Senior minister defends decision to withhold some Mandelson files

PM’s chief secretary Darren Jones defends decision and says next release will not be until next month

Ministers have been accused of a cover-up after admitting they have withheld information relating to Peter Mandelson’s appointment as Washington ambassador from a parliamentary committee.

MPs from both sides of the Commons criticised Darren Jones , the prime minister’s chief secretary, on Tuesday after he said the government had not disclosed certain information to parliament’s intelligence and security committee (ISC).

Jones said ministers would now not publish the next tranche of documents on Mandelson until next month, prompting accusations that the government was trying to avoid doing so before the crucial Makerfield byelection, which is expected on 18 June.

Neil O’Brien, a shadow Cabinet Office minister, told the Commons: “To say that the government have applied redactions to documents sent to the ISC, beyond the scope agreed by the house, and have also withheld documents entirely from the ISC, is an extremely serious matter that completely undermines what the house agreed.

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

Kim Johnson, a Labour MP and frequent critic of Keir Starmer, said: “I am very concerned that it appears that No 10 is still continuing to cover up Mandelson’s dodgy dealings by redacting and withholding certain information.”

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 [Mandelson’s vetting] file to understand why it was that mitigations could be put in place in order to make us safe.”

The row underlines how Starmer’s decision to appoint Mandelson to Washington continues to dog his beleaguered government. Mandelson was sacked after it emerged he had a closer relationship with the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein than previously disclosed.

The controversy has so far claimed the jobs of Starmer’s chief of staff Morgan McSweeney , who championed Mandelson’s candidacy, and Olly Robbins , the lead civil servant at the Foreign Office who overrode vetting advice to confirm Mandelson in post. It also prompted calls for Starmer to resign, which then snowballed after Labour’s poor performance in this month’s set of elections.

On Friday the ISC published an unusually critical statement revealing that the government had withheld information from the committee including personal data and Mandelson’s detailed vetting files.

Jones defended that decision on Tuesday, insisting that the government had the right to redact such information, as it would do if making disclosures under the Freedom of Information Act.

He 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, which are understood to run to thousands of pages, would not be published until June. He refused to confirm whether they would be released before the Makerfield byelection.

Members of the ISC, which has been mandated by MPs to supervise the release of the documents, said their concerns were 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.”

The Conservative MP Jeremy Wright, a member of the committee, 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.”