US Department of Justice Release of Files

Darren Jones Excerpts

Monday 2nd February 2026 Commons Chamber

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

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

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement.

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

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

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

That investigation never happened.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Darren Jones]

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Darren Jones]

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

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

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

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

[Darren Jones]

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

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

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

[Darren Jones]

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hoare]

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

[Darren Jones]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Darren Jones]

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

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

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

[Darren Jones]

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

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

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

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

[Darren Jones]

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

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

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

[Darren Jones]

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

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

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

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

[Darren Jones]

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

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

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

[Darren Jones]

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

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

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

[Darren Jones]

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

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

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

[Darren Jones]

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

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

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

[Darren Jones]

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

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

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

[Darren Jones]

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

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)]

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

[Darren Jones]

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

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

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

[Darren Jones]

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

[Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)]

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

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

[Darren Jones]

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

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Reform)]

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

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

[Darren Jones]

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

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

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

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

[Darren Jones]

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

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Darren Jones]

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

[Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)]

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

[Darren Jones]

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

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

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

[Darren Jones]

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

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

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

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

[Darren Jones]

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

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

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

[Darren Jones]

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

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

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

[Darren Jones]

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

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)]

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

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

[Darren Jones]

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

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

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

[Darren Jones]

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

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

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

[Darren Jones]

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

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

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

[Darren Jones]

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

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

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

[Darren Jones]

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

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

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

[Darren Jones]

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

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

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

[Darren Jones]

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

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

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

[Darren Jones]

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

[Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)]

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

[Darren Jones]

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

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

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

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

[Darren Jones]

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

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

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

[Darren Jones]

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

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

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

[Darren Jones]

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

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

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

[Darren Jones]

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

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

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

[Darren Jones]

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

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

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

[Darren Jones]

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

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

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

[Darren Jones]

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

Oral Answers to Questions

Darren Jones Excerpts

Thursday 22nd January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Welcome, Minister.

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

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

[Florence Eshalomi]

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

[Darren Jones]

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

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

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

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

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

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

[Sarah Olney]

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

[Darren Jones]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Darren Jones]

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

[Alex Burghart]

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

[Darren Jones]

indicated dissent.

[Alex Burghart]

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

[Darren Jones]

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

[Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)]

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

[Darren Jones]

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

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

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

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

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

[Darren Jones]

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

[Darren Jones]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)]

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

[Darren Jones]

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

[Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)]

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

[Darren Jones]

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

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

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

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

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

[Darren Jones]

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

[Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)]

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

[Darren Jones]

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

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

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

[Darren Jones]

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

Civil Service: Innovation

Darren Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 20th January 2026 Written Statements

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

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

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

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

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

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

[HCWS1260]

Oral Answers to Questions

Darren Jones Excerpts

Thursday 4th December 2025 Commons Chamber

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

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

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

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

[Gerald Jones]

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

[Darren Jones]

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

[Katrina Murray]

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

[Darren Jones]

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

[Irene Campbell]

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

[Darren Jones]

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

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

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

[Darren Jones]

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

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

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

[Mr Speaker]

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

[Darren Jones]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Alex Brewer]

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

[Darren Jones]

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

[Andrew Cooper]

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

[Darren Jones]

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

[Dr Pinkerton]

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

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

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

[Darren Jones]

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

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

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

[Darren Jones]

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

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

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

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

[Darren Jones]

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

[Alex Burghart]

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

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

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

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

[Darren Jones]

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

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

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

“courage and leadership in demanding these reforms”

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

[Darren Jones]

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

[Lisa Smart]

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

[Darren Jones]

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

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

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

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

[Kenneth Stevenson]

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

[Darren Jones]

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

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

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

[Darren Jones]

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

[Alex Burghart]

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

[Darren Jones]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

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

[Darren Jones]

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

[Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

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

[Darren Jones]

I do not know.

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

[Darren Jones]

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

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

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

[Darren Jones]

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

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

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

[Darren Jones]

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

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Telephone directories are not required in the Chamber.

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

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

[Darren Jones]

I will certainly do my best.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

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

[Darren Jones]

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

[Mr Speaker]

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

Impact Economy Partnerships

Darren Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Written Statements

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

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

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

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

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

[HCWS1041]

Oral Answers to Questions

Darren Jones Excerpts

Thursday 23rd October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)]

2. What steps he is taking with Cabinet colleagues to reform public services.

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

The Prime Minister has asked me to help drive the Government’s delivery of the public’s priorities: boosting living standards, fixing our NHS and securing our borders. I and the team are focused on changing how Government works, to build the foundations of a modern British state that delivers for the British people, using modern technology with more accountability and by breaking down silos and outdated hierarchy.

[Lewis Atkinson]

Could my right hon. Friend outline what role he thinks digital ID could play in supporting public sector reform?

[Darren Jones]

I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology for her dedicated work on the Prime Minister’s recent announcement on digital identity. As of today, the Cabinet Office has responsibility for the policy, legislation and strategic oversight of the digital ID programme, with the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology leading on technical design, build and delivery. Together, we will work to build the foundations of a modern British state that delivers better public services for people across the country, and digital ID will play a part in that work.

[Mrs Blundell]

The last Government left the public services on which our constituents rely on their knees, with many just about keeping their head above water, and the Probation Service is no different. Since being elected, I have come to understand the dire ramifications of what can go wrong when local probation services are not performing to the standard that local people should expect, especially when it comes to the suitable placement and proper monitoring of serious offenders post release. What engagement is taking place between the Cabinet Office and the Ministry of Justice to ensure that when errors are made by local probation delivery units, there is proper accountability and corrective measures are taken to protect our constituents from those who could still cause them harm?

[Darren Jones]

I know that my hon. Friend has been a vocal campaigner for her constituents in relation to the injustice experienced through the Probation Service in and around her constituency. Public protection is, of course, a key priority for this Government, and serious further offences, although rare, are devastating for victims and their families. The Ministry of Justice and His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service take learnings from serious further offence reviews, inspectorate of probation reports and internal audits to identify opportunities for improvement, and the Cabinet Office supports those Departments in these endeavours.

[Rishi Sunak (Richmond and Northallerton) (Con)]

In my constituency, organisations such as Just the Job, Yatton House, Northdale and Chopsticks provide valuable services for adults with complex disabilities and learning difficulties, so will the Minister join me in commending them? May I urge him to continue the work that I know his Department is doing on exploring where local voluntary and charitable organisations can play an effective and efficient role in delivering public services for local communities?

[Darren Jones]

May I join the right hon. Member in celebrating the success of the organisations in his constituency? He and the House will know that when the Government talk about delivery, we are really talking about those organisations that deliver real change for people’s lives, not about processes in Whitehall. It is organisations in the voluntary sector, as well as Whitehall Departments, local authorities and private sector businesses, that help us deliver that change across the country.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his very positive answers. What steps have been taken to improve community healthcare services, to ease the pressures on our hospitals and encourage more care in local areas?

