minister is very clear that he regrets having believed the lies that Peter Mandelson put before him.

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

Clearly, Peter Mandelson’s associations bring a real stench to the appointment process, but I want to know about the business associations, and how they are scrutinised in the process. We know that Peter Mandelson’s public relations company, Global Counsel, had as a client Palantir, which has won lucrative contracts from successive Governments. I want to understand whether the papers demonstrate those associations, and the associations that Peter Mandelson then brought into Government.

[Darren Jones]

My hon. Friend will see from the documents that are being published today that those commercial interests were raised by the Cabinet Office, and that established processes were in place that meant that new members of the civil service had to remove such commercial interests before taking office. There is some commentary in the bundle about the conversation that was had with Peter Mandelson in advance of his appointment as ambassador to the United States, specifically about that question. Having said all that, part of the review that we are taking forward is another look at the business appointment rules, to make sure that the processes that were applied were robust enough in the situation that we are discussing. If we need to further strengthen them, we stand ready to do so.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the leader of the Liberal Democrats.

[Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)]

I thank the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement. It is a stain on our nation that we are even having to go through this. It is right that we keep Epstein’s victims, survivors and families at the front of our mind.

Today marks the first day of Britain’s own Epstein files. For a close friend of Epstein to have been made Britain’s ambassador to the United States is a shameful part of this affair; that is the Prime Minister’s responsibility. It is disappointing that the Prime Minister is not here to answer for that, and for his catastrophic failure of judgment with respect to Mandelson.

Peter Mandelson’s close relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, and the fact that it continued long after long after Epstein’s conviction for child sex trafficking, had been reported by both Channel 4’s “Dispatches” in 2019 and the Financial Times in 2023. Has the Prime Minister told the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister personally how those reports made him feel, and why he still felt it was right to appoint Mandelson anyway? Mandelson’s £75,000 payout is an insult to Epstein’s victims—if he had a shred of decency left he would donate it to charity—but the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister’s explanation of why the Government made that payout simply will not wash.

With a very limited number of documents being released today, the wait goes on for the rest of Britain’s Epstein files. That includes the documents relating to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor required by the Liberal Democrats’ Humble Address, which was passed a fortnight ago. I very much hope that the Government will get those documents out as quickly as possible. It has taken five weeks from the Mandelson Humble Address to publication today. Will the Chief Secretary guarantee that the first Andrew papers will be published within the same timeframe, and by 31 March at the latest?

[Darren Jones]

As I have said to the House, the Prime Minister regrets having appointed Peter Mandelson ambassador to the United States. It was the wrong decision, and he has apologised for it.

On severance, as I said, the Government would not have wanted to give £1 to Peter Mandelson, but it was the quickest way to remove him as ambassador and a member of the civil service. As the leader of the Liberal Democrats said—the Government agree with him—the honourable thing to do would be to donate that money to an appropriate charity.

On the Liberal Democrats’ Humble Address, that is being managed by the Department for Business and Trade; it is working on that now, and will come forward with updates in due course. As I said in my statement, the Cabinet Office will come back with a further tranche of documents in relation to the Humble Address as soon as possible.

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

If one of my constituents told me they had lost their job or been sacked because they had lied during the application process and they wanted compensation, I would tell them they had absolutely no chance of getting it, so I really struggle to understand why we paid a penny. I understand what the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister said about not wanting to make a payment, but the risk of an employment tribunal claim in such circumstances is minuscule. He is right that the money should have been paid to a victims charity. Will he now press Mandelson to do the right thing and give that money to the victims of abuse?

[Darren Jones]

My hon. Friend and the House will see from the bundle of documents published today that the Government acted on the basis of legal advice in awarding that settlement payment, but I agree wholeheartedly, and repeat from the Dispatch Box that the honourable thing for Peter Mandelson to do would be to donate the payment to an appropriate charity.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

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

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

I acknowledge what the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister said with regards to my role as Chair of the Committee looking at documents pro tem on behalf of the House. As he knows, that will be done properly.

Following the point made by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders), the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister is right that under the civil service rules, Mandelson could have made a claim to a tribunal, but the hon. Gentleman is also right that anybody doing so who has secured a position by deception would find themselves on the thinnest of thin ice; they would have no chance at all. Mandelson’s original claim just underscores the shamelessness of the individual in question.

As the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister has admitted that the Prime Minister was lied to—that is deception—was legal advice sought as to the likely outcome of any employment tribunal case brought by Mandelson? If it was, what was that advice? If it was not, why not?

[Darren Jones]

The advice is in the bundle of documents published today; the hon. Gentleman will have to forgive my not being able to refer him to precisely the right page. While it is not for me to defend the claim that Peter Mandelson was making against the Government, one of the issues would of course have been the legal fees in defending that claim at the employment tribunal, which would have been a cost to the taxpayer even if in the end the Government would have been successful. Those considerations were put to the Government in advice, which is why that settlement figure—a much lower figure than the legal fees and potential settlement being asked for—was the case.

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

I have listened to the Minister, and some of his points were relevant, but this is not just about technicalities and lapses of judgment. This is about a wider, rotten political culture: a 30-year project where proximity to wealth and power is not a means to an end but the end goal. That is what Peter Mandelson represented. This is not just about him being the ambassador or being selected to be ambassador; he was at the heart of the political project around No. 10. That has to change. Do the Government understand that out there, this is about not just one bad set of decisions but a political culture, which Peter Mandelson represents, and that it is destroying mainstream party politics in this country? Do we get that? Do we understand that? Will we change?

--- Later in debate ---

[Darren Jones]

My hon. Friend and I are members of the labour movement because we share the same values. We are here to represent the voices of working people and those across the country who have no power and no access. That is what our movement was created to do, and we share that ambition. Do I recognise that we are still operating in a system where power and wealth can lead to these outcomes? Absolutely. Do we have a shared ambition to tackle that? Yes, we do.

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

The Minister will know that the Government have a Bill about the duty of accountability and candour going through the House; one of his colleagues on the Front Bench will confirm that that requires Ministers to answer questions with candour. Several weeks ago, three Members of this House asked him what Mandelson’s pay-off was, and he refused to answer. I ask him to reflect on whether he acted with candour.

Back to the question of whether Mandelson deserved a pay-out, is it not the truth that the Government know that this tissue—this story or suggestion that they were lied to and that there was no possible way they could have found out the truth—would have been torn apart in an employment tribunal, and that is why they did not want to take the case to one?

[Darren Jones]

That was not the rationale. The documents will speak for themselves.

[Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)]

The statement has truly been sickening. Does the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister agree that the sickening behaviour and conduct of Mandelson is in part a symptom of structural misogyny? Will he use his office to drive structural misogyny out of Whitehall and Westminster?

[Darren Jones]

My hon. Friend is right to raise the bigger issues in question about the process of appointment, disclosure and deceit, and the rules that are in place. Above and beyond all that, unfortunately, is a country and a world in which the voices of women who are subject to male violence are not heard and the abuse of power and privilege is still rampant. I think all of us—in any party and in any part of the House—would want to suggest that that is not how we wish the world to operate. We should all do what we can to change that. That is why the Government are committed to halving violence against women and girls, and it is why we talk about how we tackle structural misogyny, whether at the heart of our political system, in business or elsewhere. I know that my hon. Friend and I share those ambitions and will do all that we can to make them a reality.

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

If I listened to the Chief Secretary correctly, which I think I did, he said, “His victims must be our first priority.” Let us be clear: for the Prime Minister, they were not. On 11 December 2024, he received advice that says,

“Epstein was first convicted of procuring an underage girl in 2008”.

The following sentence says,

“Mandelson…stayed in Epstein’s House…in June 2009.”

I repeat: the victims were not the Prime Minister’s first priority.

That being the case, how can the Chief Secretary stand at that Dispatch Box, with a straight face, and say,

“We must all learn this hard lesson and end a culture that dismisses women’s experiences”,

when it was the Prime Minister who chose to ignore those experiences, ignore those facts and appoint Peter Mandelson in the first place?

[Darren Jones]

The hon. Member will have heard from my—

[Stephen Flynn]

Right honourable.

[Darren Jones]

Forgive me. The right hon. Member will have heard from my statement that in response to the reported allegations that are listed in the Cabinet Office due diligence—at the time they were, of course, allegations—questions were put to Peter Mandelson by No. 10 advisers. His responses to those questions are part of documents that we would have liked to publish today but are not yet able to. Since then, the Prime Minister has made it very clear that Peter Mandelson lied to him. He regrets believing those lies and if he had known the depth and extent of that relationship, which nobody in this House understood until the Bloomberg publication of documents and the US Department of Justice disclosures, he would never have appointed him in the first place.

[Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)]

The release of documents outlining what was known about Mandelson’s association with Epstein is welcome. Mandelson’s avarice, his business connections and his malign influence within the Labour party are simultaneously why he was made ambassador and why he was useful to Epstein. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should be seeking to distance ourselves from flawed democracies that are drifting towards authoritarianism, such as the United States, rather than using those associated with sex offenders to strengthen such relationships?

[Darren Jones]

My hon. Friend will know from the statements of the Prime Minister and the documents published today that he regrets having ever appointed Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United States. In our country, we rightly respect the rules that are in place and that need to be observed, and there must be clear consequences for people who breach them. As I have said in earlier answers, even in our country, we have much further to go to tackle violence against women and girls and structural misogyny, and we should all have a shared ambition to tackle that as quickly as possible.

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

The Chief Secretary deserves our admiration for always being calm and courteous, even in the most trying circumstances, but he really must not take us for fools. Peter Mandelson had a reputation as one of the most slippery and sleazy characters in modern British politics. The Chief Secretary confirms that the Prime Minister was warned about what Mandelson had done in continuing a relationship with Epstein after he had been sent to jail for abusing a young girl. He is saying, “Well, the Prime Minister did not know the depth of this relationship.” Does he really expect us to believe that a shallow relationship with a convicted paedophile is okay?

--- Later in debate ---

[Darren Jones]

At the time of the appointment, there were public comments from Peter Mandelson—I think they were in a Financial Times interview—saying that his relationship had ended much earlier than documents now show to be the case. On the back of the Cabinet Office reports about those newspaper stories, the Prime Minister had further questions put to Peter Mandelson, documents for which we will be able to publish in due course. That is why the Prime Minister says that he regrets having believed Peter Mandelson’s lies and wishes he had never appointed him in the first place.

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

The appointment of Lord Mandelson was not just a catastrophic error of judgment that has caused profound damage to this Government’s reputation; it was the result of a clique at the top of the party, as we have seen with the Morgan McSweeney and Labour Together scandal, which I and colleagues on the Labour Benches have called on the Prime Minister and the general secretary of the Labour party to launch an independent investigation into. Will the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister outline what structural safeguards are being implemented today to ensure that cronyism never again overrides the national interest in high-level appointments?

[Darren Jones]

I refer my hon. Friend to the list of changes that the Government are undertaking in my statement earlier, from the work of the Ethics and Integrity Commission and a review of the business appointment rules to looking at the role of lobbying and transparency, to make sure that there are consequences for the few people who seek to breach those rules. Alongside the duty of candour Bill, which has been mentioned in the debate, that will be the widest range of changes to our ethics and standards framework in many, many years, if not a generation. I reiterate, as I said in my statement, that the vast majority of public servants serve the public for the right reasons and adhere to the rules. Evidently, when there are those who seek to evade them, we need to ensure that we are more effective at catching that in future.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

I find this faux outrage about Mandelson astonishing. He is a man who had been closely involved with the leadership of the Labour party ever since Tony Blair and very closely with the current Prime Minister since 2020. They must have known his character; they must have known what he was like. In the documents that the Government are now producing, will we know every piece of advice that was given to the Prime Minister by his officials and by the Foreign Office? Specifically, will there be a record of any verbal briefings given to the Prime Minister before he made the calamitous decision to send Mandelson to Washington? The public need to know why the Prime Minister, despite all the knowledge about Mandelson, felt the need to go ahead with the appointment.

[Darren Jones]

The tranche of documents today that relate to the appointment and then the dismissal of Peter Mandelson as ambassador is inclusive of all the documents held by Government, bar those that have been held back by the Metropolitan police for its criminal investigation. There are no further documents that have not been published.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister rightly called for the removal of peerages from disgraced peers. Will the Chief Secretary set out to the House when we might have an update on the proposed legislation in that regard?

[Darren Jones]

As the House knows from previous statements on this issue, we want to ensure that where people break the rules, there are consequences for that behaviour. One of the areas where that was not the case was the appointment of life peer in the other place, as there were no provisions for taking a peerage from somebody in any circumstance. That has been a problem in the past in relation to criminal convictions and other disreputable behaviour. It is right, therefore, that the Government are working with the other place to bring forward legislation to give the authority and powers for that to happen in future, and we will come forward with those proposals in due course.

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

Two Global Counsel clients benefited from direct Government defence awards and Global Counsel staff flew to Washington parties to join Peter Mandelson. Will the Minister confirm that, either in this bundle or in future documents, there will be a rigorous report to Parliament of the background to those awards and to all the parties, with guest lists, so that Parliament can see what happened and how we improve things and make sure it never happens again?

[Darren Jones]

I confirm that all other documents that are in scope of the Humble Address that are not being published today will be, subject to the Metropolitan police and clearance from the Intelligence and Security Committee, published in the next tranche.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

I hold in my hand the advice that was given to the Prime Minister before he made the decision to appoint Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the USA. Reading that advice document, it is clear that the Prime Minister would not have given the go ahead for this individual to stand as a Labour candidate for town council. Instead, he was elevated, despite what is in the document and despite what was known, to this most important of positions.

There is a whole section entitled “Relationship with Jeffrey Epstein”. The question that has to be asked is: how did it even get to the stage of the Prime Minister interviewing Mandelson and considering him for the job? The simple answer is political. It is because it suited the interests of a tiny faction in the Labour party, funded by big business, which wanted Mandelson at the heart of things in order to shift a Labour Government away from the agenda that a real Labour Government should have. That is why Mandelson was popular with these people, that is why he was one of their favourite sons and that is why, despite his despicable character, despite his greed and his avarice, he was put in that position despite what was known. Is that not the case?

[Darren Jones]

It is not for me to speak on behalf of Peter Mandelson, but evidently he put himself forward for this role, which is how he ended up in the process in the first place. To the question of his appointment, as I have said to the House, the Prime Minister regrets his appointment and apologises for it, and had he known what the House now knows, he would never have appointed him in the first place.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

In his remarks, the Chief Secretary mentions policy and process weaknesses in our political system, and he is right to do so, but surely the real failure is that of the Prime Minister’s judgment. He also talks about the depth of Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein not being known, but Mandelson’s character was, and it was known for a long time. There was a long-standing interview exercise when somebody was applying to be a press officer for the Liberal Democrats. They were told: “Peter Mandelson has resigned in disgrace again. Draft the press release.” It is difficult to legislate out poor judgment, but the Chief Secretary has talked about legislating for policy and process weaknesses. When does he plan to bring forward this legislation?

[Darren Jones]

A number of changes can be made without legislation, and I will be able to update the House on that in due course. That will of course be quicker to implement as a consequence of its not requiring statute. Where we specifically need statutory changes, which I think at this stage will predominantly relate to the removal of peerages from those who bring the other place into disrepute, we will bring those forward in the coming months.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his statement and also for the tone in which he has brought it here today. It has been quite an open statement in terms of the discussion. As a Government, we are serious about the whole agenda of violence against women and girls, and I just cannot conclude that giving Mandelson £75,000 is compatible with that, so I hope that he repays it. Constituents in Edinburgh South West are really concerned about Epstein’s links into the British establishment, particularly given the allegations against Mountbatten-Windsor and Mandelson himself. I know that a live court case and investigation are under way, but can the Government commit to a public inquiry into Epstein’s links into the British state, once these court cases are over?

[Darren Jones]

My hon. Friend will know that there is an ongoing criminal investigation in this country and that investigations are happening in the United States, in Congress and elsewhere. As the Prime Minister has said, anybody who had any relationship with Jeffrey Epstein or any connection to the events or organisations that he hosted should be readily putting themselves forward to answer any questions and trying to help bring justice to the victims, who have been waiting for too long.

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

When will the Government release Mandelson’s declaration of interest, and why is it not included in the documents released today?

[Darren Jones]

All the documents that are available in relation to Peter Mandelson’s appointment and dismissal are published in the tranche today, subject to those that have been held back by the Metropolitan police. All further documents that relate to the Humble Address will be released in the second tranche, which will be in the coming weeks.

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

The Chief Secretary rightly referred to a wider set of reforms on openness, accountability and transparency that will now be considered, and I welcome Baroness Anderson’s appointment to support that work. Can he assure me that lobbying reform writ large will be in scope of the Ethics and Integrity Commission review, and that that will include looking at previous Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee reports, including the PACAC recommendations on the Greensill David Cameron lobbying scandal that still have not been responded to? Does he also agree that the antidote to the distrust that we have seen in politics can be better public participation? I want to acknowledge the launch of the citizens assembly yesterday, and I personally believe that more citizens assemblies will bring power closer to the people and away from power and wealth in this country.

