UK minister defends withholding Mandelson files from parliamentary watchdog

A senior minister has defended the government’s decision to withhold information related to Peter Mandelson’s appointment as Washington ambassador from a powerful parliamentary committee, rejecting accusations of a cover-up.

Darren Jones, the chief secretary to the prime minister, told the House of Commons on Tuesday there were legitimate reasons not to disclose certain documents, adding that the next batch of files would not be released until next month.

The Intelligence and Security Committee, which is overseeing the document release, published an unusually critical statement on Friday accusing the government of redacting and withholding records against the wishes of Parliament.

However, Jones said ministers were within their rights to do so, as the controversy over Mandelson’s appointment continues to undermine the government.

Jones 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.”

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He said the next set of documents, believed to run to thousands of pages, would not be published until June, and he refused to confirm they would be released before the crucial Makerfield by-election, likely on 18 June.

After weeks of criticism over the Mandelson appointment, MPs voted earlier this year to compel the government to publish all documents related to the decision, with redactions allowed only for national security and international relations. Under pressure from all sides, the government accepted that redactions should be agreed by the Intelligence and Security Committee.

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 his interview responses with security officials.

They said on Tuesday their concern was more about whether due process was being followed than about wanting to see highly personal information like 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, a Conservative MP and committee member, told the Commons he had “considerable sympathy” for the redactions the government was trying to make but 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.”

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.”