In a closing statement to the House of Commons on 3 June 2026, Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister Darren Jones said the government now considers its obligations under the Humble Address to have been met. He pointed to the initial release of papers on 11 March and a second tranche laid before the House on 1 June. Jones also opened by joining tributes to former MI6 chief Sir Alex Younger, but argued that the debate should not be reduced to procedure alone. In his account, the central question remains the women and girls connected to the case, whose pursuit of justice has already been delayed for too long. (gov.uk)
Jones also used the statement to make a notable personal acknowledgement. Reflecting on his own dealings with Peter Mandelson, he said he had treated him differently because of his influence in the Labour Party, had benefited in part from that relationship, and apologised to the House, to victims and to Lisa, whose case had been raised in the debate. He said he was willing to meet victims of Jeffrey Epstein if that was considered appropriate, and linked that offer to the government's wider work on violence against women and girls and the proposed duty of candour legislation. (gov.uk)
The institutional issue, however, was whether ministers had complied with the Commons order of 4 February 2026. Jones said the motion sought documents and communications relating to Mandelson's appointment and dismissal as His Majesty's Ambassador to Washington, and that the two publication rounds had, in the government's view, met that requirement. A limited set of documents remains withheld at the request of the Metropolitan Police, with publication promised once police restrictions fall away. The government's case, therefore, is that it has discharged the order, even though a small body of material has not yet entered the public domain. (gov.uk)
Jones drew the clearest line over detailed vetting material. He told MPs that the vetting summary and recommendation had already been provided to the Intelligence and Security Committee, but that the underlying inputs would not be published. That position matches Cabinet Office guidance describing national security vetting as a process built on confidential conversations and sensitive information about background, finances, relationships and personal circumstances. The policy point is straightforward: ministers are arguing that parliamentary disclosure has limits where publication would weaken the candour on which the vetting system depends. (gov.uk)
The statement also addressed a point that has troubled MPs throughout the disclosure exercise: why some expected messages were not available. Jones said missing records may reflect phones being changed without backups or the use of disappearing messages, adding that he personally had no messages left to disclose. He said the Cabinet Office had instructed departments that searches must cover WhatsApp, other messaging services, emails, personal devices and work devices, with permanent secretaries responsible for ensuring compliance. For Whitehall, that is a records question as much as a political one: a disclosure order can only produce material that has been retained. (gov.uk)
The longer-term response is now being framed as a package of process reforms. Jones said ministers will bring forward legislation to allow peerages to be removed from disgraced peers, require due diligence and national security vetting to be completed before Direct Ministerial Appointments are announced, and continue the review led by Sir Adrian Fulford. Terms published by the Cabinet Office on 1 June show that Fulford is examining the Mandelson case itself, the decision-making model for developed vetting, the arrangements for Direct Ministerial Appointments, and the current exemption applying to Privy Counsellors in some circumstances. (gov.uk)
Jones added that the government is examining any security concerns raised during Mandelson's time in Washington, commissioning an independent review of non-corporate communication channels including WhatsApp, and tightening record-keeping expectations after the Cabinet Secretary wrote to heads of department. He also said ministers will take advice on whether the precedent for future redactions under Humble Address motions should be codified, repeated the government's commitment to duty of candour legislation, and promised to return to the House with further updates. Taken together, the reforms shift the episode from a single appointment into a wider review of how Whitehall records decisions, handles sensitive information and shows Parliament that disclosure duties have genuinely been met. (gov.uk)