Ministers have been accused of placing “obstacles” in the way of truth after facing criticism for redactions to documents concerning Lord Peter Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador earlier this year. MPs had ordered the publication of these files, with sensitive material—such as information that could compromise international relations or national security—earmarked for review by the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC).
Redactions Beyond the Agreed Scope
The deputy chairman of the ISC, Sir Jeremy Wright, revealed that documents had been redacted for “other reasons” not specifically permitted in the humble address, with some withheld entirely. He questioned whether this constituted not just a procedural issue but a matter of parliamentary sovereignty. Dame Emily Thornberry, chairwoman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, echoed these concerns, stating that her committee and the ISC are facing obstacles in their efforts to “get to the truth”.
Government Defence
Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister Darren Jones defended the Government’s actions, describing them as the “normal approach” to redactions. He argued that it would not be in the public interest to publish the names and contact details of junior officials, personal data of third parties, or information subject to legal professional privilege. The second tranche of documents is not expected until at least June, with a methodology explaining the redaction process to be published alongside.
Mr Jones emphasised that raw data from security vetting interviews would never be published, to ensure candour in future investigations. He rejected accusations of a cover-up, stating he would resign if such were the case.
ISC Concerns Over Security Advice
The ISC has also raised broader concerns about security advice being overruled and the continued use of WhatsApp despite warnings. Lord Beamish, the ISC chairman, told BBC Radio 4’s World At One that these practices need to change, and records should be kept of why security advice is not followed.
Shadow minister Neil O’Brien described the situation as “an extremely serious matter that completely undermines what this House agreed”, accusing the Government of a cover-up. However, Mr Jones strongly refuted this, insisting that proper processes are in place.
