Darren Jones says there are good reasons not to disclose certain details and next batch will be released next monthUK politics live – latest updatesA senior minister has defended the government’s decision to withhold information relating to the appointment of Peter Mandelson as Washington ambassador from a powerful
MPs voted earlier this year to force the government to publish all documents related to the decision to appoint Peter Mandelson as US ambassador.
Photograph: Hannah McKay/Reuters MPs voted earlier this year to force the government to publish all documents related to the decision to appoint Peter Mandelson as US ambassador.
Photograph: Hannah McKay/Reuters Senior minister defends decision to withhold some Mandelson files Darren Jones says there are good reasons not to disclose certain details and next batch will be released next month UK politics live – latest updates A senior minister has defended the government’s decision to withhold information relating to the appointment of Peter Mandelson as Washington ambassador from a powerful parliamentary committee.
Darren Jones, the chief secretary to the prime minister, told the Commons on Tuesday there were good reasons not to disclose certain information, adding that the next tranche of documents would not be published until next month.
The intelligence and security committee (ISC), which is overseeing the process of releasing the documents, published a statement on Friday accusing the government of redacting and withholding documents against the wishes of parliament.
However, Jones said on Tuesday that ministers were within their rights to do so, as the scandal surrounding the appointment continues to dog the government.
The minister told MPs: “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.
Peter Mandelson scandal: the key questions that remain unanswered Read more He added: “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.” He said the next set of documents, which are understood to run to thousands of pages, would not be published until June. And he refused to confirm that they would be released before the crucial Makerfield byelection likely to be on 18 June.
After weeks of criticism over the Mandelson appointment, MPs voted earlier this year to force the government to publish all documents related to that decision, albeit with redactions for national security and international relations. Under pressure from MPs on all sides, the government accepted those redactions should be agreed by the ISC.
But the committee’s unusually critical statement on Friday accused ministers of not complying with the terms of that vote.
Members highlighted ministers’ decisions to redact personal information such as email addresses and phone numbers, as well as to withhold Mandelson’s entire vetting file, including the responses he gave in interviews with vetting officials.
They said on Tuesday that their concern was more about whether due process was being followed than wanting to see highly personal information such as Mandelson’s interviews.
Kevan Jones, the peer who chairs 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, the Conservative MP who is also a member, told the Commons he had “considerable sympathy” for the redactions the government was trying to make. But he added: “We cannot accept that the government is entitled to ignore or to unilaterally alter the terms of the humble address.” Other MPs were more critical. Emily Thornberry, the Labour chair of the foreign affairs select committee, said: “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.” The shadow minister Neil O’Brien said: “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.” Explore more on these topics Peter Mandelson Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office Darren Jones Civil service news Share Reuse this content