[Darren Jones]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his years of work on that issue. I can confirm that the wide-ranging set of reviews that are taking place today will happily receive submissions from him and others in this and the other place, should they wish to make them. We will be looking at current and previous reports from the relevant Committees in the normal way.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

These papers show that, on 11 December 2024, just nine days before the Prime Minister confirmed Mandelson as the new ambassador, he was specifically advised of the J.P. Morgan report from 2009, which expressly said that Mandelson maintained a “particularly close relationship” with Epstein after Epstein’s conviction for soliciting prostitution from a minor. Yet the Prime Minister, a former chief prosecutor, chose in those circumstances, with that information, to believe the lies of Mandelson. How could that be? And given that it is, what does it say about the judgment of our Prime Minister?

[Darren Jones]

The Prime Minister has said that he regrets believing the lies of Peter Mandelson and that, had he known the depth and extent of the relationship that we now all know and have confirmed, he would never have appointed him in the first place. That is why the Prime Minister has apologised and acknowledged that this appointment was a mistake.

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

Epstein was a truly despicable criminal and Mandelson’s lying and actions with Epstein shamed the nation, but does the Chief Secretary agree that what we must not do right now is to compromise the criminal investigations that the Met is currently undertaking? To do so would be to fail the victims of Epstein and their families. Can the Chief Secretary also reassure the House that, as and when documents become available, they will be published in a timely manner?

[Darren Jones]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The victims of Jeffrey Epstein have for too long had justice delayed or denied, and the very worst that we could do is to undermine a criminal investigation that may at last bring some justice for the horrors that they have suffered. That is why the Government are working closely with the Metropolitan police to ensure that we do everything we can to not prejudice that investigation. It is why there are some documents that we have chosen not to publish, at the request of the Metropolitan police, even though we might like to do so. I am grateful to the Metropolitan police for agreeing to allow us to put those documents before the Chair of the relevant Select Committee so that in some way, on behalf of the House, there can be independent verification that we are not misusing that process in any way to withhold any documents, when we are completely committed to full transparency.

[Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)]

Like all statements, it is not just what is in but what is left out. We learned today that the due diligence, which has not been spoken about in any detail in the statement, provided to the Prime Minister before Peter Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador, warned that it would pose a “general reputational risk”. This is not just about the Prime Minister sitting down and having a chat with Mandelson and not believing him. He was warned that this would pose a “general reputational risk”. My question to the Minister is very simple. Which failing does he think the Prime Minister suffers from: ignorance, arrogance or both?

[Darren Jones]

The Prime Minister has apologised for appointing Peter Mandelson as the ambassador to the United States. He believed the lies that Peter Mandelson put to him in response to questions about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. As soon as all of us, including the Prime Minister, became aware that those were indeed lies, with the publication of the documents from Bloomberg and the United States Department of Justice, he was dismissed promptly.

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

In my investigations into Palantir, it has been brought to my attention that 20 years ago Peter Mandelson was lobbying the Government very hard to take on board a strategic supplier from the United States that was not an obvious choice at the time. That sort of decision is something that a financier like Epstein would have taken advantage of and made money from. We see the same things with influence and persuasion from Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. Will the Government commit to following the money and the money trail to ensure that we are not continuing to pay into Epstein’s estate through the deals that we are doing with large American contractors such as Palantir?

[Darren Jones]

I am not familiar with the details of the case the hon. Gentleman raises, but if he wishes to write to me with those details, I can commit to him that we will look at them.

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

The Minister has said that he wants to be open with us. I tabled a series of parliamentary questions about when Peter Mandelson ceased employment at the Foreign Office and I never got a response. They were first tabled on 4 February. There was a flurry of emails on 4 February without any context to them at all. Will he provide the context? Is it a coincidence? Why could the Minister not answer my question previously? And if he does want to be open, then let us try another one. He said that Peter Mandelson was fired because he told lies, but he has been given a £75,000 pay-off: £35,000 of that was a special severance payment; £30,000 was tax-free. Why on earth was it tax-free?

[Darren Jones]

In relation to the tax-free treatment for payments following dismissal without recourse to the employment tribunal, those are the tax rules that exist in all circumstances in this country. The Government did not have the legal powers to override them. On the parliamentary questions, I think the documents the hon. Gentleman is hoping to see are being published today and they of course speak for themselves.

Digital ID: Public Consultation

Darren Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 10th March 2026 Commons Chamber

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

Today the Government are launching a national conversation on how we will build and use digital ID as the means to access public services digitally on a mobile phone or computer.

Public services are meant to be there at the most important moments of your life: free childcare hours to help your children get a good start in life, getting your passport to go on your first holiday, passing your driving test and getting your first driving licence, asking for help if you lose your job, or receiving your state pension in retirement. But today, as the House knows, it is often too hard for people to get what they need when they need it. The current legacy system of call centres, paperwork and the need for people to tell their story multiple times to different parts of Government, with hours on hold and not knowing where they are in the process, is not good enough. I want to change that, and this Government will.

In its place, we will build a truly modern Britain where public services work for the citizen, through new digital public services that come together on the gov.uk app, so that help is there when people need it most. To do that, Government need to build the foundations for these new modern public services, and that is exactly what this digital ID system is for. It will be free to access for anyone who wishes to use it, and it will be built on three core principles. First, it must be useful. It needs to be easier than the old telephone and paper-based systems. Secondly, it must be secure. People will have more control over what data they share, and we expect nothing less than the level of security protections provided by banks for online banking services. Thirdly, it must be for everyone. We will not leave people behind, and the Government will help those who are less confident with technology or do not have other forms of ID, such as a passport.

With a digital ID, citizens will be able to log in to the gov.uk app and then, crucially, prove who they are. But unlike an ordinary login, the digital ID will work across different Departments and services, bringing those all together in one place in the gov.uk app, so that the public can access all the services they need in one place. This is different from building one giant Government IT system—that is not what we are doing. Services will remain on separate IT systems in their relevant Departments, and the NHS app and citizens’ health data will always remain separate, but the gov.uk app and digital ID will, over time, bring all other public services into one app on mobile phones—the front door to modern public services.

This will not be a new experience for citizens. The public already use these systems every day, from banking to shopping. Other countries are already far ahead of us, from Denmark and Estonia to Australia and India. Britain is having to catch up.

It is an issue of convenience and efficiency, but it is also one of fairness and equality. We all know who the status quo often favours: those with the resources, the headspace, and perhaps the pointy elbows or the pushiness to get themselves to the front of the queue or allow them to play the system. But public services are meant to be there when people need them most, and how the legacy system has sometimes treated people in these stressful or difficult situations is quite frankly an outrage, piling them up with bureaucracy and leaving them without the help they need.

Who is it who struggles to fill in the forms correctly or lacks the form of ID required? Who are the one in seven people across the UK who do not have a passport? They are often the strivers who are juggling work and caring responsibilities. This Government believe that everybody deserves a fair shot, and it is up to Government to give people support and a leg-up when they need it.

Today we are launching this national conversation to discuss how we will build and use a digital ID. We want to know where frustrations exist with the current legacy system and which services could be made easier via the gov.uk app. Later today, I will share a prototype of how a digital ID could work that shows how “government by app” could become a reality, joining up different Departments and services so that the public do not have to do the work themselves.

In the initial stages, the digital ID system will start by making it easier to complete simple administrative tasks, such as proving one’s right to work when starting a job. Other tasks, such as paying car tax, ordering a passport or sorting childcare entitlements, could become part of the same app. I understand that the idea of a digital ID has sparked significant public interest, so I have instructed my Department to ensure that this consultation goes further than any other that the Government have done before.

As part of the public consultation, which is live right now, we will invite a representative sample of the public at large—from all walks of life and all parts of the country—to form a people’s panel. [Interruption.] That deliberative democracy process will build on our experience of supporting Parliament’s citizens assembly on net zero in the previous Parliament. Working with over 100 citizens, we will debate the difficult questions, find ways forward and build a system that can secure the trust and support of everyone. [Interruption.] To those Members chuntering from a sedentary position about having a conversation with the public, I say, “What do you fear?” This Government are very happy to talk to the public about what we are doing, and I look forward to talking to hon. Members’ constituents if they are selected to be part of the process.

I understand that this will not be for everyone. I hope that the services we build will be so good that most people will wish to use them, but for those who do not, I want to make sure that help is on hand in their local community. That is why the roll-out of the digital ID will be accompanied by a digital inclusion drive to help people to access and use the services. I do not come to Parliament today with preconceived answers, and we will of course need to ensure that any future scheme is value for money, but I am interested to hear ideas about how we might use the people and buildings we already support through public expenditure to help local communities. We could use local post offices and postal workers, or libraries and jobcentres, to ensure that the majority of people can, if they need to, access digital assistance to use these services. For those who really do not wish to, traditional routes will of course still be made available.

