Lord Mandelson Humble Address: Government Response Update
(1 day, 11 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for agreeing to take questions on yesterday’s Statement.
The Falklands War was won in less than 12 weeks. This Government, however, cannot piece together a paper audit in that time. We have today simply been given a holding statement that more documents will be forthcoming. We remain no more enlightened than we were a month ago. No information has been forthcoming on the quantity of documents within scope of the humble Address passed in the other place, how many documents have been reviewed and by whom, whether the Cabinet Office has sought redactions and whether the Intelligence and Security Committee has agreed to those redactions. Can the Minister give the House a hard deadline by which the second tranche of documents will be published?
In light of press coverage in the Guardian suggesting that the Cabinet Office considered withholding certain documents from the Intelligence and Security Committee, can the Minister give us a categorical assurance that no documents within scope of the humble Address will be withheld from that committee?
In the other place, my honourable friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar asked the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister a number of specific questions that went unanswered. The Chief Secretary’s silence on questions relating to Peter Mandelson’s declaration of interests form was deafening. Can the Minister confirm that that document exists and that it will not be withheld or redacted without the consent of the Intelligence and Security Committee? Serious questions are being asked about Peter Mandelson’s links through business interests, and how his activities as ambassador may have been linked to those interests.
We are also told that the security mitigations that were put in place for Peter Mandelson were not in response to his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. Can the Minister give the House more clarity on that? Can she say whether the detail of those concerns will be made public if the ISC judges that they may be published? On a day when the Labour Party is whipping its MPs to prevent the Privileges Committee making an independent assessment of the Prime Minister’s conduct, can we be reassured that His Majesty’s Government will not stand in the way of other committees doing their work?
The Government’s excuses for delay are wearing a little thin. We have heard all about the urgency that the Government are bringing to the matter: I hesitate to use the famous words “working at pace”. Yesterday, we heard from the Minister in the other place that documents should be published “in a chronological order”. He went on to say:
“Otherwise, I suspect there would be questions about what documents were missing, subject to the conclusion of the Committee’s work”.—[Official Report, Commons, 27/4/26; col. 589.]
If it is the Government’s intention to avoid questions about what documents are missing, why are they still refusing to publish a list or overview of all the documents and whether they have been published? That overall document would help us greatly, and surely the titles or descriptions of the documents cannot be seen to prejudice any matter that is currently sub judice. Can the Minister say what progress is being made towards the publication of such a document? We have asked about this many times before and we still await a clear response.
Lord Pack (LD)
My Lords, at the heart of this issue is the bravery of the women and girls who spoke up to reveal the truth about Jeffrey Epstein. Following his evil and criminal behaviour, there have been multiple failures of our political systems—failures that are now rightly seeing the end of various political careers. The events also raise questions about how we fix our broken systems so that we can deal much better with whatever future crises or scandals occur.
So I very much welcome the positive noises now being made about new legislation—for example, to allow peerages to be revoked in the case of scandal. However, it is fair to say that the track record of reform in this place is somewhat slow, so I hope that the Minister can confirm both that such legislation is imminent and that it will be given priority in the legislative queue, so that there is an opportunity for Parliament to debate and, if it so decides, pass such legislation promptly in the new Session.
It is also very welcome to have heard of the plans for the review into the vetting processes by Adrian Fulford, particularly because the more we hear details of what happened with the vetting, the more questions are thrown up. I will give just two examples. One is the sequence: make an appointment, announce the appointment, then carry out vetting after the announcement. Leaving aside questions of how well established that process and sequencing is and who knew about it, it is clearly a sequence of events that invites disaster. Vetting should surely come before an announcement, not after, because that is the way to minimise any pressure to come up with a politically convenient answer and to be fair to everyone involved, including somebody who fails the vetting process.
Also inviting disaster is the daisy chain of oral briefings that we now know took place without key decision-makers seeing the relevant summary of the vetting verdict paperwork. As we now know, the official who saw the paperwork orally briefed the FCDO official, Ian Collard, who did not see the paperwork himself. He, in turn, orally briefed Olly Robbins, who also did not see the paperwork. He, in turn, had oral discussions with the Prime Minister, who again did not see the paperwork so was, in fact, having matters described to him third hand. In other words, the more senior the person and the more crucial their personal decision-making in the process, the more removed they were from seeing the core paperwork involved.
There is obviously a political question in this about why the Prime Minister proceeded with such a process, but there is also a crucial issue for the future. Such a daisy chain of decision-making—with one person speaking to another person, who then speaks to another person, who then speaks to another person, without the authoritative written verdict of the vetting system being in front of everyone—is a process that invites disaster.
