Lord Mandelson Humble Address: Government Response Update
Darren Jones Excerpts(3 days, 14 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Darren Jones)
Given the upcoming Prorogation and state opening of Parliament, I thought it would be helpful to return to the House to provide an update on the progress the Government have made to respond to the Humble Address of 4 February as quickly and thoroughly as possible.
As Members will know, the Government published the first tranche of material on 11 March. That first tranche primarily related to the aspects of the motion regarding Peter Mandelson’s appointment and his subsequent dismissal as ambassador, in addition to the details of his severance payment provided to him by the Foreign Office. Following the publication of the first tranche of material, we have been working at pace to lay a second tranche before the House. The House will recognise, given the breadth of the motion, that a very significant number of documents have been found to be in scope and that it is taking time to process them accordingly.
The Cabinet Office team responsible for the Government’s response to the Humble Address has been working through a large quantity of material, working closely with many officials across Whitehall, particularly in the Foreign Office. The team has been seeking to take an approach to sifting and publishing information that allows it to respond to the will of this House thoroughly but expeditiously, and in line with the approach taken by previous Governments in responding to Humble Addresses. This includes co-ordinating a number of requests to Government Departments to identify documents potentially in scope of the Humble Address, particularly electronic communications and the minutes of meetings between individuals and Peter Mandelson. This is the section of the motion that has the broadest scope.
As Members will have seen from the first tranche, the Government cannot publish certain details, such as the names of junior officials, personal information or legally privileged information. Separately, in line with the process agreed by the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament, the Government will not publish information that undermines or threatens our country’s national security or international relations. As colleagues will appreciate, both those processes require detailed consideration. The Government are very grateful to the ISC for its constructive engagement in that process, which we recognise has constituted significant additional work on top of its existing responsibilities. As I have set out previously, the Cabinet Office has also been working with the Metropolitan police to avoid prejudicing a live police investigation.
I can confirm that by the end of today, the Cabinet Office will have passed to the ISC all the material it has processed as part of the Humble Address and judged to be prejudicial to national security or international relations. This has amounted to over 300 individual documents. It includes a number that are relevant to the processes of Peter Mandelson’s security vetting, too. As I mentioned earlier, I am very grateful to the ISC for the important role it continues to play in the Humble Address process, and for the speed with which it is processing the documents.
I would like to reassure colleagues that Parliament will receive the second tranche of material as soon as possible following the state opening and the conclusion of the work of the ISC, and I will return to the House at that point. I commend this statement to the House.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
I thank the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement and for taking this statement himself; it is good of him not to delegate. This was not his mess—that was the 2024 Budget—but I am afraid it is now his mess to clear up.
I have to ask: where are the documents? The Humble Address was nearly 12 weeks ago. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that on that occasion the House asked for a huge range of things: the due diligence document that was passed to No. 10; the conflict of interest form; the material that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Cabinet Office provided to UK Security Vetting about Peter Mandelson; papers for and minutes of meetings relating to the decision to appoint Lord Mandelson; electronic communications; and so on. Where are they? Since February, the Government have asserted that they are working with urgency and that everything will be available very shortly, that they are working, in that least reassuring of Government phrases, “at pace”, and—today’s favourite—that the information will be available as soon as possible. That is, no doubt, as soon as possible after the local elections.
In the documents that have been released, what we appear to see is either an enormous cover-up or a very significant breakdown in the expected process of government. We have seen nothing from the Prime Minister, nothing from his chief of staff and nothing from Peter Mandelson himself; we have seen no minutes of meetings, no billets-doux, no annotations and no box returns. The official civil service guidance on this matter says explicitly:
“Keep submissions with ministers’ comments. If ministers write on a hard copy, keep the minister’s handwritten comments. Keep correspondence reporting ministers’ responses along with background provided to ministers in the medium in which they were created”.
We have seen none of this. This is either a cover-up or a terrible return to the days of sofa government under Tony Blair.
Simon Case told the Prime Minister that in order to complete due process, there had to be security clearance before he made the appointment, and a conflict of interest declaration had to be made by Peter Mandelson. To date, we have seen none of that information. I am pleased to hear the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister say that material associated with Mandelson’s vetting is now being handed to the ISC, but where is the conflict of interest form? I hope it is not the case that this is being disguised as personal information of the sort that the right hon. Gentleman said would not be disclosed, and I would be grateful if he could confirm that it is not.
I would also like the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister to confirm that that declaration of interest form exists. There is no good reason why he cannot tell us whether it does. Indeed, the former Attorney General wrote the other day in the papers that there is no legal reason why the Government cannot tell us which documents are being retained by the Metropolitan police. There should be a catalogue of all documents that exist; even if the House cannot look at them, we should be allowed to know what is out there and what will come to us in due course. The titles of documents will themselves not prejudice a trial.
The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister has today talked about the non-disclosure of personal information. I ask him again to tell us about the conflict of interest form and whether Peter Mandelson’s personal information is considered to be in scope of that ruling. Will he set out the Government’s precise approach to redactions vis-à-vis the documents that will be given to this House, rather than the ISC? It will be useful to understand his thinking.
On electronic communications, despite this being in the Humble Address on 4 February, I understand from the Cabinet Secretary, who wrote to me over the weekend, that there was no instruction to hand over non-corporate comms until 13 March—about five weeks after the Humble Address. Why this delay? Is the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister confident that no material was deleted in that five-week period? How can he be sure?
I again ask the right hon. Gentleman to confirm or deny whether the ISC release contains the information about Lord Mandelson’s interests. This is of specific concern to the House, given how Peter Mandelson may have behaved when he was ambassador in Washington and given the meetings that he may have taken the Prime Minister to.
It is time the Government come clean—not on their own terms or to their own timetable, but on the terms set down by the House. Will the right hon. Gentleman finally tell us a hard deadline for when these documents will be handed over?
Darren Jones
The hon. Gentleman asked me a number of questions, which I will take in turn. To the question of where the documents are, those in scope of the Humble Address are currently in one of three locations: first, with the Government waiting for the publication of the second tranche; secondly, with the Intelligence and Security Committee; and thirdly, with the Metropolitan police. We have sought to publish all those documents—those that the Government hold and those that the Intelligence and Security Committee are considering—in a combined bundle, in order to aid the House to see the documents in a chronological order. Otherwise, I suspect there would be questions about what documents were missing, subject to the conclusion of the Committee’s work.
I can confirm that documents that relate to Peter Mandelson’s security vetting have been passed to the Intelligence and Security Committee today, and that we intend to publish those as part of the second tranche, subject to discussions with the Intelligence and Security Committee.
I was asked specifically about the documents that have been given to the Metropolitan police. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I have been advised by the Metropolitan police that I am unable to list those documents, and so I will not seek to do so. He asked me about redactions policy; obviously the key redactions policy is in relation to information that the Government consider to be prejudicial to national security or international relations. That goes through the Intelligence and Security Committee for consideration. If there is a disagreement between the Government and the Committee, there is a process of redactions hearings between them to resolve that.
As I mentioned in my statement, other redactions relate merely to information such as the names and contact details of junior officials, in line with established freedom of information policy as it relates to the publication of Humble Addresses.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
The whole House came together around the Humble Address on the basis that Parliament had found its way forward to deal with the evidence around the appointment of Peter Mandelson. Will my right hon. Friend guarantee the House that no documents are being withheld? Around the time that it was reported that the Prime Minister had not been told that Peter Mandelson had failed his security vetting, there were civil servants who were seeking to withhold documents. Can he give an assurance that that is no longer the case?
Darren Jones
As has been alluded to at the Dispatch Box, there were documents that the Humble Address warranted to be published as part of that process. The Cabinet Office was very clear about that. It took some time to get access to some of those documents, specifically in relation to UKSV recommendations. That has now concluded and the documents are going through the Intelligence and Security Committee, as I set out in my statement.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
I thank the Chief Secretary for advance sight of his statement. The women and girls who spoke out against Jeffrey Epstein and those connected to him did so at enormous personal cost. We must never lose sight of the fact that their bravery is the reason we are having this conversation at all.
The Prime Minister promised honesty, integrity and accountability. Instead, we have a tawdry saga of a political ally waved through despite serious security concerns, a senior civil servant forced out, and a Government who have descended into recrimination and infighting rather than dealing with the very serious issues the country faces. Parliament asked for transparency, and the public deserves answers. Every day this drags on, trust in our institutions erodes further.
Even though Lord Mandelson has stepped away from the House of Lords, will the Government bring in formal legislation to revoke his peerage? Will the Chief Secretary confirm whether the Government plan to bring in further legislation for much-needed reform of the other place? The deputy Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), asked in business questions on Thursday about potential further redactions made on grounds other than national security or international relations. Will the Chief Secretary confirm that there have been no redactions in what he said will be sent to the Committee by the end of today?
It has been reported that the Prime Minister is set to whip Labour MPs to oppose his referral to the Privileges Committee. Even Boris Johnson did not block his MPs from voting for scrutiny. Labour MPs must surely be given a free vote and not be forced into feeling like accomplices to a cover up. Will the Chief Secretary confirm whether Labour MPs will be whipped on tomorrow’s vote or not?
Darren Jones
It is not for the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister to speak about whipping arrangements at the Dispatch Box. I will leave that to the Chief Whip and the usual channels. The hon. Lady asked me two questions about reform to the other place, in particular the removal of peerages. I can confirm that legislation will be introduced shortly to bring forward the proposals that I have talked about at the Dispatch Box. She asked me further questions about redactions policy; I refer to my previous answer on that question.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
The pain of the Epstein victims sits heavy with all of us in this House because we expect the highest standards of all of us. The challenge with this incident is that it involves a convoluted process that raises difficult questions about Government vetting and appointments. Given that, can my right hon. Friend tell us when he expects the Adrian Fulford review, which is to identify whether any other cases of concern have come to light about how appointments have been made, to be completed?