As right hon. and hon. Members from across the House know, by the end of this Parliament, digital checks to verify someone’s right to work will be mandatory when they start a new job. It is currently a legal requirement for employers to check that a new employee has a legal right to work in the United Kingdom, but the often paper-based approach of photocopying or scanning a passport or utility bills, without further checks, is vulnerable to fraud and does not create a clear record for enforcement agents of when and where checks have been carried out. That is why the Prime Minister has asked for those existing checks to be conducted digitally by the end of this Parliament. It will still be the employer’s responsibility, but employees will be able to choose between using their Government digital ID—as we are setting out today—and using a passport, e-visa or other alternative method. It will be easier and quicker for individuals to demonstrate their right to work. For businesses, it will streamline and reduce the cost of compliance reporting. For the Home Office, it will create a digital audit trail of where checks have been carried out, to support enforcement where checks have not been carried out and to deter those who think that it is too easy to work illegally in the United Kingdom.

This is quite a technical consultation, but it is also a deeply political one. When the public voted for change they also voted for better public services. That is what Labour Governments at their best are all about: building new and innovative public services to support opportunity for all, rather than for just the privileged few—from the NHS in the 1940s, to the Open University in the 1960s and Sure Start centres in the 2000s. Today we are continuing that proud Labour tradition by building modern, digital public services that extend opportunity and support for people when they need it. This stands in stark contrast to political parties that wish to conserve the unacceptable status quo, or that offer to tear everything down and leave people on their own.

We want people across Britain to want this system, we want them to be part of it, and we want them to have the opportunity to shape it. This consultation is that opportunity. I look forward to the involvement of Members from across the House and of our constituents. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Josh Simons) for his work on this issue to date, and the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Frith), for all the work that he will now do to make this a reality—for which I will take the credit if it goes well, and he the blame if it goes wrong. I commend this statement to the House.

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

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement and for the briefing a short time ago.

It is said that in 1720, gullible investors were invited to put their money into

“a company for carrying out an undertaking of great advantage, but nobody to know what it is”.

Today, the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister appears to be reviving that proud tradition. For months, his Department has insisted that digital ID was absolutely essential, and until a few weeks ago, it had to be mandatory—even for babies. However, after months of insisting that the scheme was indispensable, the Government are now asking the public to tell them just what it is indispensable for. There was a time when this was supposed to be the magic bullet to tackle illegal migration. Now, the Cabinet Office seems to be suggesting that it might just help to reduce hold times in Government call centres.

This great undertaking has gone from promising the elixir of eternal youth to the equivalent of, “Well, you never know, it might help if you have a slightly upset tummy.” The public know snake oil when they are offered it. We should not be surprised, because this never was a thought-through policy; it was always a distraction stunt. For years, officials have been looking at the ID file on the shelf, hoping for a Government desperate enough to pick it up, and last September they finally found one. Desperate for an announcement to shove Andy Burnham off the front pages before a tricky Labour conference—look how that turned out—the Prime Minister dusted off this scheme with no clear idea of how it would work, what it would cost or what the consequences would be.

After one of the Government’s many U-turns, the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister now assures us that this digital ID will not become compulsory. Nothing is ever compulsory until it suddenly is. We know how this story goes. At first, it is voluntary, then it becomes strongly encouraged. Then, you discover you need it to open a bank account and see your GP. Before long, your phone battery dies while you are in the queue at Costa, and you are essentially a non-person: “Sorry, sir, no flat white for you. Computer says you no longer exist.” It is no wonder that even the Health Secretary wants nothing to do with this particular headline.

Of course, the Government tell us not to worry because the system will be secure. This is the same Government who cannot even keep their own Budget secret. How much confidence can the public really have that their personal data will not be misused, when the Minister who was responsible for the scheme this time last week had to resign following reports that he hired a firm to spy on journalists who had written negative stories about his organisation?

In November, the Office for Budget Responsibility put the cost of this boondoggle at £1.8 billion over three years, which is more than the cost of building and operating a new Type 45 destroyer—and nearly as dangerous if not used properly. The OBR did not change that figure in last week’s projections, so we can assume that £1.8 billion remains the best estimate. And for what? Britain has managed perfectly well for centuries without a peacetime national identity system. Society functions without citizens having to authenticate themselves to the state every time they wish to open an app or go about their daily lives. Before we rush headlong into constructing the world’s most elaborate digital clipboard, the Government should recognise some serious concerns. If their system fails, it will be expensive; if it is hacked, it will be dangerous; and if it expands, it will be intrusive. So what exactly is the overwhelming crisis in British life that requires us to take all three risks?

Until the Government can answer that question convincingly, the British public will view this proposal in exactly the same way that they view most grand Whitehall technology schemes: with deep suspicion, a modicum of mild amusement and a firm determination to keep their identity exactly where it belongs—in their own pocket, not floating somewhere in the Government’s cloud.

[Darren Jones]

I enjoyed the hon. Member’s response to the statement, and I thank him for lifting our spirit with it. Let me say two things to him gently. First, I am very confident that, because the public do their banking and shopping online in a quick and convenient way, the fact that the Government are saying, “You should be able to access public services in that way,” will seem perfectly sensible and pragmatic. If Conservative Members want to say that the status quo is the best we have to offer and we should not even try to make it better, then all luck to them. Secondly, I genuinely do not think that I heard—not for the want of trying—a single question in the hon. Gentleman’s remarks, so I have nothing further to add.

[Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)]

I welcome the Government’s decision to remove the mandatory element of digital ID, so that we can all focus on the benefits that easier access to public services should deliver for everyone. Usefulness, security and inclusivity are good principles, and I urge my constituents to take part in the consultation in any way they can. The Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, which I chair, has heard really worrying evidence of lax data practices across Government, persistent IT failures and lock-in to expensive proprietary systems. Digital ID will be built in-house, as I understand it, by the Government Digital Service in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. Can my right hon. Friend commit that it will not be built on bad data and bad data practices?

[Darren Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question; the Government look forward to working with her and her Select Committee as we develop these policies. She is absolutely right. We are focusing on building the app and the login system with digital ID, but the big prize in the years ahead is when we can get the old services off the old computers, into the app and working well. I do not underestimate the challenge of that process, but it presents an opportunity for investment and reform that will modernise those systems, deal with those legacy issues around security and the quality of data, and ultimately provide better services to the public. It will take a number of years to do, but I am confident that in the end, it is the only viable route to modern public services in our country.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

I am grateful to the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement. Let us be clear about why we are here. Following collapsing public support, strong opposition from the Liberal Democrats, a petition signed by nearly 3 million people—including over 5,000 of my constituents—and significant unease expressed by Labour MPs, the Government had no choice but to step back from a mandatory scheme. But in the spirit of being a constructive Liberal Opposition, we have some suggestions for the Government if they want this scheme to have any level of public support whatsoever.

First, any digital ID scheme must never be mandatory. People should not be forced to turn over their data simply to go about their daily lives. We cannot and should not turn people into criminals just because someone is unable or unwilling to obtain one. Any scheme must genuinely assure privacy, with very clear legal limits and strong technical protections to prevent misuse or surveillance. Individuals must retain ownership and control of their own data. The data must not be reused, sold or accessed beyond its original purpose.

The Government should also give assurance on the decentralisation of any register. A single point of failure puts the personal details of millions at risk, which is unacceptable. Any scheme must also have a clearly defined purpose set out in law. We could not support a system that extends into different parts of our lives over time, without clear and unequivocal democratic approval.

Robust safeguards are vital. Yes, it is about what this Government want to do, but it is also about what a potential future Government may wish to do with the power such a scheme would present. Can the Chief Secretary confirm that a digital ID scheme will never be mandatory, either for employment or to secure a home in the UK?

[Darren Jones]

I thank the hon. Lady and her colleagues for their engagement with the Government on this issue; we look forward to continuing to work with them on this. The good news is that on each of the principles she sets out, the Government agree wholeheartedly. I hope that means we will get the support of the Liberal Democrats, and we look forward to delivering these great reforms to public services together for the public.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

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

The general public need to be on board with this or it will be a complete and utter failure. When it comes to the most deprived and those who lack the technological abilities to access these systems, what is my right hon. Friend going to do to make sure he can bring people onside, so that this scheme can be a success?