I hope the Minister can, as well as addressing my question about legislation to remove peerages, also confirm that these issues relating to vetting processes are within the scope of the Fulford review, that the review will be published soon—maybe even at pace—and that this House will have an opportunity to discuss that review promptly.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for their contributions. As I have said before, and will say again, Jeffrey Epstein was a despicable individual and his victims must be our first priority. We should never forget that, every time we discuss Epstein’s horrendous behaviour, his victims relive awful experiences. Those survivors must be front and centre when we debate all issues relating to Jeffrey Epstein, his network and their impact. I am aware every day of what they must be experiencing as this is living and breathing in the media.
In updating the House, it would be helpful to clarify some of the points made in the other place yesterday. As noble Lords will be aware, we published the first tranche of material in response to the humble Address Motion on 11 March, just over a month following that Motion. That first tranche of material relates primarily to the aspects of the Motion regarding Peter Mandelson’s appointment and his subsequent dismissal as ambassador, in addition to details of the severance payment provided to him by the Foreign Office.
Following the publication of the first tranche of material, Cabinet Office officials have been working tirelessly—I removed “at pace” from my briefing note—to prepare a second publication. Noble Lords will recognise that, given the breadth of the Motion, a significant number of documents are in scope and are taking time to process accordingly. We prioritised the material relating to Peter Mandelson’s appointment in the first tranche so that Parliament could see those key documents first.
Where the Government deem material to be prejudicial to our national security or international relations, it is being referred to the Intelligence and Security Committee for consideration. As noble Lords will appreciate, this process requires detailed consideration. The Government are very grateful to the ISC for its constructive engagement in this process, which we recognise has constituted additional requests on top of its already important work. I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Beamish for his work as chair of the committee.
I can confirm that, as of yesterday evening, the Cabinet Office has passed to the ISC all material that it has processed as part of the humble Address and judged to be prejudicial to national security or international relations. This amounts to over 300 documents. This includes a number that were relevant to the process of Peter Mandelson’s security vetting. As the Government have set out, no redactions will be made on the basis of national security or international relations without referral to the ISC. As we have made clear in the first publication, there are several other public interest principles—in respect, for example, of the names of junior officials, email addresses, personal data and legally privileged information—which the Government have applied following a clear precedent set by previous Administrations. To confirm, as set out in the first publication, no redactions were applied to the Prime Minister’s box note.
I can also confirm that the next publication will include electronic communications, including those sent on non-corporate communication channels, between Peter Mandelson and Ministers, senior officials and special advisers. As the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister has said on multiple occasions, the Government are fully committed to complying with the scope of this Motion. The material that has been commissioned has been provided and, subject to the processes that I have explained, will be published.
The Government have also been clear throughout that they will not prejudice the ongoing police investigation. Noble Lords will understand that this means that I cannot confirm what documents are being withheld in response to the Metropolitan Police’s request but, to reassure your Lordships’ House, as agreed in the other place, the chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee kindly agreed to look at documents given to the Metropolitan Police in relation to the police investigation so that we had a way, albeit a closed way, of showing due process and transparency to the House in relation to the humble Address. Those processes have continued. Noble Lords who know Simon Hoare MP will I am sure agree that if he thought that we were not being compliant, we would have heard by now.
On some of the specific points raised, the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, asked when these documents will be published. I reassure noble Lords that we will publish them as soon as possible following State Opening of Parliament. I will provide further updates to your Lordships in due course. We will be discussing, I am sure, the detail of those papers in your Lordships’ House at that point. The noble Baroness also touched on other committees’ investigations. Obviously, there is a live debate in the other Chamber as we discuss this issue. There is also, as we have seen this morning, a live investigation by the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. We are fully co-operating and I think noble Lords would expect no less.
I welcome to his place the noble Lord, Lord Pack, and congratulate him on what I think is his first outing on the Front Bench during a Statement—I look forward to many such conversations. He asked very specific questions. In terms of the legislation on removal of peerages, obviously, it is not for me to pre-empt the King’s Speech, but noble Lords will be aware that we have discussed this many times from this Dispatch Box and I expect to see such legislation forthcoming. I look forward, as the policy Minister, to discussing it in great detail with the noble Lord when we get to that point.
The noble Lord raised a very important point about vetting before an appointment. That process has now been explicitly changed, both for political appointees and for political appointees in the diplomatic space: vetting would need to be done before an announcement.
On the security vetting process, I think there are many Members of your Lordships’ House who have actively participated in the deep vetting process, either as Ministers or as civil servants. Noble Lords will be aware that there is a line here: we need people to actively participate in this process to make sure that we are getting the full information; we need to make sure that the detail of that information is then protected; and who sees what, when has to be managed by UK Security Vetting, which I thank for its work. I know that it is very nervous about some of the conversations we are having, not because of the process it undertakes but because it does not want people to be less forthcoming than they need to be in the process. However, I appreciate what the noble Lord said about a daisy chain of conversations. He will be aware that Ministers were not aware of that daisy chain at various points, but we have asked Sir Adrian Fulford to undertake a review, and I am very grateful to him. We have confirmed that this should be part of those conversations, and I will come back if I need to issue any clarification.