[Darren Jones]

The hon. Member will no doubt have heard from the Health Secretary in Health questions and subsequent statements about the NHS 10-year plan, which is moving the delivery of services from hospitals into the community. We know that too many patients end up in A&E, for example, making hospital delivery very difficult, because they cannot access support and care in the community. That is why the Department of Health and Social Care has been setting out its plans for supporting the delivery of care services in the local community, where local people are.

[Michelle Scrogham (Barrow and Furness) (Lab)]

3. What recent assessment he has made of the efficiency of the security clearance processes of United Kingdom Security Vetting.

--- Later in debate ---

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

10. What steps he is taking to improve the delivery of Government priorities.

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

The Prime Minister has asked me to help to drive forward delivery of the public’s priorities. In Scotland, we have delivered more money for public services than at any point since devolution began—an extra £9.1 billion over the next three years. I know that my hon. Friend and his constituents in Airdrie and Shotts will expect to see that money invested in Scotland’s NHS, schools and frontline policing, instead of being frittered away by the SNP.

[Kenneth Stevenson]

In less than 18 months, this Government have delivered defence contracts that will support Scottish jobs for years to come; invested in the pride of place scheme, which will see Scottish town centres rejuvenated, including those in North Lanarkshire; and committed record funding to the Scottish Parliament to invest in Scottish public services. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that stands in stark contrast to the priorities of the SNP in government in Holyrood, which has just wasted more taxpayers’ money on producing yet another tired paper on independence, while one in six Scots wait on NHS waiting lists?

[Darren Jones]

My hon. Friend rightly recognises the defence dividend that Labour has delivered for Scotland, including the recent £10 billion frigate deal with Norway. As my hon. Friend’s constituents will know only too well, more people have waited over two years for NHS treatment in Lanarkshire alone compared with the whole of England—that is a remarkable stat. Next year, voters in Airdrie and Shotts and across Scotland will look at that record and have the chance to vote out the tired SNP Government, who are failing to deliver on public services in Scotland, and choose a new direction with Anas Sarwar and Scottish Labour.

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

The Cabinet Office co-chairs the flood resilience taskforce in order to deliver on its priority to bolster flood defences, but residents in Eastbourne at this very point in time on Wartling Road, Seaside and Whitley Road—and, earlier this week, on Macmillan Drive—have to wade through canals created by flooding brought about by adverse weather. The work being done to protect against flooding is not enough. Will the Minister meet with me and other stakeholders to figure out how we can best protect residents, businesses and schools such as Motcombe school from the flood risk?

[Darren Jones]

I am sorry to hear about the situation in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. He knows that the Government take flood risk very seriously, and it is a key risk in our national risk register. That is why the Government have increased spending on flood defences significantly in the recent Budget and spending review, but I absolutely recognise that there is more to do. I will ensure that we look at the specific circumstances in his constituency and help him to understand when funding will come to support his constituents.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

I think the Government are right to identify economic growth as a key priority. I also agree with the Chancellor, who this week identified Brexit as one of the reasons that they are finding growth tough to find. Brexit red tape is a millstone around the neck of our economy; it has added 2 billion pieces of extra business paperwork, piled on costs and stifled innovation. Businesses in my constituency tell me they have stopped selling to our nearest neighbours in the world’s largest trading bloc altogether. Does the Minister agree that if the Government are serious about growing our economy, they should unleash trade by joining a bespoke customs union with the European Union?

[Darren Jones]

May I welcome the hon. Lady to her new spokesperson role? We recognise the impact that Brexit has had on the UK economy, which is why we have entered into a new trade deal in our first year in government with the European Union. A very key part of that is the sanitary and phytosanitary agreement for food and drink trade, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) is working on with European counterparts at the moment. Once that is implemented, we look forward to seeing trade improve, growth increasing and prices coming down on the shelves in supermarkets across the United Kingdom.

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

11. What steps he is taking to increase opportunities to work in the civil service for people who live outside London.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)]

12. What recent progress his Department has made on strengthening national security.

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

Keeping our country and our citizens safe is the first duty of this Government, and the Cabinet Office plays a central role in that endeavour. My right hon. Friend the Security Minister and I regularly bring Ministers together from across Government to take decisions that strengthen our country’s national security. Recently, my Department published the resilience action plan, and we are now implementing the national security strategy, which sharpens our efforts to improve national security.

[Jessica Toale]

Later today, my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) and I will meet small and medium-sized enterprises in the defence sector and skills training providers to discuss how we in Dorset can benefit from the Government’s defence industrial strategy. Can the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster tell me how this Government’s commitment to increasing defence spending to 2.5% by 2027 will create jobs and growth in my constituency of Bournemouth West?

[Darren Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question, and welcome the companies from her and her colleague’s constituencies to Parliament today. As she knows, this Labour Government are committed to the largest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war. Our strategic defence review and defence industrial strategy will also make defence an engine for economic growth, creating jobs and driving innovation in every nation and region. I particularly thank institutions such as Bournemouth and Poole college and Bournemouth University for their important work, and for their focus on developing defence skills for the future and creating jobs for young people in my hon. Friend’s constituency.

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

There are reports that Jonathan Powell wrote a box note to the Prime Minister on the China spy trial. When No. 10 was asked about this, the official spokesman said that it was for the Cabinet Office to answer, and as Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the right hon. Gentleman is uniquely placed to tell us. Did Powell write a box note to the Prime Minister —yes or no?

[Darren Jones]

No.

[Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)]

14. What recent progress he has made on the infected blood compensation scheme.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)]

15. What progress his Department has made on the relocation of civil service jobs to Scotland.

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

In May, we committed to strengthening our presence in Scotland and across the UK, ensuring that talent from across the country can have a full career in the civil service without having to move to London. My first visit as Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister and Minister for intergovernmental relations was to Scotland, and I was delighted to visit the Cabinet Office’s second headquarters —based in my hon. Friend’s constituency of Glasgow North—which will continue to offer more careers and opportunities in the civil service.

[Martin Rhodes]

Does the Minister agree that having different roles and different levels of positions within the civil service in Glasgow and in Scotland is important so that people can progress their careers while remaining in Glasgow or in Scotland?

[Darren Jones]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. We want senior roles in locations across the country and not just in London. That is why we have committed to ensuring that 50% of UK-based senior civil service jobs are located outside London by 2030. I should add that on my visit to the Cabinet Office headquarters in my hon. Friend’s constituency, we met senior civil servants there, and we look forward to returning again in the months ahead.

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

16. How many working days have been impacted by strikes in the civil service since July 2024.

--- Later in debate ---

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

This is my first appearance at the Dispatch Box as Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister. In this role, I have been tasked with modernising the state to build a system that will better deliver the public’s priorities and better communicate the changes we are making across the country. Sadly, too many political parties today wish to tear down our institutions and the public services we all rely on as the solution to the public’s frustration with a legacy system that struggles to deliver change, but there is an alternative. This Government are committed to renewal and delivering on the promise of change. We will build a modern state and better public services that are there when people need them. We will lead the way to a Britain renewed.