[Darren Jones]

My hon. Friend is exactly right to call out the challenge of digital inclusion. We see in the private sector lots of services becoming digital but very little help for the public if they cannot use them. The great opportunity of this programme, as I said in my statement, is that if we can create opportunities in people’s local communities—whether in post offices, libraries, GP surgeries or jobcentres—so that there is someone nearby who can help them if they want help to use these digital systems, that would be a huge advancement on digital inclusion. I hope this programme will help deliver those outcomes.

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

Before I purchase something at the supermarket, I want to know what the price is. The Minister seems to be lacking clarity on how much this is going to cost. Can he give that clarity?

--- Later in debate ---

[Darren Jones]

The consultation asks many questions about how we should build, implement and roll out this system. I am absolutely happy to tell the House that as of today, we do not know the answer. I would rather be honest with the House, as opposed to announcing a budget for something that then gets massively out of control in years ahead, as was often the case under the previous Government. I look forward to coming back to the House with updated figures after the consultation.

[Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

The state holds vast amounts of data on all of us from the moment we are born, some of which we never see, are never able to correct and never know who has been looking at it. Does the Minister agree that digital ID provides the opportunity for residents in my constituency and beyond to take back control over their personal data?

[Darren Jones]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. It is very difficult today to get information out of the public sector because it is often paper-based or on IT systems that we cannot access. With digital ID and the gov.uk app, citizens will have more control and more insight into how their data is being used and for what purposes in the future, which will mean they feel more in control of which data they are sharing with the public sector.

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

When asked by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) whether he could guarantee that a digital identity requirement would never become mandatory, the Minister said he wholeheartedly agreed, but is it not the case that the original scheme that the Government were minded to put forward was mandatory, so how much faith can we put in that assurance?

[Darren Jones]

First, the Prime Minister’s announcement was that it should be mandatory for digital verification of ID. This scheme enables that, but there are other routes available to people if they wish to follow them. The other commitment I can give the right hon. Member is that I suspect it will be on the face of the Bill that we will bring to the House later this year.

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

Many people still have to repeatedly prove who they are to different parts of Government. Does the Chief Secretary agree that a trusted digital identity system could make public services simpler and more secure for citizens, while protecting privacy?

[Darren Jones]

That is exactly our ambition. We will all have constituents who struggle to get in touch with the right people with the right information and the right ability to make a decision when they are trying to access support or information. This will make it much easier for people to do without having to think about different telephone numbers, different logins, and different codes. It will be simple, on their phone and there for them when they need it most.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I commend the Minister for admitting that he does not know how much this is going to cost, but it is almost six months since this became Government policy, and now he has decided that it is time to consult the public. Can he tell the House how much it has cost us so far?

--- Later in debate ---

[Darren Jones]

Any costs incurred so far have been purely for civil servants to pull together the consultation and for the Department to hold discussions and roundtables with stakeholders. Government will need spending authority from Parliament to start this scheme being built, and that will be part of the Bill that will come to the House later this year.

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

I am the mother of teenagers, and they cannot believe how difficult it is to access their data and interact with public services. They call it “cringe”, a bit like the response from the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood). If we are to be a modern, digital Britain, embracing AI and building an innovation-based economy, is it not right that our public services are also built in that frame and put us in the driving seat?

[Darren Jones]

I very much agree with my hon. Friend. We have to remember that taxpayers pay for these public services, but they have nowhere else to go, unlike in the private sector, where they can go to someone else if they are getting a rubbish service. It is a requirement for all of us in this House to make sure we are using taxpayers’ money effectively to build effective modern public services, and that is what this Government will be doing.

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

I am almost speechless! This House is the properly accountable people’s panel, not some collection of stooges and trustees selected by the Minister. In any event, it is no good him telling us it is asleep—this parrot is dead, killed by lack of trust in the Government after the whole saga of Labour Together, isn’t it?

[Darren Jones]

No.

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

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and the clarification that participation in the scheme will not be compulsory to access public services. Will he say a little more about how he will persuade people that this tool will make their everyday lives easier? Will he also say what discussions he has had with the devolved Administrations to ensure the same opportunities apply across the UK, and explain how my constituents in Paisley and Renfrewshire South will participate in the people’s panel?

[Darren Jones]

As the House would expect, I have been engaging with the First Ministers and Deputy First Ministers of the devolved Governments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland about the scheme. We have made an open invitation that, should they wish to bring devolved services into the app in the future, they are more than welcome to do so. In the past, we have seen examples of choices made by devolved Governments that we would rather avoid, if we can. For example, the Scottish Government decided not to be a part of the development of the NHS app in England, which resulted in a worse service for people in Scotland than in England. Ultimately, we want the system to be so useful and so effective that people will want to use it because it will be so easy that the alternatives are not attractive.

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

It seems that even in the middle of an existing cost of living crisis, with another one looming, the Government have decided to plough ahead with a digital ID scheme that few folks actually want. Having committed so much money to the scheme already, and with the price of heating oil, gas, electricity and fuel soaring yet again, does the Minister believe that spending even more money on this unpopular idea is suddenly going to make it popular?

[Darren Jones]

There is a little irony in the SNP advising the Labour Government that we should spend more taxpayers’ money on worse public services, which is exactly what the SNP has been doing for the last 20 years in Scotland. I look forward to the hon. Gentleman being part of this process so that we can show him how it can be done.

[Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for announcing that there will be a public consultation, as I know that my constituents value having the opportunity to have their say. As the mum to an 18-year-old, in the last two weeks, I have heard—I kid you not—“Mum, where do I get my national insurance number? Mum, I need to tax my car. Where do I get my MOT certificate? Mum?” And that is before we even start talking about what she is going to do when she enters the world of full-time work and becomes a homeowner. May I thank the Minister for proposing that we give people access to the data that is already held about them in a far more convenient way that matches our lives in the 21st century?

[Darren Jones]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. The good news is that there will be a “Dear Colleagues” letter coming out later today that will invite all hon. Members, on a cross-party basis, to hold a constituency event on digital ID so that they can submit those views to the consultation.

[Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

The Minister mentioned that there is no set budget, so is this a blank cheque for Government spending? What will be the end point? Is this a white elephant, a black hole or just another project that will fall by the wayside? Why are the Government having a people’s panel when we have Parliament, and when people across the county are saying that they do not want digital ID?

[Darren Jones]

The consultation is open to anyone and everyone, whatever view they hold, so I encourage the hon. Lady to invite her constituents to take part. She asked about the cost of the scheme. As I have said, the Bill will come to the House later this year. A money resolution will be required, for the Government to spend money on the scheme. Future costs will be subject to the next spending review in 2027.

[Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)]

I welcome the change to not demand a digital ID, and I welcome the focus of the work: listening to the public about how Government platforms can be made useful, relevant and efficient for residents. What checks will be carried out to hold the spend accountable and ensure that the services being delivered are relevant to residents in the UK?

--- Later in debate ---

[Darren Jones]

The hon. Lady is right that the grand idea is not just to improve public services, but to reduce cost by taking a more digital approach to delivery. At the moment, every call to a call centre or form that is filled out and passed from one person to another, is an additional cost to the taxpayer and money that is not spent on the help and support they need. Of course, the normal checks and balances will be in place, subject to the next spending review, and Treasury business case approval will be required for each service that is being onboarded to the app in the years ahead.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

I thank the more than 6,000 residents who signed a petition against mandatory digital ID. The scheme that has been outlined will inevitably save the Government billions of pounds, so will they commit to investing that money in bobbies on the beat to tackle antisocial behaviour in town centres such as Torquay and Paignton?

[Darren Jones]

There have been some estimates that if we are able to harness the full benefit of the gov.uk app and improve the productivity of customer services across Government, we could save tens of billions of pounds every single year. That is tens of billions of pounds of money that is being spent right now on poor public services that can be reinvested into the frontline to support people, or even given back to taxpayers in the years ahead.

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

Before entering the House, I worked in tech building products to streamline ID checks, improving user interface and user experience in the process. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that will be the case with a digital ID? Does he further agree that making funded hours of childcare more accessible will be an important use case to explore?

[Darren Jones]

Childcare is a great example. To claim a 20% reduction in childcare fees, people must log into the HMRC website every three months, calculate the figure for 80% of the fees, do the card transaction themselves, find the nursery provider and send the money. On top of that, they get a form from the council every quarter with a code they must fill out—crazy. The whole point of gov.uk and digital ID is to make things like that quicker and easier for members of the public at home, so that the user experience is as good in the public sector as it is in the private sector.

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

The public want faster, better public services, but the existing gov.uk app works very well—I suspect most of us use it. That is a massive difference from what the public do not want, which is a digital identity card system. The first mistake that the Minister has made is calling this statement “Digital ID”. Can the Minister be honest with this House and the British people: is this about improving the gov.uk app as it currently exists or is it about a digital identity card system through the back door?