The noble Lord also kindly highlighted the fact that the Government have undertaken several steps in this space—my appointment is one of them. We are seeking to strengthen the foundations in the standards space and I look forward to discussing those issues with noble Lords, both through the prism of the release of the Humble Address but also because it is in all our interests, regardless of our political party or our personal politics, to ensure that people can have faith in politicians and faith in the integrity of this Building, both this Chamber and next door.
Lord Beamish (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to bring news from the front to your Lordships’ House. After another five-hour meeting today, the Intelligence and Security Committee, which I chair, has now completed reviewing all the documents that have been referred to it. I stress to the House that this has been a long process. I understand the frustration of the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, but the members of the Intelligence and Security Committee have had to read all these documents individually, in our secure premises, and then have a full meeting to consider the redactions, which has taken time. It has not been helped by the refusal by the Foreign Office in the early stages to release certain documents.
We asked at the beginning of this process that the documents relating to Peter Mandelson’s appointment be prioritised. That was not possible for the vetting document because the Foreign Office at the time, under Mr Olly Robbins, refused to give it to the Cabinet Office. We have now seen all the documents we need to look at, apart from those that are part of the criminal investigation, and the vetting interview file. We have seen the vetting documents but not the vetting interview file, which the Government have not shared with us. I understand that they will have to go to Parliament if they wish to refuse to give us that document, but I can assure the House that we are now a position to return our considerations of those vetting documents back to the Government. Will my noble friend give me a commitment, now that those documents have been returned, or will have been later today? We have now set two deadlines for the Government to come back to the committee to say which of the redactions we have not agreed to that they wish to contest. It is important that we get the contested redactions hearing done speedily after the King’s Speech, so that these documents can be released, because the committee will then have to meet again to decide our response. I remind the House that the final decision on what is and is not redacted is not the Government’s but the ISC’s.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
Again, I put on record my thanks to my noble friend for the many hours he has spent looking at documents, for changing the way his committee is working in terms of the number of meetings, and for all the work that has been done in this space. On setting a deadline for the challenge meeting, I will speak to officials as soon as I have finished the next Statement and make sure that that date is in the diary before the House prorogues.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, today, we learned of an un-minuted meeting at which senior advisers to the Prime Minister bypassed Civil Service oversight to green-light a known high-risk appointment. Can the Minister tell the House how this meeting was within the normal due process and who gave the order to exclude the propriety and ethics team from such critical discussions?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I am going to thank the noble Lord for the question; maybe I should not. He will have to bear with me, because he, like I, will have watched some of the hearings as they were happening. I will write to him with the detail about who, what, when and where.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for reassuring the House that the next tranche of documents will be provided to Parliament as soon as practicable after State Opening. In addition to the 300 documents which have already been released to the Intelligence and Security Committee, chaired by my noble friend Lord Beamish, may I ask her whether there has been any divergence of view between the Government and the Metropolitan Police as to which documents should not be released because they would prejudice the ongoing investigation?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank my noble friend. Obviously, these are all live matters, and some of those conversations I simply cannot discuss in your Lordships’ House. We have a very constructive relationship with the Metropolitan Police and want to make sure that it has everything it needs as part of its investigations if it is seeking to make any future prosecutions.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, in addition to the redactions the Minister referred to in her Statement for reasons of national security, international relations, names of junior officials, email addresses and legal privilege, are there any other reasons for redaction? There was a report in the press about some redactions for reasons of commercial confidentiality. Can she confirm that that is not the case? When, in the Statement, the Minister said that the second tranche of documents would be released after the State Opening, does that mean the final tranche, or is there a third?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I would not want to mislead the House; I am going to write to the noble Lord about the commercial redactions. I had not been told that there would be any commercial redactions, but I will write to him to make sure that I am on the record, and I will place the answer in the Library. With the exception of those materials being withheld by the Met Police, which will be published at a point deemed to be appropriate, I expect the next tranche to be—I cannot say the final tranche, because we know there is a third—the substantive tranche, which will be all the material available to us. That is what I expect in the next tranche.
Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)
My Lords, one of the difficulties in discussing the vetting of Lord Mandelson seriously is that nobody outside the Government has the first idea what the grounds were for the recommendation that his vetting should be refused. I accept and completely agree with the process the Minister described whereby the answers and the conduct of the vetting are totally confidential and are never revealed in any circumstances. However, I cannot see the threat to national security in answering this question: can the Minister say whether the grounds upon which the recommendation was made were not anything to do with his friendship with Epstein? Can I ask for a yes or no? Were the grounds nothing to do with it and something quite different, or is it the friendship that lay behind it?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I wish I could give the noble Lord the answer he seeks, but I cannot, because I have not seen the material we are discussing, for very good reason. On the reasons why it was a borderline case—I believe that is the phrase now—and what mitigations were put in place, I do not know the detail.