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will just answer the question from the official Opposition that I could not answer in substantive questions about when I was informed of the Crown Prosecution Service decision to not proceed with the case. I was informed of this decision after the Prime Minister. I should also inform the House that I look forward to answering more questions before the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy on Wednesday next week.

[Shaun Davies]

Transforming Britain’s public services will be a mammoth task, but while the white heat of artificial intelligence and digital technology offer a revolutionary opportunity to improve performance and value for money in healthcare, tax services and everything in between, will the Government seize this opportunity to modernise our public services, working with the brightest and best industries across Britain?

[Darren Jones]

The answer is absolutely yes. All our constituents know from their experiences at home, whether they are trying to do their banking, do their shopping or book a holiday, that they have the power to do it, when they want to do it, how they want to do it, on their phone, with services delivered in the way they want. That is in complete contrast to a number of our public services, and the public rightly expect, when they are paying tax money for public services, that we catch up with the private sector and deliver better public services that work in the way they want.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

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

I thank the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for giving us a degree more clarity. Perhaps he will give us a degree more clarity again. Was he told that the alleged case of spying against Members of Parliament was due to collapse before the information became public and, if so, who told him?

[Darren Jones]

I was not informed.

[Alex Burghart]

I believe the right hon. Gentleman, but I find that answer extraordinary, and I think he should find it extraordinary, too. As we have already said, the right hon. Gentleman chairs the National Security Council. He oversees the Cabinet Office’s national security secretariat. The Prime Minister knew, the Home Secretary knew, the Cabinet Secretary knew, the chief of MI5 knew, the Attorney General’s Office knew, but the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister did not. Has he asked why he was not told, and what answer was he given?

[Darren Jones]

The hon. Member seems to be confused by his list of institutions. The only relevant institution in this case is the Crown Prosecution Service. It is the CPS that independently decides whether to bring forward these cases, and it was the independent decision of the Crown Prosecution Service not to proceed. Might I just point out that the Opposition’s arguments over the last few weeks have been quite bemusing? They started with an accusation that there was political interference in a Crown Prosecution Service case. That was proven not to be the case, so they changed their argument and are now asking, “Why did you not politically interfere, because that is the way we do things in this country?”

[Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)]

T2. Storm Benjamin is mercifully not forecast to affect my Carlisle constituency today. However, when storms do land, storm-related power cuts can last hours, and quite often days, in north Cumbria and can include the loss of power to mobile phone masts. Fixed telecoms operators are under a licence obligation to ensure that they have power back at their key infrastructure points, but no such obligation applies to the mobile operators. What assessment has been made of the resilience of mobile networks in the event of a prolonged power cut?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

We are on topicals, folks.

[Darren Jones]

The Government take seriously the risk of climate change and the risk it poses to national security. That is why we are taking action to mitigate that risk and to reduce our carbon emissions. As the hon. Lady will know, we publish the outcomes of routine assessments done by the Government in relation to the national risk register on gov.uk, and that will continue to be the case.

[Gurinder Singh Josan (Smethwick) (Lab)]

T3. Cryptocurrencies and digital assets are held by an increasing number of UK citizens—over 8 million people, according to recent figures—and the UK has the potential to be a world leader in this field, supporting our growth mission. Can the Minister detail what steps he has taken to ensure that we rapidly put in place a regulatory regime that gives confidence to the industry to develop and to companies to be based in the UK, while providing protection for consumers?

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

T6. In the absence of a plan, the Government appear to be centralising power and bureaucracy in the form of new quangos. More than 25 have been created since this Government came into office. What is the Minister doing to drive ministerial accountability and, crucially, to ensure that there are sunset clauses so that when quangos have met their objectives, they are wound up and come to an end?

[Darren Jones]

The Government agree with the principle of the hon. Member’s question. As I said to the House earlier, we want to reduce the layers of bureaucracy and to be able to deliver more action and fewer words. That is why we are taking action to close arm’s length bodies and other institutions. Most significantly, we have announced that we will close NHS England and bring decisions back into the Department for Health and Social Care for Ministers to make.

[Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)]

T4. I was pleased that the Minister give an update earlier on the work of the Infected Blood Compensation Authority, but the process is still taking too long. May I press the Minister to undertake work specifically to expedite the timescales in which compensation is expected to be paid?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)]

Residents in a housing development in my constituency are facing a number of issues after yet another developer has gone bust. Parts of the shared communal land have reverted back to the ownership of the Duchy of Cornwall, rather than to the residents themselves, who have to purchase the land back and cover the duchy’s legal costs. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, quite rightly, has Cabinet oversight, but who does the Duchy of Cornwall answer to and what recourse do my constituents now have in this case?

[Darren Jones]

If the hon. Member writes to me with his constituency case, I will make sure that the Duchy of Cornwall looks at it in due course.

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

Eastbourne is benefiting from some coastal defence scheme funding, the flood defence grant-in-aid, but it leaves heritage assets behind. Only residents and businesses currently qualify, which is leaving Eastbourne’s historic bandstand at risk of severe flooding. Will the Minister meet me and colleagues across the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to review the loophole that leaves our bandstand behind?

[Darren Jones]

I recognise the problem. The decision was to use the budget available to protect people’s homes and that has left other buildings at comparable risk. The relevant DEFRA Minister is working with DCMS on this issue. I will ensure that a conversation can take place.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

On the infected blood compensation scheme in Northern Ireland, as of 21 February, 149 people had started the process, with 38 offers made totalling some £48 million. What assessment has been made of the time taken from when an application is made to when a payment actually arrives through the door?

[Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)]

The Minister was earlier asked about the ever-growing size of the civil service and the Cabinet Office under this Government and whether we would see those numbers coming down, not going up, next year. Instead of answering the question about the future, they talked about the past. Let me ask the question again, but from a different angle: when are this Government going to take ownership of the fact that they are in government now, and these are their problems that they need to resolve?

[Darren Jones]

I am very happy to take ownership of the fact that we are in government, and very happy to confirm that the Conservatives are in opposition.

UK Car Industry

Darren Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 17th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee.

[Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)]

The story overnight came from written submissions to my Committee’s inquiry on the future of battery manufacturing in the UK. Stellantis will be here in Parliament next Tuesday to give further evidence. The Minister will know two things: that she and her departmental officials are in ongoing negotiations with other car manufacturers in the UK beyond Stellantis, and that all the car companies are raising exactly the same issues and are asking for a step up in activity from the Government and an end-to-end industrial strategy to show that the UK is serious about the future of UK production of electric vehicles. Will the Minister confirm for the record that those assertions—that the Department is in negotiations right now with other car manufacturing companies and that they are raising exactly the same issues as Stellantis—are indeed correct?

[Ms Ghani]

I am grateful to the Chair of the Select Committee for being here. I was once on his Committee. Overnight, I went through the transcript and some of the submissions to that inquiry, and I noticed the submission from Nissan. I know that nobody wants to pick out all the positive things that were said, but there was a great point on page 4:

“The UK has strong promise as an EV battery production location due to strong demand, a skilled workforce, and attractive manufacturing sites.”

We somehow seem to be forgetting all the positive things that are said in submissions by the automotive sector.