Darren Jones
My hon. Friend is exactly right to raise that question. The terms of reference have been confirmed with Adrian Fulford. That work has been started, and I expect it to complete in three to four weeks’ time.
Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
I thank the Minister for his kind words about the hard work of the Intelligence and Security Committee. He will recognise and want to reflect with the House that we cannot work any faster than the speed at which the documents are given to us by the Government; the last of them, as he said, is being given to us today. The process will not be complete by Prorogation, as perhaps it should have been.
I would like to raise two points of concern in what the Minister has said to us this afternoon. The first is about redaction. He has made it clear that the Government intend to redact for reasons beyond the Humble Address exemption related to international relations and national security; he has described that as the names of junior officials, personal information or legally privileged information. On Thursday, I put it to the Leader of the House that the Government document describing their approach to redactions is substantially wider than that. It says:
“It may also be necessary for the government to make further redactions in future publications based on other public interest principles, including”—
but of course not limited to—
“commercially sensitive information.”
Will the Minister please, either today or in writing, explain clearly on what grounds the Government intend to redact these documents? If, as I suspect, some of the grounds on which the Government propose to redact are beyond the scope of the Humble Address, will he confirm that the Government must return to this House and seek consent so to do?
With your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, my final point is also about redaction. The Minister has said in his statement that the Government will not publish information that undermines or threatens our country’s national security or international relations. As he knows, in accordance with the process agreed, it will be for the Intelligence and Security Committee to determine those questions, not the Government—won’t it?
Darren Jones
I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his question and confirm that the Government share the view that it is not the fault of the Intelligence and Security Committee that documents are not yet ready to be published; we hope that they will be ready shortly after the state opening of Parliament.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked me about redactions policy. I refer him to my earlier answer, but he did ask me some specific questions; I commit to seeking further advice on those and returning to the Dispatch Box. I hope that he and the House know that my intention, from the beginning of when I was asked to do this process, has been to ensure proper transparency with Parliament, which I and the Government take very seriously. If there is any suggestion otherwise, I will answer questions about that here at the Dispatch Box.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman’s second question has fallen out of my mind.
Sir Jeremy Wright
Forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker. It was about whether the Minister would confirm that it will be the ISC that determines redactions on the basis of international relations and national security.
Darren Jones
I can confirm that the Government’s agreed process with the Committee stands.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Chief Secretary for his statement. I am interested in the costs. We know about the £75,000 payout, and obviously a police inquiry is incredibly costly. There are the costs to his Department in complying with the Humble Address. Will he publish the costs? Will he also publish the costs in relation to Global Counsel? Its clients included Palantir, with which the Government have £800 million-worth of contracts. Will he publish how much money Global Counsel had been able to procure from the Government for being able to advance Palantir’s business interests at the time of Peter Mandelson’s appointment?
Darren Jones
My best answer is to refer my hon. Friend to the contracts finder tool, which publishes all public procurement contracts and their value. In relation to questions of the internal cost of processing the Humble Address, I cannot commit to give a round number; essentially it involves lots of hours of civil servants’ time across Government. They are working very hard to be able to publish these documents as quickly as possible.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
May I, through the right hon. Gentleman, thank the officials in the Cabinet Office who have assisted me in the work that I have been doing in this area as Chairman of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee? He will know that not all Government communications are carried on Government devices. Will he, for the benefit of the House, explain what is being done and what can be done to secure and get into the right domain correspondence between the principal players who have used their personal devices, rather than their Government devices? Will he also assure the House that when he and his colleagues do the sift as to who sees what and when, parliamentary privilege and all that that means is still absolutely at the heart of the decisions that he and his officials take?
Darren Jones
The tranche of documents will be published in the normal way to ensure that parliamentary privilege is attached to those documents and any debate that we subsequently have in relation to them. The hon. Gentleman asked me questions about personal devices and personal communications channels, which we refer to as “non-corporate communications channels” or “NCCCs” in the documents that we have published. I confirm that all relevant stakeholders who had to consider submissions to the Humble Address process have been told that that includes their personal devices and personal channels as well as any Government-owned devices and Government channels. I thank him again for his work and confirm to the House that he, as Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, kindly agreed to look at documents given to the Metropolitan police in relation to the police investigation so that we had a way—albeit a closed way—of showing due process and transparency to the House in relation to the Humble Address.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
Further to the security vetting issue in relation to Peter Mandelson, last week in the Chamber I asked questions—including to the Minister and through a point of order to the Speaker —three times, but I have not had an answer, so I would really appreciate an answer. At the point at which the Prime Minister’s former chief of staff Morgan McSweeney was involved in the appointment of Mandelson, did he himself have security vetting? On what date was Morgan McSweeney granted developed vetting clearance? Prior to that date, did Morgan McSweeney ever handle documents for which he would have required developed vetting clearance? I asked that three times in the Chamber but have not had an answer. I would be really grateful if the Minister could answer.
Darren Jones
The House will appreciate that I cannot comment on individual applications of policy in relation to private individuals who are no longer employed by the Government, but I reassure my hon. Friend and the House that all appropriate processes were followed.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
In respect of the Humble Address, perhaps contrary to what was suggested earlier, the House agreed to it only on the basis that Labour MPs were about to rebel against the position that the Government had adopted. Tomorrow, something similar may arise in respect of a potential referral of the Prime Minister to the Privileges Committee. Surely the Chief Secretary has an opinion as to whether his Members behind him would want to have a free vote in respect of whether the Prime Minister has misled the House.
Darren Jones
I always enjoy the right hon. Gentleman’s interventions, but that did not pertain to the statement before us. [Interruption.]
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. [Interruption.]. Are we all finished? I thank the Chief Secretary for returning to the House again on this issue. Will he reiterate how due process for the conducting of security vetting before appointments are announced will change as a result of this affair?
Darren Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. As has been said at the Dispatch Box before, it was previously due process that for the appointments of ambassadors and direct ministerial appointments, vetting took place after the announcement and before the commencement of the contract for employment. Given the problems that have been shown to be applicable to these processes, that has now changed.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
A referral to the Privileges Committee has always been considered a House matter—a matter for the individual judgment of Members of Parliament. It would be an abomination if it were to be whipped by either side, wouldn’t it?
Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)
Could my right hon. Friend the Minister please confirm whether any documents that were previously in the scope of the Humble Address have been deemed no longer to be within its scope due to the application of litigation privilege in respect of the dismissal of Olly Robbins?
Darren Jones
I am afraid I do not know the answer to that question, but I commit myself to taking it away.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
I am just a humble Member of this House, and it is our job to hold the Government to account. It was unclear from the Minister’s first response what the process will be, so could he clarify again whether, if the ISC members disagree with the Government, that matter will be brought back to the House for a decision? I do not believe it is right for the Government to judge and mark their own homework.
Darren Jones
I refer to my previous answer about standing by the commitment made between the Government and the Committee. There is an established process for any disagreement through a redactions hearing.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
The worst outcome from this process is that a police investigation is compromised by materials making their way into the public domain before time. While Opposition MPs seek to rush this process through, can the Chief Secretary confirm that no documents of interest will be put in the public domain until they have been cleared by the Met police? [Interruption.] If Opposition Members want to know how Labour voters are going to vote tomorrow, they just need to join the Labour party.
Darren Jones
My hon. Friend asks an important question. As has been said before, at the heart of this entire scandal are the victims of the most heinous crimes who have yet to see any justice whatsoever, apart from this becoming part of big political debates here in the UK and in other countries. That is why the Government have been absolutely committed to supporting the Metropolitan police in its criminal investigation. We continue to do so, and we would not do anything to undermine that process because the victims have to come first.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
I am grateful to the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister for his statement. He said that,
“in line with the process agreed by the Intelligence and Security Committee, the Government will not publish information that undermines or threatens our country’s national security or international relations.”
That sentence is correct, but it implies that this is a Government process that the ISC has acceded to, and that is not quite right. Rather, the Government propose redactions and the ISC directs that redactions be made on the basis that full publication would be prejudicial to national security or international relations. This matters because we want to maintain trust in the Intelligence and Security Committee, of which I am a member. Does the Chief Secretary accept that the Government propose redactions and that the ISC considers them and directs which ones should be made?
Darren Jones
The hon. Gentleman sets out the process that has been agreed between the Committee and the Government and, as I have said to other members of the Committee, that process stands.
Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)
This has been a very damaging issue. Peter Mandelson should clearly never have been made ambassador, and I am pleased that the Prime Minister has rightly apologised. There are, however, lessons to be learned already before the end of this Humble Address process. Can the Minister confirm that his Department has already started learning and implementing those lessons?
Darren Jones
My hon. Friend is right. There is a whole series of processes that this Government inherited as the status quo, including the due process from the previous Administration that was used in the past for other political appointments and direct ministerial appointments. This episode has shown that those processes needed to be updated, and the Government are working on modernising those rules and will bring those reforms to the House in due course.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
Is there any truth in the claims that the delay in the Government adhering to the Humble Address motion is because Cabinet Ministers are refusing to hand over their mobile phones because of the messages between them and Mandelson that they contain, and the embarrassment that that will cause them?
Darren Jones
Cabinet Ministers have received instructions from the Cabinet Office about the declaration of the information that they hold on either corporate or personal communications channels, and they have all complied with that direction.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
With regard to the release of these Mandelson documents, there is genuine concern about what may be redacted and what may not. Given the ongoing dispute as to the pressure brought to bear between No. 10 and the Foreign Office, can the Minister confirm that nothing will be redacted with regard to pressure brought to bear on the Foreign Office about the vetting process?
Darren Jones
Redactions are done in line with the policy I set out previously.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I politely say that the Minister’s overly sincere, butter-wouldn’t-melt-in-his-mouth act is beginning to wear thin—the way he suggests that the process he is going through has not put a foot wrong. He has repeatedly failed to answer questions that I put to him with candour around Mandelson, despite the fact that this evening we will pass a Bill that makes it law for Ministers to answer questions.