[Darren Jones]

As I said in my statement, if people want to use online services, they can log into some websites in some Departments independently, but they must log into each one differently, as they do not talk to each other. The difference between one login and digital ID is that by proving who they are in the app, we can plumb those services into one place, so there is a front door to those services. I am confident that the public would expect that and would want to be able to vote for that in the future, in contrast to privatising the NHS, which they definitely will not vote for.

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

In Europe today, it is possible to have a prescription issued in Tallinn, Estonia, and have it fulfilled in Lisbon, Portugal, but in my constituency, my local hospital cannot even send a prescription to a local pharmacy. May I urge my right hon. Friend to look carefully at what works in Europe, avoid reinventing the wheel and seriously consider interoperability with the EU’s identification framework?

[Darren Jones]

We are already in discussions with the European Commission on shared standards, primarily because in Northern Ireland, subject to the Good Friday agreement, members of the public can have an Irish passport or a British passport and still work in the United Kingdom. To honour that commitment, we will be building the system to recognise an Irish passport as well as a British passport, and in doing so meet the equivalence of standards with the European Union more widely.

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)]

My long experience is that the Scottish Government are quite prepared to ignore consultations, especially on the views of my constituents. Will the Minister set out how this system will work if the Scottish Government do not co-operate in it and instead use it to try to take forward their independence agenda?

[Darren Jones]

As I have said to the House, I have been in touch with Ministers in the Scottish Government just this morning to extend an invitation to them to be part of this modernising approach to public services in the future, and I hope that they will welcome that. Of course, I hope more deeply that there will be a Labour Government in Scotland who will, of course, say that this is the right thing to do, showing that two Labour Governments can deliver better outcomes for the public. We should continue to hold the Scottish Government to account for poor public services, and encourage them to follow our way and deliver change for the public.

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

I welcome the Government’s announcement that they have listened to the concerns of the Liberal Democrats and the public about the mandatory system, but the loss of trust resulting from these flip-flopping policies has caused much damage. There remains a question about whether connected systems and better services can be accessed through one login, which is the case in France. Why are the Government not focused on fixing one login, which they spent £100 million on last year? If they do put this system in place, what support will there be for individuals and businesses, which seem to be carrying the burden of this digital ID?

[Darren Jones]

Digital ID is the premium option of one login. In many ways, one login is a great system, but it still has lots of challenges, not least because we cannot pull all these systems together into one place for citizens. That is what digital ID enables us to do, because people can prove authentically that they are who they say they are and are not just logging in with someone else’s details. That is what makes the scheme much more exciting for public service reform in the future.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

My constituents have been incredibly vocal in telling me that they do not want this. Frankly, because trust in the Government has eroded so much, this scheme is dead in the water. If the Government go ahead with it, what will they do to ensure that there is no single depository containing the data of millions of citizens that could present a single point of failure from a security perspective?

[Darren Jones]

I can confirm that the Government will not be doing any such thing.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

My constituency led the way on this issue, with more than 7,000 people signing the e-petition against digital ID cards. The public see this scheme for what it is—a gateway to unprecedented state surveillance—and they do not want to be part of it. They see it as a waste of money and effort to create a 100-strong citizens assembly that is not even democratically accountable. Will the Chief Secretary be honest with the public and admit that if this digital ID plan is implemented, the slippery slope is greased with expansion tracking and repurposing?

[Darren Jones]

The hon. Lady is wrong. I look forward to bringing provisions in the Bill later this year to prove that case.

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

Can the Chief Secretary tell us what happens if the 100-person panel concludes that the scheme will not have the trust, confidence and support of people? Can he confirm that digital efficiencies such as using emails, not letters, and automatically chasing up medicals in the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency will not be delayed for this project?

[Darren Jones]

The outcomes of the deliberative democracy process will form a legal part of the consultation, so it will feed into the consultation in the normal way. This is the first time that Government have done that. I recognise that it is a bit of an innovation and a risk, but I am so confident we will get members of the panel to a place where they think it is a perfectly sensible thing to do that I think it will be a useful process. Other colleagues may wish to consider it for other policy areas in the future. It will take some time over the next few years to legislate, build the login and integrate it into the app, so we will come back to the hon. Lady’s question on future services towards the back end of this Parliament.

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

Consistent polling has found that the public are not interested in digital ID and remain deeply concerned about the implications for their privacy. They have a sustained lack of trust in this Government to run the scheme. That is especially the case given the fact that this Government have sold out our NHS to Palantir and handed almost £700 million in taxpayer cash to Peter Thiel, as well as—potentially—the data of our patients. What is the Chief Secretary doing to uncouple our Government services from Palantir? Will he commit that no public money will go to Palantir to run this digital ID scheme?

[Darren Jones]

I am happy to confirm that the digital ID scheme and its build in the gov.uk app will be built as a sovereign capability within Government and within the UK. It will not be outsourced to a foreign company.

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

May I thank the Chief Secretary for his inclusion of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee in the work so far and for his removal of the mandatory nature of digital ID? That is what caused so many of my residents in Newton Abbot to write to me and complain about it. Will he commit to continue to involve the Committee as this situation evolves and as the system is implemented?

[Darren Jones]

Members of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee know that I look forward to working with them and other Members on how we might legislate more innovatively through the Bill coming later this year, so that quicker digital transformation of public services is enabled through appropriate checks and balances in the House, without having to return to an enormous piece of primary legislation or have repeated Bills. I look forward to the Committee being a part of that when we legislate later this year.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

I suspect that my constituents will have at least these three concerns: that the digital ID scheme will become mandatory by stealth; that it will be vulnerable to IT failures; and that it will be in danger of malevolent hacking. Are those not real concerns? How will they be addressed? Will this proposal be China-proofed?

[Darren Jones]

On the question of mandation, I expect it will be on the front of the Bill coming to the House later this year that it is not mandatory. Should any Government in the future wish to change that, they will need to come back to this House to change the law in order to do so. That is the right and proper thing.

The hon. and learned Gentleman is right to have concerns, as we should in relation to any modern services, about cyber-security, hacking and the confidentiality and security of people’s data. That is precisely why we are building this in-house—in Government—with the National Cyber Security Centre as a sovereign capability to ensure that we are not reliant on external companies, whether they are in the UK or abroad, to cover those bases for us.

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

My constituents are overwhelmingly against digital ID, and that appears to be the national consensus. Does the Chief Secretary agree that asking 100 members of the public to legitimise an already bad idea initially espoused by Tony Blair is a waste of time, resources and money? When will the Government go back to addressing issues that really matter to the public, such as the cost of living crisis?

[Darren Jones]

It is not for me to advise other Members on how to please their constituents, but if the hon. Gentleman asked his constituents, “Would you like better public services that are easier to use?”, they would probably say, “Yes.”

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

There is a clear and growing concern across the United Kingdom, including with myself and my constituents, regarding digital ID. The general public seek firm assurances about their personal autonomy. The Chief Secretary is a very honourable man and very much liked in this Chamber, but he will know—as you know, Mr Speaker—that Revelation in the Holy Bible refers to the mark of the beast and 666. Is it the mark of the beast that we are looking at, or is it George Orwell’s 1984? I ask that question because 1.5 million people in Northern Ireland—74% of its population—have said that they do not want digital ID. If we do not want it and the people of the United Kingdom do not want it, for goodness’ sake do away with it.

[Mr Speaker]

Mr Shannon, you kept saying “you”. Am I the devil, or is it the Chief Secretary? [Laughter.]

[Darren Jones]

May I suggest some of the gospels that might be a little more uplifting for the hon. Gentleman to read, as opposed to the section on Armageddon at the end? I reassure him that the gov.uk app and the digital ID login will be optional. Members of the public can choose to use it if they wish to; if they do not want to, that is entirely up to them. As I have said repeatedly to this House, I am very confident that we will build public services that are quick, easy and simple to use. That will be welcomed by people across the whole of the United Kingdom.

Oral Answers to Questions

Darren Jones Excerpts

Thursday 5th March 2026 Commons Chamber

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

Since coming into office, this Government have established the Ethics and Integrity Commission to strengthen standards across the public sector. The Prime Minister has strengthened the independent adviser’s ability to open investigations into ministerial misconduct, and with the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, we are introducing new duties of candour for public officials, with criminal and disciplinary consequences for those who fall short.

[Chris Hinchliff]

Over the last 25 years, companies that have donated tens of millions of pounds to political parties have been granted Government contracts worth more than £60 billion. It is pretty obvious to the public that these cosy, influential and lucrative relationships appear to be the precise opposite of high standards in public life. Does the Minister agree that companies donating to political parties should be automatically disqualified from Government contracts?