We are working with those in the sector, as I have said. I meet them regularly and was with them just this week to deal with a number of challenges, whether to do with the Inflation Reduction Act or gigafactories. I can, of course, confirm that we are working with industry to do everything we can to ensure that there is greater commitment to gigafactories here in the UK.

International Trade and Geopolitics

Darren Jones Excerpts

Thursday 20th April 2023 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered international trade and geopolitics.

I thank right hon. and hon. Members from across the House, and the Backbench Business Committee for granting the debate today. I declare my interests as set out in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

I applied for this debate because I am concerned about Britain’s standing in a world that is changing more quickly than we appear to be responding. From trade and industrial policy to innovation and skills, we have just sticking-plaster policies and no long-term economic plan. There is no strategy for UK plc that shows the path to prosperity, and I hope this debate may trigger some answers from the Government on their plan to drive economic growth within the UK and through exports abroad.

The era of increasing globalisation that we have come to know over the past decades is coming to an end. We are now in an era of economic retrenchment, higher levels of state subsidy and new forms of partnership between the public and business, but how is the UK responding? Ministers are merely saying to competitor countries, “This is not how you’re supposed to play the game,” but they are not listening, and we are losing. There are several factors underpinning these changes: geopolitical competition between China and the United States; war in Europe and security tensions in Asia; the need for democratic nations to show their people that our system of government can deliver good jobs, good pay and prosperity; the net zero transition; and the technological arms race in both its military and civilian contexts.

Based on current data, our direction of travel as a country is not a good one. Only this morning, the Government announced that the UK fell from being the fifth largest exporter of goods and services in the world in 2020, to seventh in 2021. Our trade deficit has ballooned from £2.3 billion to £23.5 billion, meaning that we are exporting fewer goods and services, while being increasingly dependent on other countries for our own supplies. According to the International Monetary Fund only last week, the UK is set to have one of the worst economic growth projections of the seven most advanced economies. Even Russia, to our shame, is projected to experience better economic growth than we are.

Our drop in exports to the European Union, coupled with the Government’s deeply short-sighted decision to agree a trade deal that blocks the sale of most UK-based services to the EU, while allowing the EU to sell services to us, has been a structural blow to the UK economy. In that context, our high levels of national debt, which have increased year on year since the Conservatives came to power in 2010, have put us in a fiscally precarious position. The Government should be ashamed of their record on UK national debt. We all remember David Cameron and George Osborne telling us that the Conservatives would fix the roof while the sun was shining. But what do we have now, 13 years after those promises to the country? A national debt that is projected to be larger than the entire size of the UK economy. A national debt that has increased year on year—yes, in response to covid and the energy crisis, but it was also increasing year on year before those crises.

[Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to be part of this debate and to listen to the hon. Gentleman, and I hope he will not mind me picking him up on this point. He kindly acknowledged that the sizeable increase in UK debt is due to the response to covid, and I do not think he has concerns about the major schemes that comprised that. He also talks about the increase in debt that occurred in the intervening years. Will he accept that for each of those intervening years, the Labour party was calling for more expenditure and more debt?

[Darren Jones]

The hon. Gentleman and I, perhaps surprisingly, share something in common, in that we would like to get the national debt under control. He will recognise that his party was in government for each of those years from 2010 when debt increased, year after year. The Opposition can come forward with policy proposals, but he must take some responsibility for the fact that the Conservative party was in government, taking decisions that resulted in a significant amount of national debt before covid and the energy crisis, due to the mishandling of Brexit, the inadequate trade deal with the EU and to the failure of austerity economics, which cut our public services back to the bone without adequate investment to create opportunities for economic growth in the future.

One might have assumed that in that context, the latest form of Conservative Government would wish to do everything they can to underpin, support and incentivise growth in the UK economy. Their most whizzy recent announcement has been the UK’s entry to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership for trade in Asia—a trade arrangement that is estimated to grow the national wealth by only 0.08%. It is a trade arrangement with 11 countries, nine of which we already have a trade deal with, and one that will pose due political challenges to the UK as China seeks to join it too.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an extremely powerful case. Does he agree that geography still matters when it comes to trade, and if we as a country choose to make our trading arrangements with our biggest trading partner, which is still the European Union, more difficult, more costly and more bureaucratic, that is bound to have an adverse effect on the British economy?

[Darren Jones]

I think everybody recognises that that is completely right, and my right hon. Friend recognises that with both the European Union and the United States, the bulk of our trade exists in this bit of the planet in which we find ourselves. Trade with Asia is welcome, but it will not be able to deliver larger economic opportunities for the UK than trading with our closest partners. Our arrangement with the CPTPP could cause conflicts in future trading negotiations with the European Union because of issues such as embedded carbon in the case of imported goods. Although we might want to do more trade with the European Union in line with our net zero targets, that might cause difficulty with imports from parts of Asia.

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)]

China’s growing assertiveness on the international stage is rightly cause for concern, and the CPTPP is an example of where the Government need to be cautious. If China is successful in joining, it could block Taiwan’s application in the face of growing tensions between the two. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the UK Government should formally acknowledge Taiwan’s sovereignty?

[Darren Jones]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving that suggestion to those on the Treasury Bench, and perhaps the Minister can answer when she responds to the debate.

[Richard Fuller]

rose—

[Darren Jones]

I have two examples that are relevant to intervention of the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier), but I will give way one more time, for old times’ sake.

[Richard Fuller]

It’s not that old-time! As the hon. Gentleman will realise, the Benches are not replete with Members for his debate, so I hope he will continue to be generous.

The hon. Gentleman has put his finger on an important issue, and this could be an informative debate on both sides. He has just mentioned one potential conflict between this country’s trade engagements and those of others, regarding our engagement with the European Union and with CPTPP, and different paces of change when dealing with net zero. As Chair of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, will he give the House a little more detail on his thoughts about what this country’s pace should be, and in particular his views on the carbon border tax?

[Darren Jones]

I will do so briefly so that I do not test the patience of the Chair too much, given the number of pages I have left to read before the end of my speech. My initial observations are that it is in the UK’s interest to be a global leader on the net zero transition, both because that is the right thing to do and because it is a significant industrial opportunity, and that we should be partnering with the European Union to do so through our trade deal. In my view—I have not taken evidence on this; it is just my view—that would generate a larger rate of return for the British economy and British people than some of the other opportunities that have been presented.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern that in pursuance of net zero and the decarbonisation agenda, the automotive industry, for example, faces significant challenges in ensuring not only that we have a self-contained supply chain, but that we can engage with the European Union on our doorstep given restrictions on rules of origin? Will that present a difficulty, and is there an opportunity with the review of the trade and co-operation agreement to address that issue once and for all?

