Closing Statement on the Humble Address by the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, Darren Jones
Closing Statement on the Humble Address by the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, Darren Jones
Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker.
Can I thank Members from across the House for their contributions this afternoon, and share in the condolences expressed by the Shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on the news of Sir Alex Younger, the former Director General of MI6, who we have learnt during this debate has passed.
As I have said to the House before, whilst it is right for Members to discuss process, and how the government has responded to the Humble Address, we must not neglect to remember the women and girls who are at the very heart of this matter. Their suffering cannot be forgotten in this pursuit for justice, a pursuit which has been denied to them for too long.
On that point, can I start by paying thanks to my Hon Friend the Member for Pontypridd for her powerful speech this afternoon, and take the opportunity to thank her for the work she carried out so diligently as part of this government as the Minister for Victims.
The accounts she has shared with this House this afternoon from victims like Lisa are harrowing and should remind us of the anger, and suffering they rightly continue to feel each time we have had one of these debates.
But my Hon Friend’s speeches made me think, Madam Deputy Speaker, that just reading the words on the page alone feels insufficient in the context of the cultural challenges that she raised.
And I think, with your permission, I would like to just take a moment to take the opportunity to ask myself questions about my relationship with Peter Mandelson. Did I consciously ignore the stories that followed Peter Mandelson, indeed know about many of them from many, many years ago? I don’t think that I did. Did I ever ignore warnings that were put to me about Peter Mandelson? I didn’t receive any to do so. But as I reflect on my Hon Friend’s speech, it made me think did I at best subconsciously treat Peter Mandelson differently because I believed him to have influence and power in the Labour Party? And I think the answer to that question is yes, I did.
Have I benefited from that relationship in the time I’ve been elected politician? I think in part the answer to that question is yes, I did. And for that I’d like to apologise to the House, to the victims, to Lisa, and commit to then doing something about it. And in the first instance, can I say that I hear my Hon Friend’s request for a meeting with the victims of Jeffrey Epstein. I know that there is a request with Number 10 for the Prime Minister to do so, but if she thinks it’s appropriate, I make myself available for that meeting to discuss the issues that she has raised.
And can I also just say, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I know my Hon Friend will continue to be a strong advocate from the backbenches for the action this government is taking to halve violence against women and girls, as well as to pursue the duty of candour on which I know she worked so hard, and I look forward to continuing my work with her on these important issues.
Madam Deputy Speaker, this is now my 11th update to the House on this matter and I am grateful for the opportunity to answer Members’ questions. I’ll speak to a number of issues first, before turning to some specific questions from members and then setting out what the government intends to do next.
Since the Humble Address was passed on 4 February, the House will know that a huge disclosure exercise has been undertaken by government officials. The motion called for the disclosure of documents in respect of the appointment and dismissal of Peter Mandelson as His Majesty’s Ambassador to Washington, alongside relevant communications.
The publication of documents on the 11 March, followed by the second tranche on Monday this week, has, in the government’s view, done this.
I hope the government has provided the House with the reassurance it needs that, with the exception of the small number of documents that are withheld at the request of the Metropolitan police - which we intend to publish when we are allowed to do so - that the government has discharged its duties to this House in relation to the Humble Address.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I note the comments and questions from Members today on the process that officials have led to support the government in responding to the Humble Address.
As I have said, each time I have been at the despatch box, the government has taken its obligations to comply with the Humble Address seriously and it has done so in its view, in full.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I do, though, hear some members calls for the government to provide further detail on Peter Mandelson’s vetting. As I told the House on Monday, we have already shared the vetting summary and recommendation with the ISC.
However, the vetting inputs that are collected as part of those investigations would never be published, because if the government did so, people would feel unable to answer those questions honestly and frankly in any UK security vetting investigation in the future, a point that has been made by a fellow Hon Member who has been through that process. This would undermine our national security, not just in this instance, but the very basis of our national security system itself. This would have far-reaching impacts that no responsible government, rightly, should entertain.
It is on that basis, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I welcome the comments from the Chair of the ISC, Lord Beamish, on Monday night that he, and I quote, “agrees with the government that the larger vetting documents shouldn’t be released to the committee” because of the potential impacts on the vetting system.
And as the former National Security Adviser Lord Sedwill wrote in a letter published in The Times today – and again, I quote: “the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) has seen a summary of the issues that vetting inevitably raised. That should be sufficient for Parliament to judge the Prime Minister’s handling of this episode. Any Humble Address requiring disclosure of Lord Mandelson’s detailed submissions or vetting file would be a serious mistake.”
In the other place yesterday, Baroness Manningham-Buller - the former Director General of MI5 said, and again I quote:
“I know that security vetting is very detailed - I have been subjected to it many times myself. It goes to your school, education, employers and friends, and people speak frankly. If for one moment they felt it was going to be published, security vetting designed to protect the most secret information would be of little value. Whatever else we do, we must hold on to that. However tempting it would be, for whatever reason, to know the full contents, they must not be revealed. I am talking not about this case but about a general principle.”