Can I follow up on the questions around mobile phones? Ministers will be asked whether they have any communications left on their personal phones. Are they also being asked to tell you, and will we be told, if those messages have disappeared because they have disappearing messages on their phones?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Let us keep our questions short and omit the word “you” because I am not responding.
Darren Jones
I am sorry that the hon. Member is not happy with my performance—I will try harder in future. In relation to his question, I refer him to my previous answer.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
What is the Department’s internal deadline for concluding the release of the Mandelson files? If there is an internal deadline, who will be held accountable if the Department fails to meet it?
Darren Jones
The Department has now handed over all the final documents that it needs to hand over to the Intelligence and Security Committee. Once that process is able to conclude, we will publish the second tranche shortly after that.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
The truth of the matter is when the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister says that process was followed to appoint a diplomat, a professional diplomat would not have been appointed if they had taken dodgy loans, tried to flog passports and leaked to the Chinese and the Russians, so that was not the case. The motion on the Humble Address got through this House because it said that all documents would be handed to the ISC, because that is the most secure place for them to go. It is not in the gift of the Government not to hand this over—that was the view of the House. This is not being done in good faith. When will all these documents be given to the ISC, which was exactly what this House said should be done?
Darren Jones
I answered that question in my opening statement. All final documents relevant to the ISC process are being handed over today.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Today’s statement is interesting, but we need to remember how we got here in the first place: the Prime Minister is facing allegations that he misled the House about the process by which an individual was appointed who had well-documented associations with a convicted paedophile and human trafficker. The Chief Secretary said yesterday that the Committee of Privileges is reserved for the most serious allegations. Does he recognise how that belittles what has been suffered by the victims and survivors?
Darren Jones
I am not quite clear what the question was in relation to the Humble Address. In relation to the Committee of Privileges motion before the House tomorrow, I refer to my previous answer.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
Last week, I asked the Prime Minister if he would publish his decision note on the box note given to him on 11 November from Simon Case. The Prime Minister said he could not remember the answer in that box note, and in the debate last week, the Minister himself said that redactions are only in black. The decision response on the box note has been left blank. Was there a decision, why has it not been published and will the Minister now undertake to publish the decision on that request from Simon Case, because this House and I believe that it will be fundamental to see whether the Prime Minister is actually telling the truth?
Darren Jones
I am happy to reconfirm that all redactions are in black in the documents that are being published in the Humble Address tranches. All documents that the Government hold in relation to that period of time have been published in the first tranche. Of course, decisions are communicated sometimes orally and sometimes in writing. The hon. Gentleman also asked me specifically about Simon Case’s advice and the process that was followed subsequently. I refer him to the letter published this afternoon from the previous Cabinet Secretary, who confirmed to the Prime Minister that due process had been followed.
Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)
How does the Prime Minister’s promise of delivering honesty, integrity and accountability reconcile with the potential blocking of a motion to the Committee of Privileges? If the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister is not willing to comment on the Government’s voting intentions tomorrow, will he commit to accountability by ensuring that he votes in favour for it being referred to the Committee?
Darren Jones
I am not sure that I should declare my voting intention from the Dispatch Box, but I refer the hon. Gentleman to my previous answer.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
The Government are keen to emphasise their transparency in the course of dealing with the Humble Address requests and demands, so here is an opportunity to put that to the test. Last Tuesday, I put down a question for written answer by the Prime Minister:
“To ask the Prime Minister who first suggested to him that Peter Mandelson should be appointed as Ambassador to the United States.”
It was accepted and published as such by the Table Office. Subsequently, it has been transferred to the Cabinet Office, for which he has responsibility. It is due to be answered tomorrow. Will the Minister give the answer to that question tomorrow, on time and substantively?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister’s responsibilities are just growing and growing!
Darren Jones
I am deeply grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker. I always ensure that I honour parliamentary questions in a timely fashion.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his statement— he is a decent and honourable man. In phone calls to my office only this morning, Strangford constituents have expressed their dismay about Government cover-ups. Even my constituents’ bank account comings and goings are questioned, and when they make withdrawals, they are asked where their money is from and what it is for. There is a perception out there that there is one rule for the Government of the day and another for everyone else. How can the Minister begin to show people that we are all accountable to scrutiny?
Darren Jones
The Humble Address is an example of Parliament holding the Government to account, and of the Government being accountable to Parliament.
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
Could the Chief Secretary confirm that responses to submissions are written on the paper of the submissions, and not on Post-it notes?
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
I thank the Minister for his statement, in which he said that
“the Government will not publish information that undermines or threatens our country’s national security or international relations.”
My question is: in whose judgment? Ultimately, is that the judgment of an official or of a Minister? If it is that of a Minister, which one?
Darren Jones
In the first instance, officials make those judgments and refer those requests to the Intelligence and Security Committee, where parliamentarians take a view.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
One of the glaring omissions in the first release of documentation was the Prime Minister’s response to his box notes about the proposed appointment of Peter Mandelson. The Government have now had three months to think about it. Will the Minister set out whether there is any reason why those documents will not be part of the next release?
Darren Jones
All the documents that the Government hold in relation to the initial appointment and subsequent dismissal have been published in the first tranche, and all subsequent relevant documents will be published in the second.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
When he was asked on 20 April why there is no record of his and Peter Mandelson’s meeting with Palantir in Washington, the Prime Minister said:
“That was a routine meeting in the course of a visit I was on in the US.”—[Official Report, 20 April 2026; Vol. 784, c. 62.]
Does the Minister agree that that was a routine meeting, and if so, where is the record of it, as required by the ministerial code?
Darren Jones
As the Prime Minister said, that was part of a series of visits that he was undertaking. It is of course proper that closed-door meetings between Ministers and stakeholders are attended by officials, minuted and reported in the normal way, but when visits are undertaken, they are managed differently. This was no secret to anyone; photos were taken and published on the Government’s social media account.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
The shadow Chancellor for the Duchy of Lancaster has asked today and previously, as have other Conservative Members, about the existence or not of a declaration of interests form for Mandelson. Does that form exist?
Darren Jones
All relevant documents will be published in the normal way.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
The Minister says that 300 documents have now been shared with the ISC, but how many are left to be processed? More importantly, what has the process been in ascertaining a document’s relevance, and who decides whether a document is important?
Darren Jones
The Cabinet Office has now processed all the documents ready for the second tranche. In relation to the Intelligence and Security Committee, those final documents have been sent or will be sent today. In relation to who decides whether a document is referred to the Committee, that is based on officials screening each document to see whether they engage international relations or national security, and whether they warrant a redaction request.
Oral Answers to Questions
Darren Jones Excerpts(1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Darren Jones)
Good morning, Mr Speaker. It is nice to be back in the Chamber. [Laughter.]
Since coming into office, the Prime Minister has published a new and strengthened ministerial code that places emphasis on the importance of public service and new principles on gifts and hospitality, and includes strengthened powers for the independent adviser on ministerial standards. The Prime Minister has also introduced new rules on severance. Ministers who leave office after having been found to have seriously breached the code are expected to forgo their severance pay, and former Ministers who are found to have seriously breached the business appointment rules are expected to repay any severance too. Colleagues across the House will remember the spectacle of former Tory Minister after former Tory Minister receiving it during the last Parliament, but that has now ended under this Labour Government.
Olly Glover
I was reading the ministerial code just yesterday evening. Paragraph 2.1 states:
“The Prime Minister is the ultimate judge of the standards of behaviour expected of a minister and the appropriate consequences of a breach of those standards.”
That provides clarity on how Ministers can be held to account by the Prime Minister. However, as the old saying goes, “Who watches the watchmen?” When there is a concern about whether the Prime Minister’s conduct goes against the ministerial code, does the Minister agree that the code itself needs strengthening so that the PM can be held to its standards?
Darren Jones
I reassure the hon. Member and the House that the ultimate accountability for the Prime Minister is both to this House and to the public at a general election.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
It is really great that Ministers have rapidly set about reforming the ministerial code so that never again will the public purse be forced to pay out £253,720 for ex-Ministers who were in post for less than six months, as happened in 2022 under the Tories. Now that we hear about Peter Mandelson, the payoff he wanted and the payoff he got, are the Government open to the logic of applying the same principles of the ministerial code to disgraced ex-political appointee ambassadors, perchance? That way, we can restore consistency.
Darren Jones
My hon. Friend will recognise that appointments to the civil service are made on the basis of employment law, which is different from the situation for Ministers and Members of this House, but it is right that the Government have changed the rules to ensure that disgraced politicians do not receive payouts for wrongdoing, which is what happened under the last Conservative Administration.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
Paragraph 1.6.c of the ministerial code states:
“It is of paramount importance that ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity.”
Yesterday, the Prime Minister said to the House that Sir Olly Robbins
“went on to say: ‘I…have complete confidence that… recommendations to me and the discussion we had and the decision we made were rigorously independent of’ any ‘pressure.’”—[Official Report, 22 April 2026; Vol. 784, c. 316.]
What Sir Olly actually said to the Foreign Affairs Committee was:
“I also have complete confidence that their recommendations to me and the discussion we had and the decision we made were rigorously independent of that pressure.”
Sir Olly said “that” pressure, not “any” pressure. The Prime Minister materially changed Sir Olly’s meaning. Robbins was clear that he had been put under pressure. Does the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister know whether the Prime Minister intends to correct the record?
Darren Jones
I think the difference between the words “that” and “any” is not of material relevance to the question that the shadow Minister is putting to the House. The Prime Minister has not misled the House. The testimony of the Prime Minister and of Sir Olly Robbins is very clearly on the record, and that makes the case.
Alex Burghart
The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister is perfectly intelligent enough to know that there is an enormous difference between those two words. I will remind him that the Prime Minister is bound by the ministerial code.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister also told the House:
“Sir Olly was absolutely clear that nobody put pressure on him to make this appointment”—[Official Report, 22 April 2026; Vol. 784, c. 316.]
but that is not what Sir Olly said to the Foreign Affairs Committee. He actually said:
“Throughout January, honestly, my office and the Foreign Secretary’s office were under constant pressure.”
