Lord Mandelson Humble Address

Question

Asked by

To ask His Majesty’s Government what further steps they are taking to retrieve information in relation to the matters covered by the Humble Address dated 4 February relating to the appointment of Lord Mandelson as HM Ambassador to Washington; and what assessment they have made of the extent to which relevant records, communications, and other material remain available.

My Lords, the Government have published all available material, with the exception of a small number of documents that were withheld at the request of the Metropolitan Police, making this the largest ever government response to an humble Address. The Government now consider that they have duly discharged the duties set out in this humble Address.

In recent days, we have seen various WhatsApp messages passed to the media that were not handed to the Government for publication as part of the humble Address. Obviously, we do not know who passed those messages to the media, but does it not highlight the importance of ensuring that current and former Ministers and ministerial appointees fully co-operate with such processes? So would the Minister commit to reviewing the terms of the taxpayer-funded settlement payments or pensions for such people to ensure that, if, in future, people do not fully comply with such processes, there will be financial consequences?

The noble Lord raises an important point about compliance with the will of both your Lordships’ House and the other place with regard to an humble Address. With regard to the specifics about any penalties, the Government currently have no plans to change the ministerial pension scheme, as I have put in writing several times to the noble Baroness, Lady Finn. However, I appreciate the noble Lord’s concern and I am sure there will be ongoing reviews.

My Lords, can I just probe the Minister a little more on that question? The messages that were published between Lord Mandelson and the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister were clearly within the terms of the humble Address. They were not published. That raises two questions. First, why did the Minister not make them available? Secondly, what confidence does that give us that all the rest of the information that was in scope of the humble Address has actually been published? How can the Minister give us that confidence?

My Lords, I shall start with the noble Lord’s second point. This was an official-led process. There were no politicians involved in the determination of what was and was not published. About 1,500 documents were published only a week ago. With regard to any correspondence relating to the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister proactively disclosed to the other House twice last week that he had exchanged messages with Peter Mandelson, but they were no longer available to him to disclose as part of the humble Address. As he stated in the other place, if he continued to have access to those messages, he would have disclosed them as part of his return. He does not have access to the messages.

My Lords, given the miraculous emergence of the Darren Jones texts, can the Minister give assurances that there are no other withheld ministerial communications that will emerge? Also, given that confidence in this process has been shaken, as my noble friend Lord Harper said, can she now commit to publishing the schedule identifying exactly what material is being withheld at the request of the Metropolitan Police?

As I have said many times and very clearly from this Dispatch Box—I think this might be my fourth outing on the humble Address, which will make it also the noble Baroness’s fourth outing on the humble Address—we have published everything that is available to us and that this was an official-led process that has been done in kind. We are adamant, and the officials are adamant, that we have fully complied with the humble Address. With regard to a schedule of documents, as I have discussed with the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, I shall be very clear: there are three buckets of information, which I have said on record before, about categories of information that will not be published. This small number of documents relate to national security, vetting material, conflict of interest process material and internal correspondence with Peter Mandelson. As and when the Met Police believe it is appropriate to do so, they, too, will be published.

My Lords, can the Minister confirm whether the Prime Minister and other Ministers have been using a WhatsApp system that permanently deletes official messages, and, if so, whether she thinks that is acceptable?

My Lords, the guidance on ministerial use of NCCCs— non-corporate communication channels—is clear for all Ministers and is part of the Ministerial Code, which states:

“‘Disappearing message’ functions have a role in limiting the build up of messages on devices. You must ensure that any such use does not impact on your recordkeeping or transparency responsibilities”.

There is a difference between storing material that relates to decision-making and the output of policy-making and keeping messages that may relate to gossip.

My Lords, how many other individuals in wider public service are effectively dismissed for gross misconduct yet receive a golden goodbye of taxpayers’ money to the tune of £77,000?

My Lords, I am not sure that anyone would expect me to have the details of anyone’s employment contract or their departure at hand, but noble Lords will be aware of Civil Service contracts, because they are available to Members of your Lordships’ House, and in fact this one was published as part of the first humble Address.

My Lords, following up on the question from my noble friend, the Minister said that deciding which messages to release was official led, if I completely understood that correctly. Is she able to tell the House what criteria or guidance were given to officials so that they could decide which messages to release?

My Lords, the methodology of what was published and why, and what was withheld and what was redacted, was published in every volume of the disclosure last week, which noble Lords will remember I had next to me when we did the Statement. That methodology was agreed by the Permanent Secretary to the Cabinet Office. A KC was then brought in to quality assure that process. Materials were passed to the ISC that related to national security and international relations, which the committee then redacted. Additional material was then seen by the honourable Simon Hoare MP in his role as chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee. He was then invited in on Monday last week to look at the third-party redactions to make sure that he was comfortable with them on behalf of Parliament, and he believed them to be sensible.

My Lords, this is beginning to sound more like something out of “Mission Impossible”, with telephone messages destructing themselves after 30 seconds and other telephones being stolen in strange circumstances. This is getting to be a bit of a saga of excuses. We have here a decision about Peter Mandelson and that hugely important appointment, which was catastrophic. I would be the last person to accuse the Government of a cover-up, but it does leave a sense that the Government simply do not want to deal with this issue properly. Does the Minister not realise that this leaves the whole Government with a sense of avoidance: of not willing to face the truth that this was an appalling mess of their own creation?

I shall take some of those points in turn. First, the Prime Minister have been very clear that the appointment of Peter Mandelson was a mistake, and he has apologised to Members of the other place and Members of your Lordships’ House but, most importantly, to the victims of Epstein. With regard to the publication, there has never been a larger amount of material released in relation to a humble Address. Last week, we released the second tranche of 1,500 pages, of which I read every one. Over three volumes, 337 documents were passed to the ISC. If there had been any idea of a cover-up, I think certain messages would never have seen the light of day. Instead, they have ensured that the tabloids have had something to write about, if nobody else.

Have the rules now been changed where an official mobile phone is supposedly stolen? Does that have to be reported? What is the process now?