Ministers accused of putting ‘obstacles’ in way of truth over Mandelson files

Sir Keir Starmer’s Government has been accused of putting “obstacles” in the way of truth, as it was criticised for redactions to the Mandelson files.

MPs ordered the publication of documents relating to Lord Peter Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador earlier this year.

It was agreed that sensitive material, such as information which could compromise international relations or national security, would be passed to the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC).

However, the deputy chairman of the parliamentary body, Sir Jeremy Wright, said documents had been redacted for “other reasons”, with some being withheld altogether.

Foreign Affairs Committee chairwoman Dame Emily Thornberry also said “obstacles” are being put in the way of her committee and the ISC, who are trying to “get to the truth”.

Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister Darren Jones said the Government has taken the “normal approach” to redactions, telling MPs it would not be in the public interest to publish the names and contact details of junior officials.

The second tranche of documents will not be released until at least June, Mr Jones told the Commons on Tuesday.

He said: “When the Government publishes the second tranche of documents, we will also publish a methodology confirming the process we have followed, and it will be clear from the published information the basis on which content has been redacted.

“The targeted redactions made to the material, beyond those made relevant to national security or international relations, have been made in line with clear precedent set by previous administrations in responding to humble addresses.

“We have taken the normal approach to redacting junior officials’ names, contact details like telephone numbers and email addresses, the personal data of third parties, where this is not in scope of the motion,” he added.

In an urgent question, Sir Jeremy accused the Government of withholding information for reasons “not specifically permitted in the humble address”.

The Conservative former minister said: “It has become apparent to us that the Government also intends to redact documents for other reasons not specifically permitted in the humble address or, in some cases, to withhold those documents altogether.”

He added: “Does he accept that if the Government takes it upon itself to redact or withhold information contrary to the terms of the humble address it agreed to be bound by in February, that would be an issue not just of process but of parliamentary sovereignty?”

In his response, Mr Jones said raw data related to security vetting “would never be published”, so as not to put people going through security vetting off from answering questions “honestly and frankly in any UK security vetting investigation in the future”.

Labour former minister Dame Emily said she was “disappointed” with the Government’s answer to the urgent question.

She suggested a UK Security Vetting document which had two red boxes ticked had been withheld, adding: “It is very important that the public know and understand that we are learning from the mistakes that were clearly made, and we cannot know that those lessons have been learned unless they are checked.

“And the committees in this House, my committee and the ISC, are trying our best to get to the truth of this, and we are having obstacles put in our way.

“It is for that reason I believe that, with proper redactions, it should be that the ISC are allowed to look at this, at this file, to understand why it was that mitigations could be put in place in order to make us safe when it came to the appointment of Peter Mandelson.”

This was disputed by Mr Jones, who said: “The documents that related 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 them, these documents have been referred to the Intelligence and Security Committee.

“What has not been referred was the raw data collected as part of interviews undertaken with Peter Mandelson, which in any circumstance we wouldn’t share in relation to any appointment.”

Tory frontbencher Neil O’Brien said it was “an extremely serious matter that completely undermines what this House agreed”.

The shadow minister added: “Members opposite voted for a cover-up when they voted against referring the Prime Minister to the Privileges Committee over this. They don’t like it, but it’s true.

“This House and the people of this country deserve better than yet another cover-up.”

Responding, Mr Jones said: “I will not, though, for one instance countenance the idea that there is, as loud as you may want to shout it, a cover-up.

“If there was any suggestion of a cover-up, I would not be standing at this despatch box to defend the process. I would resign.”