Again, he said that
“while I think the Department felt under pressure, we were proud of the fact that we had not bowed to that pressure.”
Again, he said that Philip Barton’s handover to him
“contributed to my strong sense that there was an atmosphere of pressure”.
To avoid being in breach of the ministerial code, Ministers must correct the record at the earliest available opportunity. At the very latest, the earliest opportunity is now. Will the Prime Minister correct the record?
Darren Jones
It is not the view of the Prime Minister or the Government that the Prime Minister needs to do so.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
At Prime Minister’s questions yesterday, when asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), the Prime Minister failed to deny that he knew that his team were lobbying for a head of mission role for Matthew Doyle, and that they were doing so with his authority. Under the ministerial code, he has clear duties of transparency to this House. For No. 10 to ask the Foreign Office to find a plum diplomatic job for another Labour mate who was friends with a convicted sex offender, let alone to then keep it secret from the Foreign Secretary, is completely shocking. The Prime Minister has shown another catastrophic lack of judgment. Will the Minister ensure that an inquiry is launched by the Cabinet Secretary to determine who did the lobbying and why, and what the Prime Minister knew and when?
Darren Jones
The Prime Minister has spent very many hours at the Dispatch Box this week being held to account and answering questions on a whole range of issues. In respect of the particulars of the hon. Lady’s question, I refer her to the Prime Minister’s words of only yesterday.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Darren Jones)
On 11 March the Government responded to the Humble Address by releasing a first tranche of documents in respect of Peter Mandelson’s appointment and subsequent dismissal as ambassador to the United States. I would like to reassure Members across the House that we are proceeding at pace to publish a second tranche of documents to comply with the Humble Address, and we will provide a further update to the House as soon as possible.
Mr Mohindra
Will the Minister reassure me that the Intelligence and Security Committee will be prioritised when new information comes to light, as per the terms of the Humble Address, as opposed to information first being given to Downing Street or to journalists to then publish at their own convenience, as was the case when it was discovered that Peter Mandelson had failed security vetting?
Darren Jones
I can confirm that the Government are working closely with the Intelligence and Security Committee on processing documents relating to the Humble Address, and we thank the Committee for its work.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Happy St George’s day, Mr Speaker. The Minister is working diligently to produce all those documents. Will he ensure that they are provided before Parliament is prorogued at the end of the Session?
Darren Jones
A number of documents are still being worked through by the Intelligence and Security Committee. In line with the process that I have set out, we want that to conclude before the documents are published to the House.
Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Darren Jones)
In January I announced that I was giving Government Departments more freedom, hand in hand with greater accountability, to take the initiative to move fast and fix things. Project Reset went live this month, slashing the number of central approval processes to streamline decision making across Government. We will also shortly announce the first delivery taskforces to break down departmental silos and accelerate delivery of the Prime Minister’s priorities.
Richard Quigley
Happy St George’s day, Mr Speaker. My right hon. Friend may have heard me say what a fantastic place the Isle of Wight is to live, work and learn. Does he agree that our island is uniquely well placed to test exciting new policies and initiatives across all Departments to speed up national roll-out, as evidenced in an article this week in Computer Weekly by James Findlay, and that rather than being left behind, as we were under the previous Conservative Government, it is now time for the Isle of Wight to be a leader in building the better country that this Government want and that we all deserve?
Darren Jones
I congratulate my hon. Friend on being such a champion for his constituency. I am sure that he will agree with me, and certainly with those of us on the Government Benches, that the previous Conservative Government failed the Isle of Wight, as well as the whole country, during their 14 years in office. This Administration have launched a “test, learn and grow” programme so that the Government can work more closely with local partners to test and innovate on the design of public services more locally in the places where people need them. Given my hon. Friend’s keen interest in those approaches, I will arrange for him to engage with the TLG network within my Department and will be in touch in due course.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Darren Jones)
May I begin by wishing the Parliamentary Secretary at the Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Frith), a happy birthday, and noting the generosity and co-ordination of the House in not submitting a single question for him to answer today? I encourage Members to submit particularly difficult questions for him in future.
I will update the House on some of the work that I am leading in response to the war in the middle east. As part of our work with the new middle east response committee, I am chairing a new contingency planning ministerial group. It will focus on preparing for and mitigating, where possible, any impact on our economy and domestic security as a result of the conflict. I am convening relevant Secretaries of State twice a week, with their permanent secretaries, to scrutinise plans and ensure that we are prepared for different outcomes across major and relevant UK supply chains. The conflict in the middle east is not our war, and while we do not know how long it will last, we are acting now to protect the British people. I look forward to keeping the House updated on this work in the coming weeks and months.
Steve Race
I am sure that the Minister will join me in welcoming the result of the Hungarian election where, in part, anti-LGBT policies were roundly rejected at the ballot box. As LGBT rights suffer from backsliding around the world, will the Minister commit to working with our EU partners to promote LGBT human rights across the world, including by putting the topic on the agenda at the next EU-UK summit?
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
Last week, someone in the heart of Government leaked some extremely sensitive documents to The Guardian. This appears potentially to be a crime under the National Security Act 2023. Has the Cabinet Office reported it to the Metropolitan police?
Darren Jones
As I confirmed to the House, I think, a day or so ago, a leak inquiry has begun. When further facts are established, we reserve the right to do so.
Alex Burghart
Cat Little, the permanent secretary, has just told the Foreign Affairs Committee that a very, very small number of people have actually seen the document in question. Will the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister commit to the House that when he has identified who leaked it, he will report them to the Metropolitan police?
Darren Jones
I can confirm that we take this matter deeply seriously and, as I say, we reserve the right to do so once the facts have been established through the inquiry.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
Darren Jones
We are working in co-operation with the Metropolitan police. As the hon. Member would expect, and as I am sure the House would agree, we do not want to do anything that would interfere with the police process.
Callum Anderson (Buckingham and Bletchley) (Lab)
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
Darren Jones
As I have said from the Dispatch Box, the victims of Jeffrey Epstein want to see justice. A criminal investigation by the police is under way, and it is right that the House does not interfere with that process and works with the Metropolitan police to allow them to undertake their work.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
Happy St George’s day, Mr Speaker.
When Jaguar Land Rover was the victim of a cyber-attack, it had a devastating impact on the supply chain in Redditch. Will the proposed cyber-resilience index, which is part of the Government’s welcome focus on improving cyber-security and national security, be subject to parliamentary scrutiny?
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
If the Government are so confident in the Prime Minister’s decision to sack Sir Olly Robbins, will the Minister today rule out settling any employment tribunal in advance of a hearing or imposing any gagging orders on Mr Robbins?
Darren Jones
The House will understand that I am not at liberty to comment on a potential ongoing employment dispute.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister for confirming that he will chair a new contingency planning ministerial group to develop resilience to the threats caused as a result of the conflict, which is not, of course, ours, but is having an impact on many other countries across the world, potentially resulting in shortages and inflation. Our resilience is dependent on their resilience. In that light, will my right hon. Friend agree to consider convening a global summit to increase resilience through co-operation and collaboration?
Darren Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for her excellent question. I can confirm that the Foreign Office is part of our contingency planning work at the centre of Government. On all issues, we look at the international data available to us, and the Foreign Office will keep that in consideration when trying to support allies and partners, as well as ensuring security and resilience for the UK.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
Over the Easter weekend, a 6-acre site in the Chilterns national landscape saw a massive unauthorised development. Despite swift action from Dacorum borough council to issue a temporary stop notice and an injunction, the work continued, with the police powerless to stop it and the council without the resources. What will the Minister do through cross-departmental work to uphold the rule of law and protect our precious landscapes?
Darren Jones
I think any constituency MP would find those circumstances utterly unacceptable. If the hon. Member writes to me, I will ensure that I pass the information to colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to see what we can do.
Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment
Darren Jones Excerpts(1 week, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister (Darren Jones)
Today’s motion asks this House to consider the Government’s accountability to this place for Peter Mandelson’s appointment. The Government have been, and remain, fully committed to keeping the House informed of all relevant information related to Peter Mandelson’s appointment and subsequent dismissal as ambassador to the United States. Ministers have addressed the House on a number of occasions on this matter.
The Prime Minister has set out to the House that, while much of the debate on this issue has focused on process, at the heart of it all is the decision to appoint Peter Mandelson in the first place. The Prime Minister has been up front about that and takes responsibility for it. He knows that he should not have made the appointment. He regrets the decision, and he apologises for it, in particular to the victims of Jeffrey Epstein. Those women and girls have been subjected to intolerable cruelty and disgusting abuse, and are to date without justice. Their experiences should be taken seriously and they should be listened to.
I do not come to the House today to defend that decision—it was the wrong one. I am here to account for the Government’s accountability to this House on the process that followed. I take the Government’s responsibility to this House seriously, so I will not take the opportunity this evening to try to score party political points, or to defend a decision that the Prime Minister has said is wrong and for which he apologises. I do, however, commit to returning to this House as often as required.
Darren Jones
The Prime Minister followed the process that was in place, and I will turn to some of the details of that in the remainder of my speech.
On 11 March, I addressed the House in response to the Humble Address, as we released the first tranche of documents relating to Peter Mandelson’s appointment and subsequent dismissal. I committed to keep the House updated as we worked to publish documents relevant to that Humble Address, and I recommit to doing so today. I reassure the House that we are proceeding at pace to process the outstanding documents, a number of which are currently being reviewed by the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament, with the aim of publishing the next tranche of documents as a matter of urgency.
In the debate, I was asked specifically about redactions in documents published in relation to the Humble Address. I will be clear: redactions are visible on the documents by the black marking out of information. If there is no marking out, it is not a redaction. All redactions are agreed via the Intelligence and Security Committee before they come to the House.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
We have heard a lot from Labour Members today about process, but will the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister please tell my constituents, the House and the country why on earth the Prime Minister appointed Peter Mandelson to be ambassador to the United States?
