Sir Keir Starmer still has confidence in Darren Jones, Downing Street said, after the Cabinet minister reportedly told Lord Peter Mandelson he was “so sorry” on the day he was sacked as ambassador to the US. The message was not released as part of a tranche of documents this week.
Disappearing messages raise questions
Questions have been raised about how the use of disappearing messages in WhatsApp has led to some exchanges being absent from the more than 1,000 pages of so-called Mandelson files released on Monday. Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister Mr Jones told the Commons this week that he was among those who did not have access to all messages either because of having used disappearing messages or because they had not been backed up when switching devices.
Jones criticised colleagues in messages
In a message to Lord Mandelson published by The Spectator, Mr Jones is said to have written: “You’ve been doing such a great job, and you worked wonders with Trump. I’m so sorry about today.” He also appeared to criticise Chancellor Rachel Reeves, Jonathan Reynolds and Angela Rayner, who were all Cabinet colleagues at the time, in another message after Lord Mandelson said growth plans were in their hands. “It doesn’t fill you with confidence,” he reportedly replied.
Sir Keir Starmer would not be directly drawn into responding to the reports about his close Cabinet ally Mr Jones’s messages with the peer. But when probed by journalists about the leaked messages, a No 10 spokeswoman insisted Mr Jones still had the confidence of the Prime Minister.
The spokeswoman was also asked whether Sir Keir thought it was appropriate that Mr Jones had apologised to Lord Mandelson given the circumstances of his departure, and involvement with the late paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein. She replied: “I think you have the Prime Minister’s view, and have had it repeatedly on this, and that is that he regrets appointing Peter Mandelson, and he is sorry to the victims who have suffered the unimaginable trauma that they have, and that couldn’t have been clearer throughout the last few months.”
Asked by broadcasters about the reports as he visited Yorkshire, the Prime Minister earlier said: “We just had a big process in Parliament where many, many documents have been put before Parliament, probably the biggest exercise of transparency ever by any Government. That is open now. The material is there for everybody to see.” Pressed on why Mr Jones’s messages were not included in the Mandelson files, Sir Keir would not answer directly. He replied: “Well, we went through a process, it was a transparency process, and the point of that really was to put everything before Parliament, and people can then see the material and make their minds up.”
The Prime Minister and Ms Reeves are among those in Government who have confirmed they use disappearing messages on WhatsApp. But they have insisted all ministers complied with the humble address mechanism that MPs used to force the release of documents relating to Lord Mandelson’s appointment and posting as ambassador to the US.
The Conservatives have called for Government ethics watchdog Sir Laurie Magnus to open an investigation into whether Sir Keir broke the ministerial code by not keeping a record of his contact with Lord Mandelson on WhatsApp. No 10 insisted the Prime Minister’s use of disappearing messages was “entirely in line with the guidance”. The Downing Street spokeswoman would not confirm whether Sir Keir used disappearing messages in only some of his WhatsApp discussions, or whether he still used the function.
Peter Kyle sidestepped a question on whether he used disappearing WhatsApp messages, after exchanges between him and Lord Mandelson were not in the files published this week. The Business Secretary told a press gallery lunch in Westminster: “All I can say is that I’ve always acted within the Ministerial Code, and that’s how I’ve always worked.” The Mandelson files have been redacted in a number of ways, including where the International and Security Committee (ISC) agreed the information would be prejudicial to national security or international relations.