[Darren Jones]

My hon. Friend is exactly right, and electric vehicles are a prime example. He and I were in Sweden last week on a Select Committee visit to look at how its electric vehicle battery manufacturing looks in comparison with the UK. If we are to continue to export cars to the European Union, we will have to hit the so-called rules of origin requirements where the components come from local or regional sources. Eventually they will have carbon embedded within them, in order to meet carbon border adjustment mechanisms and net zero targets. It is therefore crucial that the UK Government work with the private sector successfully to deliver that industrial policy outcome, or I fear we will see the near total decline of car manufacturing in the UK. While it is not for me as Chair of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee to prejudge the conclusion of its inquiry into this issue, the contrast between what we saw in Europe last week, and what is happening in the UK, was stark.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

May I cast the hon. Gentleman’s mind back to his comments about the CPTPP? The Northern Ireland constituency that I represent has a large farming and agricultural manufacturing sector, and we export right across the world. Businesses in my constituency tell me that they are looking forward to opportunities that will potentially arrive from the far east. Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that farming in Northern Ireland has the potential to grow more, and that part of that growth will be in the far east through the CPTPP? If that grows, there will be extra jobs, extra opportunity, and real growth in my constituency and across Northern Ireland.

[Darren Jones]

I have to take the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion at his word as he knows much more about his constituency and farming than I do. If there are export opportunities that is great, but the question is whether that will deliver the wholesale economic growth that we need across the whole UK economy. It will be an important piece of the puzzle, but my proposition is that there is a much broader area where there are problems, and where Government policy is lacking.

In Sweden last week, we learnt about the sheer complexity of delivering a so-called gigafactory for electric vehicle battery manufacturing. We held in our hands, physically, fossil fuel-free iron made using hydrogen, which was being turned into low-carbon steel. I finally saw, after years, a carbon capture facility working, plugged in and capturing carbon in real life. Here in the UK, we just have ministerial statements setting out our intention to be world leading, without anything real or tangible to show for it. The British people will soon realise, if they have not already, that at the end of this yellow brick road set out by the Government there are just Conservative Ministers blowing smoke. The tragedy is that this is not just a dream: it is 13 years of Conservative economic mismanagement that will take years to clean up.

This sorry story is not just about what is happening in the European Union; it is about what is happening in the United States, too. During our Committee visits last year, it quickly became clear that the US is doing what Europe is doing, but on steroids. The Inflation Reduction Act, which is really a green new deal for the United States, sets long-term, multi-decade, easy-to-access tax incentives, grants, loans and market-setting standards to not only drive the net zero agenda but reinvest in the industrial capacity of the United States. This $500 billion multi-decade initiative is acting like a magnet, pulling investment, jobs and businesses into the American economy. Access to those tax incentives, grants and state-level support is predicated on agreements to train and employ Americans in areas that have been crying out for investment for years. In some circumstances, it is even predicated on business owners investing in childcare to help optimise the economic activity of the American labour market, including women.

[Andy McDonald]

Was my hon. Friend not struck by the stark report on Sky News, I think from Ed Conway, from AMTE Power in Thurso, one of the British manufacturers of car batteries? It was indeed attracted by the Inflation Reduction Act, so much so that we risk that factory—a gigafactory we do have—being relocated to the United States. Should that not be sending a signal warning to the Government that time is not on our side?

[Darren Jones]

Once again, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why the European Union has responded to what is happening in America, but what do we have here in the United Kingdom? I tried to be generous to the Government in a collegiate fashion, but the only thing I could find that allowed me to give the Government credit was the recent establishment of the Office for Investment, whose job it is to secure inward investment to the UK. But it has no budget.

As I understand it, when two American businesses looked at the UK as an investment destination, they did not know who to contact. Was it the Department for International Trade, the Department for Business, the Department for Transport, the Treasury, the regional mayor or the local council? The Germans, meanwhile, put together an inward investment package with significant incentives and the Americans presented a map with different options in different states, topped up with significant federal incentives. In the UK, we have an Office for Investment whose job it is to go around Whitehall, cap in hand, trying to put together an offer within existing budgets. The tragedy is that the reason those companies were looking at the UK in the first place was that we have great natural resources: huge potential for low-carbon fuel energy supplies, great industrial clusters, world-leading research and development, and great pools of highly skilled labour. But we just did not compete and we lost out on both investments.

Let me take another example, which we have already talked about: the semiconductor industry. The United States is securing multibillion dollar inward investments, as too are the Europeans. As my Committee concluded in its recent report, while we will never have end-to-end supply chains in the UK, we should be collaborating with our American and European allies to agree that the UK invests in the parts of the supply chain where we excel: chip design and advanced compound semi- conductors. Britain can play a crucial exporting role within a multinational supply chain. So when the Government take decisions to decline or unwind Chinese-linked investments, such as Newport Wafer Fab, they must follow through with finding new investment and new owners. Instead, we have a semiconductor strategy that is now even more delayed than it was already because, as it was reported, Ministers cannot decide who is going to announce it. Meanwhile, other countries are racing ahead of us.

It seems to me that we have Ministers stuck in the headlights of a changing world, convinced that the best thing to do is for the state to get out of the way and let the free market fix our problems, praying that someone, somewhere might find the sunlit uplands of post-Brexit Britain that Conservative Prime Minsters promised to deliver—while our competitors race ahead of us. The question, therefore, is what should we do about it? Beyond the obvious points of having a proper industrial policy, ideally a stable Government, a stable economy and a stable policy framework; beyond the obvious point that we continue to fail to highlight the importance and value of the service economy to our exports—we are the largest exporter of services in the world after the United States—and beyond the obvious point that we must improve our trade deal with the EU, what can we do that is new, global and in Britain’s interests?

We should be leading the debate about a new model of multilateral co-operation between democracies. We clearly already collaborate on defence matters, but what we define as critical supply chains or as critical national infrastructure, what we think resilient supply chains should look like to create economic security for our countries, and how we collaborate as allies and partners to show that democracies will continue to prevail over authoritarian regimes—those issues warrant a new partnership, a new model of multilateral working. It is in Britain’s interest to lead that debate and to play a central role in it.

Some will understandably say that there is a risk of decoupling the existing post-war institutional frameworks. My response is that this is already happening and that Britain can do little to stop it. That does not mean walking away from the UN, the World Trade Organisation or the G7—of course not. And it certainly does not mean Britain should play fast and loose in breach of agreed global rules. But it does mean that we must respond to lead and to influence what happens next.

If this Government had a real mission-led approach to the UK economy, we would see co-ordinated strategic action from No. 10, the Treasury, the Foreign Office, the Department for Business and Trade, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, and others. But we do not. We do not see that because the Prime Minister does not have an answer. He cannot tell us what our path to prosperity is, what he thinks our unique selling points as a country are, or how Britain will maintain its standing as one of the largest, most advanced economies on the planet.

I have had the good fortune, over the past few years, of being able to represent our Parliament in many countries. From Brussels to Washington, Sydney to Tokyo and elsewhere, I keep being asked, “Are you guys okay? What’s happening to the UK?” It is embarrassing and it must stop.

[Richard Fuller]

Absolute rubbish.

[Darren Jones]

It is a factual statement. The hon. Member is chuntering from a sedentary position, as I think we say in this House, but I can assure him and the House that on many occasions that is the exact conversation people have had with me.