Darren Jones
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Prime Minister’s words, and I reiterate his apology for having made that wrong decision in the first place.
I will now move to the specific matter of security vetting. As the House heard from the Prime Minister yesterday, on the evening of 14 April he was told for the first time that last year, before Peter Mandelson took up his position as ambassador, the Foreign Office had granted Peter Mandelson developed vetting clearance against the recommendation of the United Kingdom Security Vetting authority, UKSV. In today’s debate there have been accusations that the Cabinet Office had suggested that developed vetted status or the process to seek that was not necessary. Those accusations are inaccurate. I can confirm to the House, based on advice that I have received, that a question was asked by the Foreign Office of the Cabinet Office team whether, on the basis that Peter Mandelson was already a Member of the House of Lords and a Privy Counsellor, further developed vetting status was required. That then subsequently took place, as Members of the House know.
The Foreign Office officials who made the decision to overrule the recommendation of UKSV then failed to notify the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary or her predecessor, the Deputy Prime Minister, or any other Minister, including myself, or the former Cabinet Secretary, Sir Chris Wormald. That has been confirmed today in evidence given by Sir Olly Robbins to the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Several hon. Members rose—
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)
I have been listening to the description of this entire saga and it is confusing even to someone who is a Westminster insider, in the Westminster bubble. May I ask a question about process? My right hon. Friend mentioned 14 April, when the Prime Minister was notified that there had been a breach in the security vetting and that it had failed on one aspect. Will he explain to me the process at that point and what the Prime Minister would have had to do to gather all the information before coming to the House? Who would he have to speak to, what legal advice would he have to take, who would he have to consult and what permissions would he have to have? [Interruption.] This is important. What information did he need to have before he came back to the House? I want to know and my constituents want to know.
Darren Jones
As the Prime Minister has made clear to the House and via the publication of a minute of the meeting in which he was informed of this information, the Prime Minister made it immediately clear to his officials that he intended to come to this House to inform Members of Parliament of the situation about which he had just been told, but that he urgently needed a set of information about who had made what decision and when, in order to be able to provide the full facts to Parliament.
On Tuesday 14 April, the Prime Minister instructed officials to establish the facts urgently. I agree with the Prime Minister that he should have been informed of this a long time ago, as should this House. There were multiple opportunities for this issue to have been raised, not just when the decision to grant Peter Mandelson developed vetting status was initially made, but subsequently when the Prime Minister asked the former Cabinet Secretary to assure him that all due process had been followed—and he had been assured of that—and then subsequently again when the Foreign Secretary and the then permanent secretary to the Foreign Office provided a signed statement to the Foreign Affairs Committee confirming:
“Peter Mandelson’s security vetting was conducted to the usual standard set for developed vetting in line with established Cabinet Office policy.”
Several hon. Members rose—
Esther McVey
The Prime Minister has clearly said that he was right to sack the senior civil servant Oliver Robbins, so can the Minister guarantee that the Government will contest any employment claim from Sir Oliver Robbins for unfair or constructive dismissal all the way to the employment tribunal, and will not use taxpayer money to pay off this gentleman to avoid that outcome?
Darren Jones
The right hon. Lady will know that I am not at liberty to comment in respect of any potential claim to the employment tribunal.
Peter Mandelson’s security vetting was carried out by UKSV between 23 December 2024 and 28 January 2025. That included collecting relevant information and interviewing the applicant, in this case on two occasions. One issue has been raised in the debate about that time period; there is a suggestion that No. 10 applied pressure on officials at the Foreign Office in relation to the security vetting process. It was confirmed in testimony today before the Foreign Affairs Committee that no such pressure was applied beyond asking for the process to be completed as quickly as possible, and confirmed by Sir Olly Robbins that there was no personal contact by telephone or message. That is testimony from the official himself in front of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
On 28 January 2025, UKSV recommended to the Foreign Office that developed vetting clearance should not be granted to Peter Mandelson. The following day, on 29 January 2025, Foreign Office officials made the decision to grant developed vetting clearance for Peter Mandelson none the less. This was an established process for the Foreign Office, which had the authority to be able to make those decisions. It is worth reiterating for the sake of clarity, as the Prime Minister did yesterday, that UKSV makes decisions for many Government Departments, but not for the Foreign Office. The final decision on developed vetting clearance is made by Foreign Office officials, not by UKSV.
When I became aware of the details of Peter Mandelson’s case following the publication of reporting in The Guardian last Thursday, I was briefed on the matter that evening at the Cabinet Office by officials in respect of both the case of Peter Mandelson and the existing policy on UKSV recommendations and the Foreign Office’s decisions. I immediately suspended the right for the Foreign Office to overrule UKSV recommendations pending further investigation. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger), I can confirm that the review that Adrian Fulford will conduct for the Government should be completed in around four weeks, so that we can take a quick decision on the proper functioning of the process.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
In Olly Robbins’ letter to the Foreign Affairs Committee today, he countermands what the right hon. Gentleman has said from the Dispatch Box. He says:
“I believe the Cabinet Office (CO) raised whether Developed Vetting (DV) was actually necessary. I understand the FCDO insisted that DV was a requirement before Mandelson took up his post in Washington.”
After due diligence, the Cabinet Office was insisting that it was not necessary. Surely the right hon. Gentleman needs to retract his remarks.
Darren Jones
I repeat my words and refer back to them.
Much has been said about the ability of officials to disclose sensitive vetting information. As the Prime Minister has set out, I accept that the sensitive personal information provided by an individual being vetted must be protected from disclosure. If that were not the case, the integrity of the whole process would be compromised. However, neither the Prime Minister nor I accept that the appointing Minister cannot be told of the recommendation made by UKSV. Nor do the Government accept that Foreign Office officials could not have informed the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary or the Cabinet Secretary of UKSV’s recommendation while maintaining the necessary confidentiality that vetting requires.
The civil service code on this issue is clear, not just in normal practice but especially in relation to when Ministers are giving evidence to Parliament, as was the case via correspondence from the current Foreign Secretary to the Foreign Affairs Committee. There is no law that stops civil servants sensibly flagging UKSV recommendations while protecting detailed, sensitive vetting information in order to allow Ministers to make judgments on appointments or to explain matters to Parliament.
The Government have also changed the direct ministerial appointments process so that due diligence is now required as standard. The Prime Minister has also changed the process so that public announcements about direct ministerial appointments can now not be made until security vetting has been completed.
What clearly came to light about Peter Mandelson following the release of files by the United States Department of Justice was clearly deeply disturbing. In February this year, the Prime Minister instructed officials to carry out a review of the national security vetting process to ensure that it is fit for purpose. I can confirm that the terms of reference for that review have been updated to include the means by which all decisions are made in relation to national security vetting. The Government have appointed Sir Adrian Fulford to lead that review and, for completeness, have separately asked the Government Security Group in the Cabinet Office to look at any security concerns raised during Peter Mandelson’s tenure as ambassador to the United States, in answer to the question raised by the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas). We will publish terms of reference, and the Government commit to return to the House on their findings and recommendations.
On two other questions that were raised during the debate, accusations have been made of the Prime Minister both in this House of misleading and outside this House of lying. Those have been shown today by evidence in the Foreign Affairs Committee not to be true in any way. I am sure the House will be as concerned as I am that while officials felt unable to provide this information to Ministers, it was made available to The Guardian. As a consequence, I can confirm that a leak inquiry is now under way.
I thank right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions to today’s debate. This is my sixth address to this House on the appointment of Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United States of America. I recognise that the House will want to know about the next steps in respect of the publication of the remainder of the information relevant to the Humble Address that was not included in the first tranche. I commit to the House that we will release that further material shortly, subject to the processes ongoing with the Metropolitan police and the Intelligence and Security Committee, and we will continue to keep Members updated as we make progress. I commend this statement to the House.
Cabinet Office
Darren Jones Excerpts(2 weeks, 3 days ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Steve Barclay
Can the Minister confirm that the new head of propriety and ethics was appointed without a fully open, competitive recruitment process, and that the outgoing head of propriety and ethics was promoted to permanent secretary also without a fully open recruitment process? If so, he will know that both those appointments were in breach of rules put in place by the last Government—by myself as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—unless an individual Minister signed off a waiver from the process. Can he say which Minister signed off such an exemption, and why patronage is preferred to open recruitment for such sensitive roles?
Darren Jones
I was not privy to those appointments, so I cannot confirm the exact details that the right hon. Member asks of me. What I can say is that the senior civil servant who is currently acting as the director of propriety and ethics is a temporary appointment subject to a full recruitment in due course, which is in line with the rules that the right hon. Member refers to.
[Official Report, 23 February 2026; Vol. 781, c. 32.]
Written correction submitted by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the right hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones):
Darren Jones
…What I can say is that the senior civil servant who is currently acting as the director general of the propriety and constitution group is a temporary appointment subject to a full recruitment in due course, which is in line with the rules that the right hon. Member refers to.
Lord Mandelson: Government Response to Humble Address
The following extract is from the statement on the Government response to the Humble Address relating to Lord Mandelson on 23 February 2026.
Matt Bishop
… I welcome comments from the Prime Minister calling for legislation to remove peerages from disgraced peers such as Mandelson, and I hope he will go even further and look at the line of succession in the royal family—I welcome those updates. My constituents, victims groups and everyone I speak to say that it is great to hear the messages, but they want to know when. Do we have any timescales for when this legislation will be brought to the House?
Darren Jones
We are working with relevant advisers and Departments to scope the Bill, and the measures that need to be brought forward for that to be effective. The legislation raises a number of constitutional questions, which have taken some time for the Government to consider. The last time peerages were removed, I think, was in the 1600s, so it is not something that has been done recently. We must ensure that the scope and drafting of the Bill is done in a way that means it will be effective when it is brought forward to the House.