[Darren Jones]

I can assure my hon. Friend and the House that under this Government, political donations have no bearing on the award of Government contracts whatsoever. Public procurement rules require contracts to be awarded fairly and transparently, and they are rigorously scrutinised to deliver the best value for the taxpayer. Under the Procurement Act 2023, the Government have strengthened measures to be able to take action against companies when there is any evidence of wrongdoing.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

Why did the hon. Member for Makerfield (Josh Simons) resign as a Cabinet Office Minister at the weekend?

[Darren Jones]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to his statement.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Opposition spokesperson.

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

On his visit to Washington in February last year, the Prime Minister and Peter Mandelson had an undisclosed meeting with US data company Palantir. Palantir at the time was a client of Global Counsel, the company in which Peter Mandelson retained a commanding share. Later that year, Palantir received a direct award for £240 million from this Government. Given the apparent conflict of interests, will the Minister agree to publish full details of that meeting in February last year, and explain why it was not disclosed at the time?

[Darren Jones]

I thank the hon. Member for raising that particular contract, and since he last asked the Government that question we have done some research. The original contract was awarded by a Mr A. Burghart, under the previous Administration, with a direct ministerial award for the contract that was then renewed at the subsequent awarding that he refers to. He asked me for the disclosure of information, and that will of course be done under the Humble Address.

[Alex Burghart]

I never had an undisclosed meeting with Palantir, with a person—[Interruption.] I never had an undisclosed meeting with Palantir, with a man who was advising that company. This is something entirely different, as the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister knows full well. There was an undisclosed meeting between the Prime Minister and that company in February last year. That should not have happened. This looks, to all intents and purposes, like a conflict of interests. Will the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister agree to publish that information? He says it is within the scope of the Humble Address, but the Humble Address was about the appointment of Lord Mandelson. This is not about the appointment of Lord Mandelson; this is about a meeting that the Prime Minister and Mandelson had in February 2025. Will the Minister please publish the details of that meeting, and ensure that the new Cabinet Secretary looks into what happened at that meeting, and everything between that meeting and the direct award?

[Darren Jones]

The Humble Address deals with the matters in question, but I remind the hon. Member that he is asking about the extension of a contract that was awarded under the previous Government. To suggest that it was a new contract that had been in any way related to the meeting is incorrect.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

The creation of the Government post of special representative for trade and investment, and the appointment of Andrew Mountbatten- Windsor to that post, raises deeply alarming questions about how previous Governments treated powerful men who abuse their positions. Liberal Democrat Members are proud to have secured the release of all relevant files around that appointment. The Government have told us repeatedly that they support such transparency, so will the Minister set out what deadline has been set for the files to be assembled in accordance with the Humble Address, in order that they be released as soon as police investigations allow, and will he confirm the number of civil servants the Government have allocated to that task?

[Darren Jones]

The Humble Address that was put before the House by the Liberal Democrats is being managed by the Department for Business and Trade, as the appointing Department for the previous role of the special representative for trade and investment. The Cabinet Office and the Cabinet Secretary will be working with the Department to bring forward those documents as soon as possible. I am afraid I do not have to hand the number of officials who are working specifically on Humble Addresses, but it is a significantly higher number than it was a few weeks ago.

[Lisa Smart]

Government Ministers, including the Prime Minister, have repeatedly told the House that Lord Mandelson should lose his peerage, yet weeks on, no concrete steps forward can be seen. No legislation has been brought forward, and even in the face of the appalling allegations, Mandelson appears safe from being thrown out for a breach of the Lords code of conduct. Does the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister recognise how preposterous it is that that unelected figure has still not been removed, and how impotent it makes the Government look? Does he recognise that what we need is not just to throw out one disgraced peer, or to tinker by abolishing hereditary peers, but root and branch reform of our entire second Chamber, including finally making it democratic?

[Darren Jones]

The hon. Member is right that we need to bring forward rules that allow provisions to apply to all and any peers who need to be removed from the other place for particular reasons. That is why the Government have not brought forward a specific piece of legislation in respect of Lord Mandelson, but are in the process of constructing a Bill that will be able to deal with these cases in the round, and I look forward to bringing that Bill to the House shortly.

[Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)]

6. What recent progress he has made on strengthening the relationship between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations.

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

This Labour Government are focused on delivering for every part of the country. Over the past few weeks, we have signed a £50 million defence growth deal with the Welsh Government and announced plans to build seven new Welsh railway stations through £14 billion of investment. We have halved tariffs on Scottish whisky following the Prime Minister’s successful visit to China. We have progressed our child poverty strategy by voting for legislation to remove the two-child cap, which will benefit over 17,000 children in Northern Ireland alone. In my role as Minister for Intergovernmental Relations, I regularly convene interministerial standing committees with representatives from the devolved Governments, and we have most recently discussed election security and preparedness for the May elections.

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

My constituents in Gower need both Governments focused on what matters to them: the cost of living, jobs and public services. Does the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster agree that, with Labour Governments in Westminster and Cardiff, that is exactly what we are getting? Does he also agree that neither the distraction and ideological fantasies of the Greens nor the division and destruction of Reform will help Wales to move forward into a new era?

[Darren Jones]

The distraction of the Reform party or the Green party is not one that we have the benefit of this morning, because none of the Members from those parties have come to the Chamber to take part in questions. My hon. Friend is right that two Labour Governments working together delivers real change for people in Wales. After 14 years of a Conservative Government who ignored the Welsh Government in Wales, we have delivered on rail, AI growth zones, defence and jobs, and the highest level of spending since devolution began to get NHS waiting lists down. We will continue to do that, working together with First Minister Eluned Morgan and her team in Cardiff.

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)]

Does the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster share my profound disappointment that once again the Scottish National party is seeking to frame the Scottish elections as being about a divisive independence referendum, rather than about devolved powers, on which its record is so woeful?

[Darren Jones]

I agree. When I visit Scotland to talk to voters ahead of the May elections, they talk to me about the quality of their public services—about how the NHS in Scotland is performing woefully compared with England, and about how the Scottish National party in government in Scotland will block investment into jobs in nuclear energy and the defence industries. That is why a Labour Government in Scotland, under Anas Sarwar, the next Labour First Minister in Scotland, will show the power of two Labour Governments working together to deliver for the people of Scotland, exactly as I have just described happening in Wales.

[Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)]

7. What steps he is taking through the Office for the Impact Economy to help increase the size of the co-operative sector.

--- Later in debate ---

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

19. What recent progress he has made on implementing the humble Address of 4 February 2026.

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

As I have outlined previously, work is ongoing across Departments to identify the material relevant to the Humble Address. Throughout this process, the Government have recognised the urgency and seriousness of fully complying with that Humble Address, and that is why we will publish relevant materials in tranches, the first of which we have committed to publishing in early March.

[Gregory Stafford]

Can the Minister confirm whether the head of the Government’s propriety and ethics team was appointed without an external recruitment process or written ministerial sign-off, in an apparent breach of its own rules? If so, is this further proof of a lack of transparency and accountability, and of a failure to uphold the propriety and ethics at the heart of this Government?

[Darren Jones]

No, and no.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

21. What assessment he has made of trends in levels of disinformation by foreign state actors.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bayo Alaba (Southend East and Rochford) (Lab)]

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

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

May I take this opportunity to welcome the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Test (Satvir Kaur), back from maternity leave? I congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Frith), on his Dispatch Box debut, and welcome Baroness Anderson in the other place, who has joined the Cabinet Office team today.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North has said, next week, we will launch a national conversation to ensure that the public have their say on how digital identification can be used to make modern public services. Digital ID will be free to access and secure, and will make it easier for people to prove who they are when logging into the gov.uk app. Over time, government by app will become a reality, much like banking or shopping by app. There will be quicker, easier and more secure access to public services at the touch of a button, which will ensure that our public services are there for people when they need them.

[Mr Alaba]

I thank the Minister for that response. Small businesses are the backbone of our local economies, but in my constituency, sunny Southend East and Rochford, they are held back by traffic congestion on the A127. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that local infrastructure projects, such as a new link road for south-east Essex, receive cross-party prioritisation, and can drive productivity and growth for small and medium-sized enterprises?

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

T5.  Will the Minister join me in congratulating Ryan Cornish and Elliott Prentice, who are the Members of Youth Parliament for Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole, and their deputies, Ruth Simpkins and Lilee Bedwell, on a fantastic year? They have not just participated in our democracy; they have strengthened it locally. I know that the Government would support that.