I hope that the Minister, when she responds, will be able to inform the House, on behalf of the Prime Minister, how this latest round of Conservative Ministers are going to clear up the mess of all the former ones over the past 13 years. The Minister and I know that the opportunities for the UK are there to be taken; that the British people have within them the drive, energy and potential; that our islands and our seas give us the potential not just to lead the net zero transition at home, but to export it abroad too; and that our greatest minds, entrepreneurs and universities mean we can ride the wave of the technological revolution in the interests of the British economy and the British people. We can achieve all those things, but only if Britain has a Government with the leadership, the ideas and the energy to start delivering. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to have listened to the contributions so far, not least the contribution just made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden). I echo his words about the opportunity to strengthen connections, particularly for our young people, between our country and countries in Latin and South America. The area is often overlooked by Government and it is not high on the list for teachers or in what is learned in schools. His calls on the issue are very welcome. On Monday, at the University of Cambridge, I had the opportunity to talk to a group of Argentinian politicians. From their country’s perspective, I know that is something they would welcome as well.

Madam Deputy Speaker, here is my point: it is an afternoon, we have plenty of time, it is an incredibly interesting and broad debate, and it will not have escaped your attention that the Government Benches are not crowded with participants. Therefore, I beg the indulgence of Opposition Members to make a number of points on a series of areas. [Interruption.] The Minister is asking that they be quality contributions, so I shall therefore make my speech even longer.

I will start by addressing some of the points made by the Chair of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, the hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), who I think is one of the most talented Members of this Parliament. He and I do have some strong disagreements, sometimes on principle and sometimes on practice. Let me start with two words that encompass the fundamental disagreement we have: industrial strategy.

To the Chair of the Select Committee, industrial strategy is the elixir that somehow unlocks the growth in our economy that proves elusive to all others. Not only that, it is industrial strategy as conceived by the Labour party that somehow has the unique ability to generate growth that perhaps could not be accomplished in other ways. I have always found that intellectual position interesting. When I went to business school and we were given a chance to give three words to describe ourselves to other students, I decided to call myself “arrogant”, because actually at that age—I know it is hard to believe now—I was quite arrogant. But I would never have the arrogance to think that my unique perception of an industrial strategy was the right way to galvanise growth in this country. On that issue, the Chair of the Select Committee and I differ. I would like to hear what he has to say.

[Darren Jones]

The hon. Gentleman is generous in giving way, but as he has put words into my mouth on the record, I ought to correct him, if I may. From our Select Committee’s work on industrial policy and from my comments on that work, it should be clear that I am not somebody who believes that the state is where wealth is created or that the state is in the driving seat of a growing economy. However, when the private sector, which creates wealth, is driving down the road at speed and trying to win the race for workers, customers and shareholders, I recognise that somebody needs to build the public infrastructure for it to succeed if the road runs out.

That opportunity for the state to play an important role in partnership with business is what I refer to as industrial policy. Might I say that it is why so many businesses are talking to the Labour party right now? They are asking for such a partnership with the Government, as opposed to having a Government who stand out of the way and hope the free market will solve all the problems.

[Richard Fuller]

The hon. Gentleman reinforces my point. He is suggesting that if a company chooses to use its shareholders’ money to drive down a road that runs out, somehow taxpayers should pay for the extension of the road. The whole point of capitalist markets is that it is a business’s responsibility if it makes incorrect allocations of capital and its shareholders lose money. It is the job of business and business leadership to have the insight to understand how best to create value for shareholders in the long term.

Businesses are now coming to smart Labour Members—who are desperate to show that after years of hating business the Labour party now thinks prawn cocktails are a nice idea—and saying, “Can you spare us a few bob, mate? We’d like to support your party and we’ve got this really sexy thing we want to do, but frankly we don’t want to use our own capital because we know that the Labour party in government will be suckers enough to use taxpayers’ money to pay for it.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Fuller]

The hon. Lady is right that businesses like certainty—that is absolutely true. Setting a direction, inasmuch as it creates certainty, is useful; more than that, it is a strong part of the foundations. If we go on to talk about climate change in this debate, it may be that questions about national and international strategies and about what our response should be to issues among British businesses, businesses in other countries and multinationals will drive us apart again.

[Darren Jones]

May I invite the hon. Gentleman to reflect, for the benefit of the House, on his recent involvement in the Conservative report on the reform of economic regulators? I was afforded the courtesy of being shown the embargoed report, but I am not sure whether the embargo has now been lifted and I can talk about the report directly.

[Richard Fuller]

indicated assent.

[Darren Jones]

Oh, I can. Very good. The report recognises—I invite the hon. Gentleman to confirm or contest this point—that industrial policy is not just about money, but about policy direction, about regulation by economic regulators and about creating the conditions for business to prosper, for entrepreneurs to create businesses and for innovators to innovate. Industrial policy, as I refer to it, is not about somebody in the Treasury writing a cheque for businesses that should get their money from elsewhere, as the hon. Gentleman suggests; it is about the broader competitive market that needs to be created. Of course the Government and Parliament have a role in creating optimal circumstances for businesses to succeed. Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that?

[Richard Fuller]

I do. Again, the hon. Gentleman is showing that there are a number of areas in which we can find agreement on the details.

Let me focus on the point about regulatory policy, because it is an important one. A group of Conservative MPs have put together a report calling on the Government to look at how we deal with the stock of regulation, the process of making regulation and my particular area of interest, the accountability of regulators for performance. As Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Gentleman will be well aware of our interactions with our regulators. Effective regulation, by which I mean regulation that is regularly, systematically and rationally appraised, plays a role in the competitive advantage of the United Kingdom. It is an area that we have locked away, saying, “It’s not nationalisation, it’s not the free market—it’ll do okay.” Those days need to come to an end, because too much of our economic output happens in sectors that are subject to regulators whose performance directly affects the ability of our country to compete.

[Darren Jones]

indicated assent.

[Richard Fuller]

The Chair of the Select Committee nods. It is nice to have an area of agreement.

Let me move on to the second area about which the hon. Gentleman spoke: the Inflation Reduction Act and the associated EU measures. As he well knows, that Act represents a $370 billion commitment of US federal funds, or their equivalent in tax credits. It followed the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021, which meant $1 trillion of investment, not only in infrastructure but in green energy. By purchasing power parity, the US economy is approximately six times the size of the UK’s. An equivalent response, which is what the hon. Gentleman says we need, would essentially require writing a cheque for £40 billion, £50 billion or £60 billion. If industrial strategy is not about expenditure, what are we supposed to be doing to compete, other than putting in that amount of money? There seems to be a part missing.

The hon. Gentleman also spoke about inward investment and said that we should be sharpening up our act. He is absolutely right. In countries such as Germany, which he mentioned, the package on offer to those who are interested in investing is not just a financial package, but a coherent one. When someone looks into making an inward investment, there are people to sort out all the Government intricacies for them at a single point on day one. That is how the UK did it when Margaret Thatcher was leading efforts with Lord Young, but over the intervening years we have made things a little too complicated and we have not found our way. I would be interested to hear the Minister address that point; it may not be directly in her remit, but it would be interesting for all hon. Members present to know the Government’s view. What are the Government doing to make sure people know that the UK can take a foreign company from thinking it wants to invest in this country to actually getting going and investing in this country, whether that involves, say, bricks and mortar or servers? What can we do to make that easier?

