Darren Jones MP: speeches 2026

Speeches

• 19 May 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Government Response to Humble Address · Hansard source

  More

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

• 19 May 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Government Response to Humble Address · Hansard source

  More

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

• 19 May 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Government Response to Humble Address · Hansard source

  More

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

• 19 May 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Government Response to Humble Address · Hansard source

  More

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

• 19 May 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Government Response to Humble Address · Hansard source

  More

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

• 19 May 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Government Response to Humble Address · Hansard source

  More

  I take these matters very seriously, as I am sure Members across the House would recognise, and I will not for one instant countenance the idea that, as loud as the hon. Gentleman may want to shout it, there is a cover-up. If there was any suggestion of a cover-up, I would not be standing at this Dispatch Box to defend the process; I would resign. That has not been the case, and I suggest the hon. Gentleman may want to focus on the substance of the matter at hand. On the questions the hon. Gentleman has put to me, I have answered them in the statement and in my answer to the deputy Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, and I refer him to my previous answers.

• 19 May 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Government Response to Humble Address · Hansard source

  More

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

• 19 May 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Government Response to Humble Address · Hansard source

  More

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

• 19 May 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Government Response to Humble Address · Hansard source

  More

  That is a question for those Committees.

• 19 May 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Government Response to Humble Address · Hansard source

  More

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

• 28 Apr 2026 · Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges · Hansard source

  More

  I am trying my best, but I have answered both those questions already from the Dispatch Box. I refer the hon. Lady to my comments.

• 28 Apr 2026 · Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful, Mr Speaker. I, for one, am rather enjoying myself, but I think the public might want to listen to the debate in the House today. While the Opposition parties are playing games—as we can hear from their chuntering, their joking and their shouting—this Labour Government are doing the work that matters. I have been asked, “Where is the Prime Minister?” This afternoon, the Prime Minister has been chairing the middle east response committee, bringing together the Government to mitigate the impact of the war in the middle east. In contrast, the Opposition parties want to distract from the fact that after years of ordinary people facing pressures from the cost of living and feeling like hard work is not rewarded like it used to be, the Conservatives and their friends in Reform wanted the UK to go to war in the middle east, making it harder for families up and down the country—distraction, distraction, distraction. In contrast, this Government are investing in new rail, roads and nuclear reactors, new scanners for our hospitals and free breakfast clubs for our kids. It is this Labour Government who have saved British Steel and who are investing in sovereign AI, renewing our high streets and delivering home-grown energy. This is relevant, Mr Speaker, because it goes to the motivation behind today’s motion. This Labour Government are doing the hard work of building a better Britain, a Britain that gives people hope for a better future. All these Opposition parties want to tear that down—they want to tear down this Labour Government and the labour movement. [ Interruption. ] They agree, because like our forefathers before us, we have stood up to the power of vested interests, and we will do so again. When the Opposition parties come to the Chamber to try to tear down this labour movement and our project for the British people, I say to them all, “Not today—not on our watch. We will not let it happen.” Question put.

• 28 Apr 2026 · Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges · Hansard source

  More

  I think we have heard enough of the ranting incoherence of the Leader of the Opposition. Let us take the specific allegations in turn. First, as to whether the Prime Minister was correct when he said “full due process” was followed, yesterday the Government deposited a letter from the then Cabinet Secretary, Sir Chris Wormald, in the Library of the House. In that letter, it is clear that he was specifically asked by the Prime Minister to review whether due process was followed in the appointment, and he confirmed that it was. Last week, the former permanent under-secretary at the Foreign Office, Sir Olly Robbins, stated to the Foreign Affairs Committee that his Department followed that process. We have also heard the Cabinet Office permanent secretary’s evidence, which covered this issue in great detail. Catherine Little stated unequivocally that “due process was followed” in relation to Peter Mandelson’s vetting.