[Darren Jones]

I join my hon. Friend in congratulating his constituents. The Youth Parliament plays an important role in our democracy, and in engaging young people in it. With Mr Speaker’s consent, it has the benefit of coming to this Chamber to experience what it is like. The good news is that we have already had Members of Youth Parliament become Members of Parliament as a consequence of their experience; it did not warn them off. We look forward to welcoming more of them in future generations.

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

T3. Although we will rightly want to refrain from discussing too many details of a live espionage case, it seems, from media reporting, that the case goes beyond foreign state interference into local corruption. Will the Government today agree to publish a list of all meetings held between Bute Energy and the Government, both here in Westminster and in Wales?

[Darren Jones]

The hon. Lady is right that there is a counter-terror police operation under way, so it would be wrong for me to comment from the Dispatch Box, but I can reassure her and the House that the Government will co-operate fully with that investigation. When we are able to provide further updates, we will do so.

[Tom Rutland (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Lab)]

T6. This week, we have seen volatility in the global energy markets, following the escalation of conflict across the middle east. Will the Minister set out how, in the face of global turbulence, he will deepen co-operation and trade with the EU, as well as our allies across the world? My constituents are very keen to see that happen.

--- Later in debate ---

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

In the light of the arrest of three individuals yesterday for Chinese espionage, can the Minister confirm that security vetting for all special advisers is up to date?

[Darren Jones]

The hon. Member will remember, from the statement I gave to the House, that we are reviewing this policy area, as well as other areas to do with transparency and lobbying returns, as well as the work of the Ethics and Integrity Commission. We will come forward with further updates in due course.

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

The York Central 45-hectare development site will be the most powerful outside London. The Government have twice announced that they will have a government hub there. However, the Government Property Agency has not signed that off. The development is going to planning in May. Can the Minister give me an update on when we will hear the good news for York?

[Darren Jones]

The Cabinet Office and Government Departments are in the process of concluding their business planning processes before the start of the new fiscal year, so an update will be available very soon.

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

The National Security Adviser Jonathan Powell commenced his role on 2 December 2024, and his appointment was announced on 8 November 2024. I appreciate that the Minister will not have this information to hand, but I would be grateful if he could write to me and confirm when the National Security Adviser was granted security clearance for that role.

[Darren Jones]

I will take the question away, Mr Speaker.

[Lauren Edwards (Rochester and Strood) (Lab)]

Earlier this week, those of us on the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee took evidence from the Cabinet Office on the significant issues with the administration of the civil service pension scheme—issues that are plaguing many of our constituents. It was quite clear that poor contract management played a role, particularly in building up a significant backlog of cases ahead of the problematic transfer to Capita. What steps are being taken in the Cabinet Office to improve the management of contracts with private suppliers, so that this does not happen again?

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

A few moments ago, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster indicated to me that the appointment of the head of the propriety and ethics team was done by an external recruitment process. Will he tell me how many other people were interviewed?

[Darren Jones]

If the hon. Gentleman is making reference to his previous question, he asked me if the appointment was in breach of the rules, to which I said no. As I have said to the House in answer to previous questions, the appointment of the head of propriety and ethics is on an interim basis, which is fully in line with the rules. A proper recruitment process will take place shortly.

[Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)]

There are still serious questions to answer on the administration of the civil service pension scheme. When my constituent Campell tragically died in April last year, his wife, Gaynor, waited months to receive the death in service payment; in December, they found out that MyCSP had paid it into the wrong bank account. I have written to the Minister about this case. Will he intervene to ensure that Capita pay Gaynor without further delay?

Lord Mandelson: Government Response to Humble Address

Darren Jones Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Speaker, you could not have been clearer:

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

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

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

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

[Darren Jones]

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

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

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

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

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

[Darren Jones]

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

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Mr Tom Morrison (Cheadle) (LD)]

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

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

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

[Darren Jones]

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

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

[Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

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

[Darren Jones]

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

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

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

[Darren Jones]

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

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

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

[Darren Jones]

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

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

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

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

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

[Darren Jones]

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

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

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

[Darren Jones]

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

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

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

[Darren Jones]

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

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

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

[Darren Jones]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Darren Jones]

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

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

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

[Darren Jones]

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

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

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

[Darren Jones]

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

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

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

[Darren Jones]

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

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

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

[Darren Jones]

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

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

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

[Darren Jones]

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

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)]

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

[Darren Jones]

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

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

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

[Darren Jones]

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

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

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

[Darren Jones]

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

Labour Together and APCO Worldwide: Cabinet Office Review

Darren Jones Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Alex Burghart]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Darren Jones]

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

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

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

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

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

[Darren Jones]

indicated dissent.

[Jon Trickett]

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

[Darren Jones]

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

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

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Darren Jones]

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

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

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

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

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

[Darren Jones]

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

[John McDonnell]

It is a whitewash—it is another whitewash!

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

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

[Darren Jones]

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

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

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

[Darren Jones]

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

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

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

[Darren Jones]

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

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Lab)]

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

[Darren Jones]

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

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

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

[Darren Jones]

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

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

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

[Darren Jones]

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

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

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

[Darren Jones]

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

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

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

[Darren Jones]

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

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

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

[Darren Jones]

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Darren Jones]

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

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

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

[Darren Jones]

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

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

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

[Darren Jones]

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

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)]

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

[Darren Jones]

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

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

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

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

[Darren Jones]

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

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

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

[Darren Jones]

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

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

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

[Darren Jones]

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

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

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

[Darren Jones]

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

[Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)]

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

[Darren Jones]

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

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

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

[Darren Jones]

I think the hon. Lady might be slightly confused.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

Why don’t you mansplain it to her?

[Darren Jones]

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

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

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

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

“Journalism is the lifeblood of democracy.”

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Brian Leishman]

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

[Darren Jones]

I think the question has been withdrawn, Mr Speaker.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

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

[Darren Jones]

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

[Lincoln Jopp]

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

[Darren Jones]

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

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

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

[Darren Jones]

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

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

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

[Darren Jones]

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

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

When in opposition, the Prime Minister said that Boris Johnson

“always looked the other way”

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

[Darren Jones]

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

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

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

[Darren Jones]

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

[Jon Trickett]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

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

[Darren Jones]

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

[Mr Speaker]

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

[Mr Speaker]

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

[Darren Jones]

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

[Mr Speaker]

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

Lord Mandelson: Government Response to Humble Address Motion

Darren Jones Excerpts

Thursday 12th February 2026 Written Statements

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

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

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

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

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

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

[HCWS1341]

Cabinet Office

Darren Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2026 Written Corrections

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

[Darren Jones]

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

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

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

[Darren Jones]

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

Standards in Public Life

Darren Jones Excerpts

Monday 9th February 2026 Commons Chamber

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow—

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

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

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

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

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

“There have been too many mistakes”

and that he has no choice but to be

“honest about failure wherever I see it.”

He is right.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Darren Jones]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Darren Jones]

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

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

[Darren Jones]

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Darren Jones]

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

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

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

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

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

[Darren Jones]

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

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

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

[Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)]

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

[Darren Jones]

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Standards Committee.

[Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)]

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

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

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

[Darren Jones]

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Darren Jones]

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

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

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

[Darren Jones]

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

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

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

[Darren Jones]

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

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

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

[Darren Jones]

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

[Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)]

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

[Darren Jones]

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

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

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

[Darren Jones]

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

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

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

[Darren Jones]

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

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

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

[Darren Jones]

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

[Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

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

[Darren Jones]

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

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

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

[Darren Jones]

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

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

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

[Darren Jones]

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

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

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

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

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

[Darren Jones]

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

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

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

[Darren Jones]

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

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

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

[Darren Jones]

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

[Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)]

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

[Darren Jones]

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

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

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

[Darren Jones]

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

[Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)]

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

[Darren Jones]

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

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

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

[Darren Jones]

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

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

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

[Darren Jones]

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

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

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

[Darren Jones]

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

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

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

[Darren Jones]

No.

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

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

[Darren Jones]

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

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

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

[Darren Jones]

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

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

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

[Darren Jones]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Darren Jones]

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

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

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

[Darren Jones]

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

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

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

[Darren Jones]

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

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

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

[Darren Jones]

No.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

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

[Darren Jones]

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

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

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

[Darren Jones]

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

[Rupert Lowe (Great Yarmouth) (Ind)]

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

[Darren Jones]

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

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

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

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

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

[Darren Jones]

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

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

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

[Darren Jones]

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

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

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

[Darren Jones]

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

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

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

[Darren Jones]

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

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

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

“a fish rots from the head”

and that real change had to be

“led and modelled from the top”.

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Darren Jones]

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