Madam Deputy Speaker, I hear the arguments put by the Right Hon and Hon Members in the House today, but I do say that not just the government’s position, but the advice from the Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee, a former National Security Adviser and a former Director General of MI5, their advice should be taken seriously.
Moving to the question of documents members may have expected to see in the second tranche.
As I said on Monday, Madam Deputy Speaker, some messages may not have been captured where people may have previously changed their phones without having backed up messages or had disappearing messages turned on. And I noted to the house on Monday that included myself.
So in my circumstance to answer the questions from the Shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster it’s not that I took a unilateral decision about messages that I felt were in scope or not in scope of the humble address, it’s merely I have access to no messages to disclose. And that’s an important distinction because the disclosure process that took place involved the Cabinet Office writing to every department in government, to permanent secretary and principal private secretary level for all relevant ministers and special advisers and officials to set out the guidance on which the disclosure process should take place. That is for example to include WhatsApp and other communication services, emails, personal devices, work devices, other messaging platforms, and a clear set of guidance about what would be in scope and not in scope. Permanent secretaries as the accounting officers to Parliament for each of those departments were individually made liable for ensuring that disclosure process took place in line with the guidance. The Cabinet Office did not go to each person in each department and conduct that themselves, they executed it through departments in line with the process I’ve set out.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I now turn to some of the specific questions raised by members during the debate, which I have grouped in a way which I hope is satisfactory to the House.
The first in relation to vetting information, but also information in relation to mitigations, both commercial and national security related.
And then indeed, in the question of attachments. I’ve already addressed the issue of vetting information. In relation to mitigations just to confirm to the House Madam Deputy Speaker, I have not personally seen any of the UKSV information, nor the summary, nor recommendations, nor any mitigation information that was put in place. So I can’t speak to this question with personal experience, but what I can note is my comments from Monday that the Metropolitan Police have permitted us to confirm that categories of documents that they are holding include vetting information and conflicts of interest process material, and that is all I am able to say on the matter.
The Shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster asked me to confirm that there was a leak inquiry underway in relation to what appears to be information from UKSV being in the hands of Guardian journalists. I can confirm that leak inquiry is underway but has not yet concluded.
Questions were put to me in relation to questions of judgement and due diligence. I’ve already answered the point about the follow up questions to the due diligence report, and can only reiterate the words of the Prime Minister to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson that he regrets the appointment and has apologised for it. The deputy chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee made what I thought was a very helpful contribution around thinking about codifying the precedent on which the government relies when making redactions in the future, and I can commit to taking that away and taking advice, not least in respect of what that might mean in terms of house business and government business, but I will do so.
And my Hon Friend the Member for Putney, I thought, made some interesting points around how humble addresses may be used in the future, given that the House seems to have decided to want to use them more often than has been the case in the past.
I was then asked by my Hon Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby to confirm the government’s continued commitment to the duty of candour legislation, which I can confirm there have been, as he will know, discussions with families and others about refining some of the final points in that legislation.
And the Hon Lady for Aberdeen North asked me about Freedom of Information requests and I commit to taking that away and asking officials to try to respond as promptly as possible.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the Prime Minister has set out previously that there are clearly significant lessons to be learned from the issues that arose from Peter Mandelson’s appointment.
Whilst the Government considers that it has now duly discharged its obligations in respect of the Humble Address, it will nonetheless continue work on a number of important areas.
Including:
- Our commitment to bring forward legislation to ensure that peerages can be removed from disgraced peers. Noting that Peter Mandelson has already been removed from the list of Privy Councillors;
- Changing the process for Direct Ministerial Appointments so that due diligence and national security vetting must take place prior to announcement;
- The government will continue its review with Sir Adrian Fulford to look at recommendations on the lessons for the National Security Vetting system from the Peter Mandelson case;
- We’re ordering an examination of any security concerns raised during Peter Mandelson’s tenure as ambassador, which the government Security Group in the Cabinet Office is now taking forward;
- We’re commissioning an independent review of how Non-Corporate Communication Channels are used in government, including WhatsApp;
- In addition, the Cabinet Secretary has written to all Heads of Department to clarify the rules on record keeping and ensure they are being properly applied across government;
- The government has also noted the ISC’s comments on the management of sensitive information, concerns with which I share and have expressed that concern at the Despatch Box and the government’s committed to raising information security standards and will take further action on this issue, as I’ve committed previously.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I will return to the House to update on the progress of this work in due course.
But on the basis of my statement today and on Monday this week, the government now considers that it has duly discharged its obligations in respect of the Humble Address.
In respect of the Humble Address, I thank the Intelligence and Security Committee, the Public Administration Committee, the Foreign Affairs Committee and Right Hon and Hon Members for their work on this matter and for their contributions to the debate today.