Senior Minister Defends Withholding of Mandelson Appointment Files
Darren Jones, chief secretary to the prime minister, has defended the government's decision to withhold certain information related to Peter Mandelson's appointment as Washington ambassador from a parliamentary committee. Speaking in the House of Commons on Tuesday, Jones stated that there are valid reasons for not disclosing some details and confirmed that the next batch of documents would be released next month.
The Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC), responsible for overseeing the document release process, issued a statement last Friday expressing concerns about the government's approach, which was made against parliamentary wishes. Despite this, Jones maintained that ministers were acting within their rights amid ongoing controversy surrounding the appointment.
"I am sure members across the house will recognise there is no public interest in the government publishing the names and contact details of junior officials or their telephone numbers."
"The raw data that is collected as part of those investigations – which, for example, might relate to how much money you have in a particular account or who you may have had a personal relationship with in the past – that raw data would never be published because if we did so, people would feel unable to answer those questions honestly and frankly in any UK security vetting investigation in the future, which would undermine the very basis of our national security system."
Jones indicated that the forthcoming documents, reportedly comprising thousands of pages, would not be published until June. He declined to confirm whether the release would occur before the Makerfield by-election, anticipated around 18 June.
Following weeks of criticism over Mandelson's appointment, MPs voted to compel the government to publish all documents related to the decision, allowing for redactions on grounds of national security and international relations. Under cross-party pressure, the government agreed that such redactions should be approved by the ISC.
However, the ISC's unusually critical statement on Friday accused ministers of failing to comply with the terms of the parliamentary vote. Committee members pointed out that ministers had redacted personal information such as email addresses and phone numbers and withheld Mandelson's entire vetting file, including his interview responses with security officials.
On Tuesday, ISC members clarified that their primary concern was whether due process was being followed rather than a desire to access highly personal information like Mandelson's interview transcripts.
Kevan Jones, the peer chairing the committee, said: "This is not a cover-up, this is about making sure that when the documents are released to parliament, parliament and the public know what has been redacted and the reasons for doing so."
Jeremy Wright, Conservative MP and ISC member, expressed sympathy for the government's redactions but emphasized the importance of respecting parliamentary procedures.
"I have considerable sympathy for the redactions the government was trying to make. But we cannot accept that the government is entitled to ignore or to unilaterally alter the terms of the humble address."
Other MPs voiced stronger criticism. Emily Thornberry, Labour chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, advocated for ISC access to the vetting file with appropriate redactions to understand the mitigations applied to ensure security.
"I believe that with proper redactions, it should be that the ISC are allowed to look at this at [the vetting] file to understand why it was that mitigations could be put in place in order to make us safe."
Shadow minister Neil O’Brien described the government's actions as a serious breach of parliamentary agreement.
"To say that the government has applied redactions to the documents sent to the ISC beyond the scope agreed by the house, and has also withheld documents entirely from the ISC, is an extremely serious matter that completely undermines what this house agreed."