[Official Report, 23 February 2026; Vol. 781, c. 47.]
Written correction submitted by the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister (Darren Jones):
Darren Jones
… The last time peerages were removed was in 1917, so it is not something that has been done recently.
Covid-19 Inquiry Module 2: Government Response
Darren Jones Excerpts(1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister (Darren Jones)
On 20 November 2025, the covid-19 inquiry published its second report, which examined core decision-making and political governance across the UK and put forward 19 recommendations for the Government to consider. Today, the Government published their response and set out the actions we are taking to address them.
The covid-19 pandemic was a traumatic chapter in our country’s history. Families lost loved ones, businesses suffered or were forced to close, and many across the country were left with life-long health impacts. The Government debt built up to cover the economic impact of the crisis is still being paid back today; the impact on NHS waiting lists remains a long-term challenge.
The Government welcome the inquiry’s module 2 report and I want to express my gratitude to Baroness Hallett and her team for their rigorous examination of the issues it raises.
It is a sobering read. Responding to the pandemic was a highly significant logistical challenge to our system of government, and indeed to Governments all around the world. However the module 2 report nevertheless exposes several failures of the Government at the time: a failure to respond quickly enough; to treat the impact on vulnerable people and children seriously enough; to provide clear, unequivocal public health messaging; and to turn scientific advice into coherent policy in a transparent, methodical way. There are many lessons to learn from the mistakes, failures—and successes—where they were made.
This Government have already made significant changes to their crisis response structures in response to the covid-19 inquiry module 1 report. Without effective governance, we cannot expect to respond to crises effectively. The Prime Minister, Cabinet and civil service must be structured, willing and able to make fast, evidence-based and compassionate decisions that will save lives and livelihoods, informed by the scientific evidence. In July 2025, we also published our resilience action plan which explains this Government’s strategic approach to increasing the UK’s resilience. Our response to the module 2 report today builds on that.
We have already updated the UK Government’s crisis management doctrine, known as the Amber Book, which sets out the decision-making framework for responding to a crisis. This includes establishing the principles for a successful taskforce structure, to oversee the response to protracted whole-of-system crises, and has informed the development of internal risk-specific operational plans for catastrophic risks like pandemics.
The report also notes that clear and inclusive communication is integral to a successful Government response to an emergency. The Government Communication Service crisis communications operating model has been updated to clarify communications roles and responsibilities before, during, and in the aftermath of a crisis. We have issued new advice to help Departments create robust communication plans for their specific risks, and our STOP model for crisis planning now mandates that all communications consider people with additional needs. This ensures that our messaging is accessible and inclusive by default, in line with the Equality Act 2010, the public sector equality duty, and the British Sign Language Act 2022.
As recommended by the module 2 report, we are also working towards commencing the socioeconomic duty under section 1 of the Equality Act 2010 in England. Additionally, in 2025, we published updated guidance for identifying and supporting vulnerable people during an emergency.
We have also worked closely with our counterparts in the devolved Governments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to draft our response to this report. Our shared aim is to ensure that intergovernmental machinery is configured to enable better co-ordination between Governments while respecting the importance of local accountability. The devolved Governments should be invited to COBR and taskforce meetings during an emergency where relevant. Furthermore, guidance has been updated to ensure the three chief scientific advisers from the devolved Governments are invited to Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies meetings from the very outset of an emergency.
As the Government implement our response to the module 2 report, our progress will be recorded and tracked transparently using our covid-19 inquiry dashboard. These may seem like technical changes, but in an increasingly disruptive global context, having processes in place to make the right marginal call in moments of volatility can have profound and long-lasting impacts.
Many will naturally want to put the difficulty of covid-19 behind us, but given the long-lasting impact on the British economy and public services, it is right for Government to take these lessons seriously. And we owe it to those who died, suffered and struggled during the pandemic too. I am grateful to Baroness Hallett and her team for their rigorous examination of what went wrong, on the basis of which we are acting, to make sure this and future Governments can do better next time.
[HCWS1456]
Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address
Darren Jones Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the Government’s compliance with the Humble Address of 4 February 2026 relating to the appointment of Peter Mandelson as His Majesty’s ambassador to the United States of America.
The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister (Darren Jones)
I updated the House last Wednesday on the Government’s response to the Humble Address motion of 4 February, after the first tranche of documents were laid in both Houses in response to that motion. The Government have been clear that they are committed to publishing all documents relevant to the Humble Address, and that further material will be published in due course as officials work through its full scope.
The first tranche, as the title of the document made clear, represented,
“Part of a Return to an Address of the Honourable the House of Commons dated 4 February 2026”.
It responded directly to a number of specific elements contained in that motion, namely papers relating to Lord Mandelson’s appointment as His Majesty’s ambassador and the discussions that subsequently led to his dismissal. As the Government have said previously, there are specific documents that we would like to disclose but which the Metropolitan police has asked us not to in order to avoid prejudicing the ongoing criminal investigation into Peter Mandelson. The Government have agreed to that request. We will publish those documents in the future once the Metropolitan police has confirmed that it will no longer prejudice its investigation.
As a consequence of that, and as I set out to the House on 11 March, the Government have therefore taken the extraordinary step, as agreed with Mr Speaker, of briefing the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), on terms agreed by the Metropolitan police to ensure that there is as much transparency to the House as possible.
As the House understands, the Government must carefully assess the risk of prejudicing UK national security or international relations posed by the release of any official documents. Again, this process is subject to parliamentary oversight. Any such material will be and is in the process of being referred to the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament. I thank the Committee for its assistance and can confirm that this process was also followed regarding the first tranche of material published last week. Outside of this arrangement, the important and well-established constitutional principle that national security and international relations judgments are ultimately for the Government has not changed.
We are continuing the disclosure process for other documents across Government within the scope of the address. Given the breadth of the motion agreed by the House and the large number of materials and Departments involved, this process will take time and necessarily requires careful consideration. Where relevant documents are held, they are being prepared for release through an established process, including the appropriate checks relating to national security, international relations, legal privilege and the protection of personal data.
The Government have acknowledged that the documents published reveal that the appointment process fell short of what is required. As previously set out, the independent adviser looked last week at the process and concluded that he saw no grounds for the investigation that the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), has requested, but as the Prime Minister set out this morning, the inherited process itself was not strong enough. That is why the Prime Minister has already strengthened the process and is committed to strengthening it further in the future. This forms part of wider changes that the Government are bringing forward to improve the system, including a review by the Ethics and Integrity Commission relating to financial disclosures, transparency around lobbying, and the business appointment rules, alongside a review of the national security vetting system.
As I have said, and I know Members across the House will agree, Jeffrey Epstein was a disgusting individual, and Peter Mandelson’s decision to put their relationship before his victims and the vulnerable was reprehensible. That is why there is cross-party consensus across the House for transparency and accountability and why the Government are committed to publishing all material relevant to the Humble Address. I will continue to keep the House updated as a matter of priority, as I have done to date, and I commend this statement to the House.
Alex Burghart
Since last Wednesday, it has become increasingly clear that either the Government did not follow due process in their appointment of Peter Mandelson or that they have not disclosed all the relevant documents. In different terms, either the Prime Minister’s assurances that full due process was followed were misleading, or the Government have not complied with the Humble Address. Either would be a contempt of Parliament.
Last Wednesday, the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister said:
“All the documents that are available in relation to Peter Mandelson’s appointment and dismissal are published…today, subject to those that have been held back by the Metropolitan police.”—[Official Report, 11 March 2026; Vol. 782, c. 371.]
But many, many documents are missing. I have detailed 56 documents in a letter that I sent him. To give a few examples, there is no prime ministerial readout on the advice that the Prime Minister received. This is a breach of protocol. A prime ministerial decision, even if made orally, should be formally recorded. Where is that record? It starts to stink of the sofa government that we had under Tony Blair.
There are no minutes of any meeting at which this appointment was discussed, by anyone, at any time. Were there really no meetings about this? Most suspiciously of all, we have no material from the Prime Minister, from his chief of staff or from Peter Mandelson: no box returns, no emails, no forms, no WhatsApps—nothing. It is as though their fingerprints have been forensically removed.
To narrow this down, on 11 November 2024 the Cabinet Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted to make a political appointment, the civil service would
“develop a plan for…the necessary security clearances and do due diligence on any potential Conflicts of Interest”.
That was the process, so let me ask the Chief Secretary two very specific questions. First, did Peter Mandelson receive security clearance, and if so, on what date? There was no such document in the release. Secondly, did Peter Mandelson make a full declaration of his interests? Again, there was no such document in the release.
I remind the Chief Secretary that noting the existence of a document does not prejudice an investigation in any way. The Government have already told us about one document that they are holding back at the request of the Met police; they are more than able to tell us about others. It is time for the Government to level with us. What is missing, and why?
Darren Jones
As I informed the House last week, the documents that pertain to tranche 1 are the documents the Government own, and they have been published in line with the Humble Address. The shadow Minister asks about the process followed for the appointment of Peter Mandelson. As the Prime Minister and the Government have said, the process that was followed was the process that was inherited; however, this has shown that that process is not sufficient, which is why it is being strengthened.
The shadow Minister made reference to questions about WhatsApps and other messages. I can confirm that those types of documents will be subject to a further tranche being published in due course. He also asked me about security clearance for Peter Mandelson. I refer him to the answer I gave last week in respect of that question, and to further comments from the Foreign Office.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
As an alumnus of Manchester Metropolitan University, I noticed that it has stripped Peter Mandelson of all the honours that it gave to him while he was chancellor of that institution between 2016 and 2024. Can the Chief Secretary confirm that any contacts with Government and the Department for Education during that period are not currently subject to this investigation?
Darren Jones
I can confirm that any documents that are within the scope of the Humble Address and refer to communications between Ministers and others and Peter Mandelson are part of the disclosure process currently being undertaken by the Government.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
We may debate whether the Prime Minister’s appointment of Peter Mandelson showed a weirdly rushed, catastrophic lack of judgment or just a stunning level of disengaged naivety. Either way, the British public are rightly wondering whether decency in public office is just too much to ask. I reassure them on behalf of the Liberal Democrats that no, it is not too much to ask.
