𝓤𝓷𝓲𝓽𝓮𝓭 𝓝𝓮𝔀𝓼

The Labour Government has been accused of putting “obstacles” in the way of the truth over 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. And senior Labour MP Dame Emily Thornberry, chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, accused the Government of putting “obstacles” in the way.

In an urgent question in the Commons, Sir Jeremy 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?”

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.

He added that the second tranche of documents will not be released until at least June.

But Dame Emily accused the Government of putting “obstacles” in the way of her committee and the ISC. The Labour former minister said she was “disappointed” with the Government’s answer to the urgent question.

Dame Emily 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.”