I know this sounds as though I am picking the hon. Gentleman’s speech apart. I am not picking it apart but asking questions about it, and I trust he is happy with that. He talked about economic security and collaboration. I think the short-term version of that is called friendshoring, which essentially means saying, “Let us conduct a geopolitical review of important strategic supply chains, and then let us be smart and make sure we are doing business with countries that are our allies.” That is a massive change, because there is no clarity about what the extent of friendshoring areas should be. Does this apply only to strategic industries determined by the United Kingdom, or is it imposed on the United Kingdom because other friends think we should be doing business with someone else? Are we prepared as a country to outsource the way in which British companies do business to the Government of the United States?

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Fuller]

Obviously not with Russia. We have already imposed substantial trade sanctions on Russia, and I think there is consensus in the House about what our response should be when one country invades another. However, to conflate Russia with China, which has not, as far as I know, invaded another country, is to move into a different area. My point is philosophical: the United Kingdom’s history of success has been as an open trading nation, and the current push, in this country and others, for us to engage in friendshoring strikes me as a significant change from the way in which, historically, we have created wealth.

[Darren Jones]

The point I made in my opening remarks was that we should recognise, with some humility, that Britain can have only so much influence on these global trends. The hon. Gentleman is inviting us to conclude that were we to do more deals with our friends and allies, as I have suggested, those arrangements would be dictated by other countries; I think he was alluding to the United States of America. My response to that is that Britain should therefore lead the debate, and be involved in how this is developing across the world. If we just sit back and wait to see what happens, we will end up having no influence over the way these things are being designed, which, by definition, will be dictated by others who are leading the global debate. I am suggesting that we, as a smaller country, have global clout, and should be convening and leading that debate.

[Richard Fuller]

That is a brilliant point well made, and characteristic of the hon. Gentleman’s understanding and grasp of these issues. He has put his finger on it. I, for my part, am merely raising questions and concerns about the perils of doing something that others may see as somehow buttressing our national security and doing what is right by us. This is not a road we can go down without trade-offs, and there will be some significant trade-offs if we take that road. However, I think the suggestion that we should be an active participant while those discussions are going on is very sensible.

Let me return to the question of money, and the current issues involving the so-called Inflation Reduction Act and the EU. A significant proportion of the funds spent by other countries are being spent on what I would term competitive discovery, which means looking at possible solutions when we do not yet have the solution to a problem. I would place that at the higher end of the risk investment spectrum, and would therefore approach it with caution. It is like dotcom for the green era—not in all sectors, and not all the money is being used for that purpose, but a considerable amount of what we need to do if we are to achieve net zero will require money to be spent on the discovery of solutions.

I am leery of the idea that British taxpayers’ money should be stacked up in competition with taxpayers’ money from EU member states and from the United States. Let me use that dotcom analogy again. When there is a big rush of substantial amounts of funds into discovery on a global scale, yes, there are winners, but an enormous amount of capital is wasted on losers. We have heard, in other debates, Members pushing us to do what President Biden is doing, or saying that we should be doing the same as the EU. Politicians need to remember that that means taking taxpayers’ money which could be spent on education or healthcare, and putting it in the casino of winners and losers in the green tech revolution. We need to be very cautious about spending money in that way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Darren Jones]

I thank Members for their interventions, contributions and—dare I say—compliments, for which I was very grateful. I think we all agree that the world has changed. The question is: what next for Britain? From empire, to Europe, to what? A new chapter in our long history. Clearly, there is disagreement on both sides of the House about the state of the UK economy, but the Labour party knows that the data shows 13 years of economic decline, and that that must change. That change will come, we hope, with a new Labour Government.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered international trade and geopolitics.

Investment Security Unit: Scrutiny

Darren Jones Excerpts

Thursday 23rd March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)]

I rise today to give a statement on behalf of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee in respect of our memorandum of understanding with the Government on scrutiny of the use of powers contained in the National Security and Investment Act 2021. I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for giving me the time to do so.

As the House knows, the National Security and Investment Act established a new statutory regime for Government scrutiny of, and intervention in, investments for the purposes of protecting national security. The Act applies to a wide range of sectors, which themselves are broadly defined, and—unlike in other countries—covers all transactions, not just those involving foreign investment. The investment security unit was then established within the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to operationalise the Act. At that stage, the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy was the decision maker.

When the Bill was going through the House, the Government confirmed their preference that scrutiny of the use of these powers should be done by my Committee. There was a debate in this House and in the other place about whether a departmental Select Committee had sufficient processes, people and protections in place to scrutinise secret information, and right hon. Members from the Intelligence and Security Committee understandably argued that their Committee was best placed to do that work. However, the Government were not minded to accept amendments for a statutory regime of scrutiny in the Bill, nor to change their position on which Committee should have oversight of the regime. As such, Ministers committed to entering into a memorandum of understanding with my Committee to set out how information would be made available to allow us to do our work.

While negotiating that memorandum, my Committee established a new National Security and Investment Sub-Committee and appointed special advisers. We are also grateful to the House for providing us with national security subject specialist staff with relevant levels of security clearance. In addition, we undertook a short study visit to the United States to understand how congressional oversight of that country’s equivalent regime is conducted.

I am pleased to inform the House that the memorandum of understanding between the Government and my Committee has now been agreed, and that we have published it today in our report. I will not test the patience of the House by reading out the whole memorandum, but I will just make two points. First, it has been agreed that scrutiny will largely be done in private and, in so far as it relates to individual transactions, will be done retrospectively following any appeal or legal challenge. This was agreed to prevent actual or perceived political interference in quasi-judicial decision making, and means that we operate in line with our counterparts in the United States. Secondly, the bulk of our work will focus on the effect of the legislation on investment in the United Kingdom and the effectiveness of Government operations.

When the Committee decides that it wants to understand individual transactions in more detail, we will be able to request information from the Government via a private explanatory memorandum, which we will not publish. If the Committee wishes to see more sensitive information that is not contained in the explanatory memorandum, I as Chair of the Committee will be able to request access to such information, and will be briefed on equivalent to Privy Council terms or by notification under the Official Secrets Act. Lastly, while the recent machinery of Government changes have resulted in the investment security unit moving to the Cabinet Office and the decision maker now being the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the Government have confirmed that they still intend for scrutiny of the Act to be undertaken by my Committee and, soon, its successor Committee on the basis set out in today’s report and the letter from the Minister received by other relevant Committees.

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I welcome this report, especially paragraph 11. We have always welcomed scrutiny of our decisions. As the hon. Member rightfully pointed out, the investment security unit has left the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, but I am still responsible and we now sit in the Cabinet Office. Obviously, we want to support businesses to ensure that investment in the UK continues, while also protecting our national security.