As well as confirming that Mandelson’s ongoing relationship with a convicted sexual predator was known, the files also revealed that he was given top-level briefings before his vetting was finished—a vetting process that clearly failed by any measure. Trust in politics is already stretched thin, and I am sure that everyone in this House wants to see it restored. If the worst fears of this sorry saga are found to be true, that trust will take another body blow, boosting only the populists on the left and the right.
I therefore ask the Minister, if the Prime Minister really wants to rebuild trust and ensure that the proper procedures are always followed, will he commit to taking up Lib Dem calls to make the ministerial code binding in law, and will he refer himself to the independent ethics adviser to determine whether, in the course of this long, sorry saga, he has breached the code or not?
Darren Jones
I thank the hon. Member for his questions; I just wanted to clarify whether he felt that I should refer myself to the independent adviser.
I refer the hon. Member to the letter from the independent adviser, which came out on Friday of last week and concluded that there were no grounds for an investigation into the Prime Minister’s conduct, because the process that the Government inherited for these types of appointments had been followed appropriately. The process itself, as the Prime Minister said again this morning, is clearly not sufficient, which is why it needs to be changed for the future.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
Peter Mandelson’s appointment has done serious damage to public trust, but the deeper issue, as we are finding out, is the culture that made this possible. When a small clique is able to wield this much influence, confidence in public appointments is of course badly undermined. What structural changes are being made to ensure that factionalism and cronyism can never again override the national interest?
Darren Jones
I refer my hon. Friend to the part of my statement in relation to the work of the Ethics and Integrity Commission and the work that the Prime Minister has set it in reviewing the rules around transparency and lobbying, business accounting rules and other such related processes.
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
Last week, the Government withheld the questions the Prime Minister put to Peter Mandelson and his responses, apparently at the request of the Metropolitan police. This is perhaps the most important documentation we could see and, as Madam Deputy Speaker confirmed, “Erskine May” confirms that:
“In criminal matters, proceedings are active when a charge has been brought”.
That is the balance between justice and democracy. Given that Mr Mandelson has not been charged, this matter does not fall under the sub judice rule, and he might not be charged for a year or more, if ever. There appears to be no other statutory bar to the Government releasing information: the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 does not apply; the Freedom of Information Act 2000 does not apply; and the Contempt of Court Act 1981 does not apply because section 5 of that Act excludes public debate of matters of public interest. Given the lack of statutory bars preventing the Government from acting, will the right hon. Gentleman release that documentation?
Darren Jones
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman and Members across the House would not want to do anything to prejudice a criminal investigation that might finally result in justice for the victims of Jeffrey Epstein and his associates. As I have said to the House repeatedly, where the Metropolitan police has asked for documents to be held back, we have consented to that. However, recognising the points the right hon. Gentleman makes, we have agreed a process with the Chair of the relevant Select Committee—a Member on the right hon. Gentleman’s side of the House—so that the Chair is able to see those documents and so that any accusations of any cover-up by the Government can be shown to be inaccurate.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
The Chief Secretary has just mentioned that the process was not strong enough, but I have to say that that was a massive understatement. The due diligence checklist published last week screamed reputational risks, yet its red flags were ignored and dismissed, exposing a deeply embedded culture of deception. Mandelson’s appointment has dragged our party into the gutter, and the apparent collusion between key figures in Labour Together and the Prime Minister’s top team signals their clear complicity in this failure of judgment. Will the Government now take responsibility and support a full independent inquiry into Labour Together and those in the UK Prime Minister’s office who enabled this?
Darren Jones
Where the Government have the ability to take action to ensure transparency and accountability on this matter, they are making sure that they do so. For organisations that are outside of Government, it is for those organisations to consider such requests.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
It is not much good blaming the process when it is as plain as a pikestaff that the Government knew that Peter Mandelson’s appointment was, to put it mildly, extremely dodgy. If there were any conversations held, over the telephone or face to face, or any private emails sent from people’s personal email addresses, will they be made available to this House?
Darren Jones
The documents that fall within the scope of the Humble Address will be made available to the House in the way that I have set out.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It would be very useful to know what proportion of the documents we have already been able to set our eyes on, but also what proportion is being held back by the police, so that we can make a calculation of how much more is to come. But it all sounds too casual, not least when my right hon. Friend talks about WhatsApp messages. We need to ensure that there is proper due process across Government, not least when we are talking about the business associations of Peter Mandelson with the client of his own PR company, Global Counsel. How much more work is there to come that this House will see with regard to what was known about Peter Mandelson’s relationship with Palantir?
Darren Jones
It is a reflection of the depth and extent of the work being undertaken by Government to comply with the Humble Address that it is taking some time to be able to process the documents. We moved at pace to publish the first tranche of documents last week and, as I have said to the House, we are going to publish the second tranche as soon as possible.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
My hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) referred to very specific documents—meeting notes and decision notes—that have not been disclosed. May I point out that the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister himself must not mislead the House? So, do these documents actually exist? Are there decision notes and meeting notes that have been withheld, or do they not exist?
Darren Jones
Documents owned by the Government that are within the scope of the Humble Address have been published, as I have set out.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
Peter Mandelson’s behaviour was disgraceful, and his continued relationship with Jeffrey Epstein is difficult to comprehend. It is an insult to the victims and survivors of Epstein’s horrific crimes. Clearly, the Government are putting in place standards and tightening their appointments and vetting process, but could the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister tell the House what work Baroness Anderson will undertake in the Cabinet Office and when we can expect a further update on her progress?
Darren Jones
I know that Baroness Anderson in the other place will be listening with great intent to my hon. Friend’s question. I was pleased to get the Prime Minister’s support to appoint Baroness Anderson as an additional Minister in the Cabinet Office to take on this additional work, given the seriousness with which we take the need for modernisation and reform. I look forward to the proposals that she will bring forward in due course.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
It has been revealed that Peter Mandelson was given top-level briefings before his vetting was finalised. Who did that, and who will hold those people to account? Will the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister write to me if he is not able to answer that question now?
Darren Jones
As the Prime Minister has already said, the length of time it takes between an ambassador’s appointment and agreement from the host country, and for certain vetting to take place, meant that in the past there had been an established process to allow for ambassadors to start work and to be announced before the vetting was completed. We are reviewing that process to make sure that there are not such gaps in the future.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
Aside from the response to the Humble Address, 90 Members from parties across the House are calling for an independent statutory inquiry into the relationship between Jeffrey Epstein and British public figures and institutions, including whether due diligence was undertaken in the case of any appointments to public roles. Can the Minister confirm that it is the Government’s position to support such calls and establish an inquiry? If not, can he confirm that there is no influence from Labour Together on such a position?
Darren Jones
My hon. Friend will know that there are legal proceedings under way, with actions by the Metropolitan police and others. The Government agree that there should be justice for victims, and anyone who has any insight, knowledge or experience of Jeffrey Epstein, his associates or the events involved should come forward and share it.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Did the Prime Minister’s chief of staff communicate with Mandelson via a private email address?
Darren Jones
Any communications that are subject to the Humble Address will be published in the second tranche.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
The Prime Minister rightly called for the removal of peerages from disgraced peers, so could the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister tell the House when we might expect further updates on the proposed legislation?
Darren Jones
I think there is cross-party agreement that we should introduce legislation that removes life peerages from those in the other place who bring the House into disrepute or suffer a criminal penalty for their behaviour. That is why the Government are working to introduce legislation that not only deals with Peter Mandelson but is available as a sanction for others who behave in that way in the future. We are getting towards the end of this Session, but we are committed to bringing forward that legislation. We look forward to presenting it shortly.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
No matter how many Ministers the Government sent out over the weekend to try to spin their way out of this crisis, the story remains unchanged. The Prime Minister chose to ignore the fact that Mandelson remained friends with the convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein; he chose to ignore Mandelson’s own scandal-laden political history; and he even chose to ignore the advice of the security services, which questioned Mandelson’s suitability for the job. Given the Prime Minister’s appalling lack of judgment, can the Minister understand why so many people across these islands believe that he simply cannot be trusted to remain in office?
Darren Jones
On the second half of the hon. Member’s question, the public are looking to the Prime Minister and seeing the important leadership role that he is playing in the world, given the events in the middle east, Ukraine and elsewhere. That is important for domestic conditions for families struggling with living standards and worried about the future. On the first part of the question, the Prime Minister has apologised for appointing Peter Mandelson, which he regrets—it was a mistake. If he had had information on the depth and extent of the relationship, which became available after the publication of documents at the point of the appointment, he would not have appointed him in the first place.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
Gloucester residents rightly expect that nobody be above the law, so will the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister update the House on what steps the Department is taking to ensure that the Metropolitan police have all the support they need for their investigation?
Darren Jones
Of course, the Government take the Humble Address with the utmost seriousness, and respect the sovereignty of Parliament in exercising its own powers, but my hon. Friend is right to remind the House that justice for victims will be delivered only as a consequence of criminal investigation and criminal prosecution, not by motions of this House. It is important that none of us seeks to undermine those criminal investigations so that victims may, for once, see justice come in their direction.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
Of course, nobody would expect the Government to contravene the indications of the Metropolitan police by publishing documents, but most people would expect that the first step for somebody applying for such an important job—the most senior diplomatic post—is to submit a declaration of interests. It is unclear whether that declaration of interests was submitted, or whether it actually exists, because we have not seen it yet. It is difficult to understand how such a basic first-principles requirement would not be disclosed in the first tranche of documents. Why is that?