• 28 Apr 2026 · Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges · Hansard source

  More

  We are in an energy bills crisis and a climate emergency, and this Labour party is going to pull out the stops to serve the British people. While the Opposition parties play—

• 28 Apr 2026 · Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges · Hansard source

  More

  These investigations cannot be done every week off the back of PMQs on an interpretation of the wording of the Prime Minister. Instead, they must be done on very significant cases that warrant the work of the Privileges Committee. That is why it is important to contrast the allegations and accusations of the Opposition parties, as many Members of the House have done today, with the seriousness of the situation when Boris Johnson was referred to the Privileges Committee in the last Parliament. This is an important precedent. In those circumstances, Boris Johnson knowingly told this House that there were no parties in Downing Street during covid lockdowns, only for it to emerge that he had personally been at five of them and received a police fine for attending them. That is the nature of lying to this House, which he was proven to have done in the work of the Privileges Committee. It is not about the interpretation of a question and answer at Prime Minister’s questions. This all begs the question: if there is no substance to the allegations in the motion today, what is it that is driving the behaviour of Opposition parties? That question goes to the very basis of the motion before us. I have to ask: what is it precisely about this Labour Government giving rights and powers to workers, renters and the disadvantaged that they do not like? What is it about this Labour Government standing against unearned wealth and people who use their privilege to extract value from the system, rather than adding to it, that they do not like? What is it about a Labour Government raising taxes on private jets and non-doms to raise money for our state schools, our NHS and our police and to lift children out of poverty after years of neglect by the Conservative party that the Opposition parties do not want to hear? We all know why—because they are on the side of the vested interests, and we are on the side of the British people. To be fair to the House, this is not just an accusation that I am levelling at the Conservatives, because they are not the only ones playing games with today’s motion. The SNP, too, is desperate to distract from its record in power. What is it trying to distract from today? It is 10,000 kids in Scotland without a home to call their own, a Scottish NHS in decline, and the shameful ferries fiasco.

• 28 Apr 2026 · Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges · Hansard source

  More

  Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. First, may I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman? I would have cleared parliamentary questions, but I have been in the House all afternoon. To answer his specific question, I refer him to the evidence given today to the Foreign Affairs Committee by Mr Morgan McSweeney, who confirmed that the first person to recommend Peter Mandelson to become ambassador was Peter Mandelson.

• 28 Apr 2026 · Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 28 Apr 2026 · Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges · Hansard source

  More

  I notice that the right hon. Member has nothing to say to those kids, to those patients waiting in the NHS, or to the line of other people waiting for his Government to perform. Just for me to complete going around the House, the so-called Green party is desperate to distract from Labour’s clean energy mission, from its opposition to clean nuclear power, and from its quibbling over new solar farms that—I literally could not make this up—it thinks are too big. Get real!

• 28 Apr 2026 · Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Gentleman should listen to my speech. I have just said that Catherine Little, Sir Chris Wormald and Sir Olly Robbins all agree on the point that due process was followed. When the Prime Minister received new information about the UKSV process this month, he immediately asked for the full facts to be established and he then come to this House on 20 April. On the statement that Peter Mandelson’s appointment was “subject to developed vetting”, the Prime Minister has always been clear that this appointment was in line with the processes at the time. I understand that there have been some questions about this process, but to be clear, as Sir Olly Robbins told the Foreign Affairs Committee in November: “As is normally the case with external appointments to my Department…the appointment was made subject to obtaining security clearance.” As Sir Chris Wormald told the same Committee: “The normal thing is for the security clearance to happen after appointment but before the person signs a contract and takes up post.” And as the former Cabinet Secretary said in his letter to the Prime Minister, having conducted a review into the process, “the vetting process was complete before the previous HMA Washington took up post on 10 February 2025, and it is more usual for security vetting to happen after appointment.”