I wondered whether the hon. Member could reflect on the fact that the NSI Act is a leading investment screening regime, and that we have good relationships with like-minded partners through which we share best practice and help other countries with similar regimes. Perhaps he could also comment on when I will be in front of him and his Select Committee, because we do not shy away from scrutiny. Finally, perhaps he would like to indulge the House and thank all of the investment security unit staff who worked with us on the unit and on securing this MOU.

[Darren Jones]

I thank the Minister for her question. Of course, for a long time, she was a member of my Committee. She pushed me quite hard to ensure that we got very effective scrutiny of this legislation, so I look forward to working with her collaboratively on the exchange of information as it relates to our interests as a Select Committee.

The Minister invites me to thank her officials, as well as my Clerks on the Select Committee, and I should do so. It took, I think, nearly 13 months to get to this point, sometimes with some frustration, but we got there. However, much of the work has been done and much of the detail has been agreed at length by our officials and Clerks, and we are very grateful to them for their contributions.

As for when the Minister will be summoned to my Select Committee, it is unusual that people are keen to come and be cross-examined by me and my colleagues on the Committee, but we look forward to welcoming her in due course.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

Can I thank my hon. Friend for his statement, but also say how disappointed I am with it—not from his point of view, but from the Government’s? The Intelligence and Security Committee, which I sit on, is the only Committee that can look at the highest classification of information. My hon. Friend even admits that, under this process, he might be able to be given some information, but not all. It would be down to the Secretary of State. The memorandum says that the ISU is going to the Cabinet Office. Has he had an indication or clarification of which bit of the Cabinet Office? If it is the National Security Secretariat, that is already under the remit of the Intelligence and Security Committee.

[Darren Jones]

I am in the unusual circumstance, as a member of the Opposition, of having to put the Government line to my right hon. Friend. I merely recognise, as he will know from our extensive conversations, that it has always been the case, in line with the Osmotherly rules for Select Committees, that we do not have a statutory power to summon information, as he does on the Intelligence and Security Committee, but that there is a presumption that information will be shared with us. He will know that, if that information is not exchanged in a timely and ready fashion for us to do our work, the Committee will escalate those issues via the Committee, the usual channels or on the Floor of the House. As to my right hon. Friend’s question on where the unit resides, it resides in the Cabinet Office. I assume it is within the National Security Secretariat. I think he is therefore suggesting that that means the ISC has oversight. I know full well that he and his colleagues will make use of their powers to try to request information from the Government in their work.

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

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his statement and recognise that a huge amount of work has gone into it, including with the Government. I thank him for the engagement he has had with my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), the Chairman of the ISC, of which I, too, am a member. I know that my right hon. Friend would be here if he could be.

If I may, I will put to the hon. Gentleman what the problem with the arrangement might be. He has said already that arrangements are to be made for the viewing of material that would normally be at a higher classification than members of his Committee would be able to see, but those arrangements as set out in the memorandum are clearly described as “exceptional”. Is it not the case that the sub-committee of his Committee that he will set up to deal with this material is likely to deal with that sort of classified material on a routine basis? Is there not an advantage in having staff and members of a committee who are used to dealing with this type of material? Through no fault of their own, neither his Committee nor its staff will be used to that.

[Darren Jones]

There is an interesting question there, to which none of us knows the answer: how routine will it be for us to have to look at either commercially sensitive or national security-sensitive information about individual transactions? From our study visit to the United States, it seemed that most of the transactions were operationalised, and had not become political or been escalated to a committee level, because the issues were seen to be sensible, small or below de minimis thresholds.

There will be examples where there is more political interest in a particular transaction. In the past year, for example, where the 2021 Act has been operational, the vast majority of the notifications that my Committee has received have not warranted our having to look at the national security information. For some cases, such as Newport Wafer Fab, the industrial implications of that decision will warrant our looking at that information in more detail. Under this memorandum of understanding, we will request that information when we are permitted to do so—after the period of judicial review and appeal has closed—so that we may understand whether the Act is being used in the way it is supposed to be used, without deterring investment in the interests of workers and business in this country.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman refers to staff. As I said in my statement, the House has kindly provided the Committee with additional staff, who are national security specialists and have a range of security clearances. In the MOU, there are procedures and processes for the handling, holding, storage and use of information, both between my Committee and my Clerks, but also where necessary within Government facilities.

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

Just to endorse the comments of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), I know that the hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) has behaved in an admirably collegiate manner throughout. On the issue of exceptional access to highly sensitive information, the MOU makes clear that members of the Committee may have sight of that information, but they will not be able to retain it or analyse it, and the Committee will not have staff who can keep that information, report back on it and advise the Committee’s members once they have been able to analyse it. That is in contrast to the ISC, is it not, which has all those things. Is that really appropriate? How does he feel he will navigate that paradox?

--- Later in debate ---

[Darren Jones]

We have to give the MOU a whirl and see how it works. I understand the right hon. Member’s concerns. My only point is that I am not sure there will be lots of documents we will want to host in a safe special location for us to keep returning to. Our job broadly is to look at the implications for investment and for business in the UK. When something is escalated from a transactional basis to a political level, we need to understand why Ministers have made their decisions.

As much as I would like it to be the case, it is not for the Committee to be the Government, and it is not for us to make different decisions from Ministers. Ministers—the right hon. Member’s colleagues—are empowered to make the decisions they make. It is for my Committee merely to have oversight and scrutiny of how they have come to those decisions and to recommend improvements, should the Committee see fit to do so. While the right hon. Gentleman’s point is correct factually—the ISC has a whole range of assets and processes and people who are not available to my Committee—I am not sure in practice how much of that information would need to be processed in that way for us to do an effective job of scrutinising the use of the legislation.

[Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

I welcome the work that has been done to get the MOU agreed. I am sure the hon. Gentleman’s Committee will do important work in this space, but like my fellow members of the Intelligence and Security Committee, I think this is frankly an unsatisfactory situation. I hope the Government will listen to the points that have been made today. Will the Chair of the Select Committee be willing to report back to the House on how these processes are operating? For the reasons given, it seems impractical for his Committee to give the detailed scrutiny that is needed.

[Darren Jones]

I hope the right hon. Member recognises that, albeit I have been in the House for the short period of six years, I am not a timid politician. If I am blocked or prevented from doing the work I have been asked to do by the House, I will make it clear that is the case. I am happy to come back to the House as and when appropriate to report on the scrutiny of the Committee. As the Bill was passing through the House, I and my Committee were, to be honest, fairly ambivalent about which Committees did the work and on what basis. We were open to other Committees and colleagues making their case, but ultimately the Government have made the decision, and we have responded to that and set up our processes in the best possible way. I reassure her that if they do not work well enough, I will certainly be back here to make that case.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for his statement.

Oral Answers to Questions

Darren Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 19th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)]

The COP President has not set out which countries are his priority for enhanced nationally determined contributions in the run-up to COP27; will he do so?

[Alok Sharma]

As the Chair of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee knows, all countries have committed to come back to their 2030 emissions-reduction targets by 2022, if necessary. Of course, the G20 is responsible for 80% of global emissions and will have to lead the way.