Darren Jones
The right hon. Gentleman invites me to itemise the documents that have been held back by the Metropolitan police. I am advised that I am not at liberty to do that from the Dispatch Box, but I say again to him and the House that all documents that the Government have and are able to publish at this time have been published.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
Much of the discussion has been about tightening up the process. It has become increasingly clear from the documents already in the public domain that this is as much to do with the personnel delegated to make this political judgment. Will my right hon. Friend explain how tightening up the process might ensure that such personnel are not in a position to make political judgments of this kind in future?
Darren Jones
I refer my hon. Friend to the content of my statement, and the very wide-ranging review by the Ethics and Integrity Commission into the process not just for appointments but for vetting, as well as into transparency on lobbying, declarations of interests and business appointment rules. The Government hope that the work of the commission will allow us to have a process that avoids these problems in future.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
For four months, I asked the Government what severance payments Mandelson received. According to the permanent secretary of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, I received no reply due to an “error”. Now, we have the failure to release 56 documents. Mandelson should have been dismissed for gross misconduct, yet the British people had to fork out for a payout. Even though Treasury rules say that severance payments cannot be used
“to avoid…unwelcome publicity or reputational damage”,
Foreign Office advice to the Prime Minister said:
“Given the reputational impact for HMG, a modest settlement as proposed is the recommended course of action.”
Does the Minister maintain that no rules were broken with Mandelson’s payoff?
Darren Jones
I repeat for the House that, in line with the Humble Address, all documents that the Government have were published. The hon. Lady’s reference to 56 documents is a reference to 56 documents that the Opposition like to think exist, as opposed to those that have been published by the Government. On severance payments, the documents were published in a bundle last week, and they speak for themselves.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
For five years before my election, I led services for adult survivors of childhood sexual abuse. It is a cause that means a lot to me, and I know it is a cause that means a lot to the Prime Minister too.
We on the Labour Benches are furious with Peter Mandelson; he hoodwinked left, right and centre, requiring the Prime Minister to ring him up in the embassy in the middle of the night to fire him. The Prime Minister has said that if he had known then what is now known, he would not have appointed him.
There is a criminal investigation under way that we cannot cut across, and there are critical pieces of information that have not yet been disclosed, including the follow-up questions and Peter Mandelson’s answers to them. Will the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister outline when we might hear about the next steps and the release of those questions and answers? I think we should be reserving judgment until we see the totality of the evidence; as politicians, we are here to be led by the evidence.
Darren Jones
As I have said from the Dispatch Box, there are documents that the Government would have wished to have been able to publish as part of the response to the Humble Address, but the Metropolitan police asked us not to do so. It is right that we have honoured that request, given the ongoing criminal investigation. As soon as the Metropolitan police have informed us that they have discharged their duties, we will publish those documents for the House.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Prime Minister admitted to this House that he knew about the relationship between Jeffrey Epstein and Peter Mandelson. From the documentation that has been released so far, it appears that the Prime Minister did not actually interview Peter Mandelson for the job or make a decision on that; it was left to staffers. Despite that, there are newsreels showing both the Prime Minister and Peter Mandelson in public places, obviously having convivial discussions. Will the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister confirm that the Prime Minister did not formally interview Peter Mandelson for the job—and if not, why not?
Darren Jones
The documents that were published in the tranche last week in relation to the Humble Address show the process that was followed, which was the proper process at the time.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister for his answers so far. Will he outline that this Government will do everything they possibly can to support the police investigation? Does he agree that whether we are Members of this place or the other place, or former princes, it is hugely important for public trust that nobody is above the law? The victims of these vile crimes deserve nothing less.
Darren Jones
I think all Members across the House would recognise the primacy of the criminal investigations that are under way as the best route for justice for the victims of Jeffrey Epstein and his associates. With that in mind, the Government have committed to comply with the Humble Address and their transparency obligations to Parliament while holding back the documents that the Metropolitan police have asked us to hold back.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
The shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), and other Conservative Members have asked last week and this week about the declaration of interests. Either it exists and the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister does not want to say so, or it does not exist and he does not want to say so. Out of respect for this House, the public and the victims of Jeffrey Epstein, will he confirm now whether or not it exists?
Darren Jones
The hon. Lady should listen carefully to the answer I give. Given our obligations, I am not able to itemise all documents, as I have already set out from the Dispatch Box. What I can say to her, as I have said to her right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen), is that all documents that the Government have and are able to publish at this time have been published. The only documents that have not been published are those being held either by the Metropolitan police or by agreement through the Intelligence and Security Committee—which is not relevant to the tranche 1 documents that were published last week.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
Mandelson wanted more than half a million pounds to walk away from his job. This Government gave him £75,000; that went to someone who the Prime Minister said was clearly dishonest and lied. Will the Government be seeking to recover that public money—taxpayers’ money?
Darren Jones
The Government did not wish to give £1 to Peter Mandelson, but, as the documents from tranche 1 revealed last week, the decision was based on advice that the quickest possible route to removing him from civil service employment was to provide a severance payment on the terms provided, and that that sum was lower than the anticipated cost of legal fees associated with an employment tribunal dispute.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
Two weeks ago, the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister gave me two pithy answers, so I ask him to do the same this week. First, did Peter Mandelson receive top-secret so-called STRAP security clearance? Secondly—we will try this question once again—did Peter Mandelson submit a declaration of interests? I want a yes or no to both those questions.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
Does the Minister believe that a declaration of interests form should have been submitted for a role as significant as this?
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
The problem with these sorts of scandals is that as time moves on, more and more people are tarnished by them. Last week, when the papers revealed that Mandelson received £75,000, I asked the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister whether the Government were worried about what he might say at an employment tribunal. He said,
“That was not the rationale. The documents will speak for themselves.”—[Official Report, 11 March 2026; Vol. 782, c. 367.]
Of course, the documents do speak for themselves. They say that part of the business case for the payout—which the Minister was aware of, because it was sent to him—was that
“Given the reputational impact for HMG, a modest settlement as proposed is the recommended course of action”.
They also say that
“the individual has a high profile which could give rise to reputational damage to the FCDO and HMG were a court or tribunal claim to be pursued”,
which is exactly what I suggested based on what was in the papers, but which the Minister denied was part of the reasoning. Does he want to apologise for inadvertently misleading the House, and does he agree that those papers show that the Government broke Treasury rules on how such payments should be made?
Darren Jones
I think I said to the House last week, for the sake of clarity, that while I recognise that correspondence in the bundle mentions the business case being referred to me for my approval, that was never sent and was never received, so I was not privy to it as the hon. Gentleman suggests. On the basis of the severance payment, as I have said to the House, it was, based on advice, deemed to be the quickest way to get Peter Mandelson off civil service employment, and cheaper than maybe incurring the legal fees of a dispute at the employment tribunal.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
I welcome the first tranche of documents being released. One of those documents—the due diligence checklist, “11-12-2024 Advice to the Prime Minister”—has an entire section about Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, yet on 4 February at Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister said that
“If I knew then what I know now, he would never have been anywhere near Government.”—[Official Report, 4 February 2026; Vol. 780, c. 258.]
What additional information did the Prime Minister get to come to that conclusion?
Darren Jones
I think the hon. Member is referring to the initial release of documents by Bloomberg, which exposed the extent and depth of the relationship between Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein—which was not made clear to the Prime Minister prior to that appointment —and was subsequently confirmed by the US Department of Justice documents.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
In our country—and I fully support the Government’s national inquiry into grooming gangs and child sexual exploitation —the Epstein scandal exposes a global sex ring, with many hundreds if not thousands of under-age girls and women being trafficked for sex for the sake of political, financial and global influence. It is right that the Government are publishing details about the appointment of Peter Mandelson, but will the Minister confirm what other steps the Government are taking to go through all the millions of pieces of evidence and documentation that are being released by the US Department of Justice, to find and prosecute every single British person who took part in the exploitation of women and girls?
Darren Jones
The hon. Member is right to remind the House that while we have important questions about process, documentation and the appointment and dismissal of civil servants, above and beyond all of that was the most horrifying set of crimes that are imaginable to any of us in this House. The fact that they were able to happen in the way they did reminds us that we have much further to go to deal with male violence against women and exploitation of women by the powerful and rich. That is why the Government are committed to our strategy on violence against women and girls, and it is why we will of course comply with any investigation where we can be of assistance, to ensure that justice is being delivered for those victims.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
What level of security clearance was Peter Mandelson granted prior to his appointment as ambassador to the United States?
Darren Jones
I can confirm to the House my previous answer about the process for his appointment, agrément, and the security vetting that then took place. For particular details, I will need to refer the hon. Member to the Foreign Office.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister for making himself available on every occasion that the House asks him to come along and answer questions. As each week passes, the attention on this matter is not diverted but intensified, and with each seeming redirection, the British public become even more dejected and less confident in the Government structures that are in place to hold staff and Ministers to the highest possible standard. Will the Chief Secretary outline what additional steps can be put in place to assure Members of this House and the British public that the current job application route has been completely shut down, and that political persuasion will cease to be the top qualifying criterion in Government employment shortlists?
Darren Jones
As I think I have said to the House before, the vast majority of people who apply to public service do so to serve the public and are honourable people who acknowledge and live the Nolan principles in every day of their work. What the Peter Mandelson example has shown—there have been others in the past—is that for all the rules in place that serve the majority well, there are still too many opportunities for those who wish to get around the rules. That is why the work that the Ethics and Integrity Commission is now doing will be vital in trying to prevent that from happening again.
Gregory Stafford
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker—and I apologise for not being able to give you notice of it. The ministerial code clearly states that Ministers must provide accurate information to this House. Under the duty of truthfulness, it states that Ministers are required to
“be as open as possible with Parliament”
and maintain high standards of accountability. That is not just in what they say, but what they fail to say. I know that you do not enforce the ministerial code, Madam Deputy Speaker, but would you expect a Minister who has misled the House by omission to return to the House to correct the record?
National Security and Investment Act 2021: Notifiable Acquisition Regulations
Darren Jones Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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—
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.
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—
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(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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?
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
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?
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(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
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?
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?
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?
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?
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.