• 28 Apr 2026 · Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges · Hansard source

  More

  I will not— [ Interruption. ] I will happily give way in due course, but I want to turn to the substance of the motion first. In recent weeks, some have accused the Prime Minister of dishonesty, saying that there was no way that Foreign Office officials would have given Peter Mandelson clearance against the vetting agency’s recommendation, let alone without checking with the Prime Minister himself. The Leader of the Opposition herself on BBC Radio 4 said, “He knew”, and that “I know he is lying”. However, the testimony provided by Sir Olly Robbins has disproved those accusations without further question. So rather than focus on the issues affecting our constituents and the country most, what do Opposition Members do? They try to shift the goalposts, and they have tried again and again to make their arguments fit. Today alone, we have heard Opposition Members bounce from one accusation to another in a desperate search for something that will stick. We have been subjected to the ranting incoherence of the Leader of the Opposition while she was in search of something that she could use to justify today’s politically motivated spectacle— [ Interruption . ]

• 28 Apr 2026 · Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges · Hansard source

  More

  I am not going to answer silly questions. Next, on the question of pressure— [ Interruption. ] Many hon. Members have asked questions today about a general pressure, a specific pressure or a variety of different pressures, so they may want to listen to the answer. It is important to be clear about this, because there is pressure to get stuff done every day across every area of government, as we work hard to deliver for the British people. The Leader of the Opposition and other Members who have previously served in government will no doubt recall that from their time in office, but there is clearly a difference between asking for progress updates and putting pressure on officials to predetermine an outcome or not to follow a proper process. That was not the case in this scenario.

• 28 Apr 2026 · Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges · Hansard source

  More

  indicated dissent.

• 28 Apr 2026 · Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges · Hansard source

  More

  That is an important question, because it goes to the very heart of the motion before the House today. [Hon. Members: “Answer it!”] I am going to—rest your horses. It is important to place the Prime Minister’s words in the right context. When the Prime Minister—[Hon. Members: “Ah!”] The Opposition do not want to listen to the answer—again, they do not like the facts—but I am going to try my best. They should pay attention. To answer the right hon. Lady’s question directly, when the Prime Minister said that there was no pressure “whatsoever”, he was specifically responding to the allegation that there was pressure that Peter Mandelson should not be vetted at all and that he should be sent to Washington regardless of the vetting outcome. Again, Sir Olly Robbins told MPs that it was “never put to me that way”, and the Prime Minister made the comment immediately after quoting the evidence provided to the Foreign Affairs Committee. Regrettably—we see this again today, time after time—the Opposition are just trying to expand their interpretation of the Prime Minister’s words in bad faith, because their previous claim that the Prime Minister must have known about Peter Mandelson’s clearance has fallen apart in front of their eyes, and now they are grasping at straws. That matters, because as the right hon. Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale) argued, the processes in this House and the work of the Privileges Committee are important and integral to our constitution, but there must be appropriate thresholds for these investigations.

• 28 Apr 2026 · Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges · Hansard source

  More

  May I begin by saying that the hon. Member’s speech—not least the beginning, when he visibly enjoyed his jokes more than the rest of the House—shows that, for the Conservative party, this is purely a joking matter? The Government take this seriously, however, so I will speak to the substance and the motivations behind the motion. Before I do so, I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions to the debate. I thank in particular hon. Friends and Members who reminded us, as they should, that the victims of Jeffrey Epstein suffered the most hideous abuse and will be reminded of that every single time this matter is debated. The Prime Minister has apologised to them and expressed his ongoing regret for having appointed Peter Mandelson, which he knows is at the heart of this matter. The Prime Minister, and indeed the whole Government, recognise the importance of transparency in respect of Peter Mandelson’s appointment and dismissal as ambassador. That is why this is my eighth appearance at the Dispatch Box to provide updates on these issues, and why the Government welcome this opportunity to debate the substance of the motion before us. I also acknowledge the diligence of this House’s Select Committees. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) and the members of her Foreign Affairs Committee for their important work. Members from across the House will have heard the evidence from a number of officials, and from the Prime Minister’s former chief of staff, as part of that ongoing work. I also thank the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), as well as the members of the Intelligence and Security Committee, for their support in providing additional layers of transparency and accountability as the Government comply with the Humble Address.

• 28 Apr 2026 · Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges · Hansard source

  More

  I will finish this section, then I will come to the right hon. Lady. Sir Philip Barton told the Foreign Affairs Committee this morning that “during my tenure, I was not aware of any pressure on the substance of the Mandelson DV case.”