Lord Mandelson Humble Address: Government Response Update

Debate between Richard Foord and Darren Jones
Monday 27th April 2026

(1 week, 1 day ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Darren Jones Portrait Darren Jones
- View Speech - Hansard - - - Excerpts

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

Richard Foord Portrait Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
- View Speech - Hansard - -

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

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

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

Darren Jones Portrait Darren Jones
- View Speech - Hansard - - - Excerpts

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

Standards in Public Life

Debate between Richard Foord and Darren Jones
Monday 9th February 2026

(2 months, 3 weeks ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Darren Jones Portrait Darren Jones
- View Speech - Hansard - - - Excerpts

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

Richard Foord Portrait Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
- View Speech - Hansard - -

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

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

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

Darren Jones Portrait Darren Jones
- View Speech - Hansard - - - Excerpts

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

US Department of Justice Release of Files

Debate between Richard Foord and Darren Jones
Monday 2nd February 2026

(3 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Darren Jones Portrait Darren Jones
- View Speech - Hansard - - - Excerpts

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 Portrait Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
- View Speech - Hansard - -

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 Portrait Darren Jones
- View Speech - Hansard - - - Excerpts

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.