Labour ministers are facing fresh questions over transparency after it emerged that Cabinet Office officials had to make repeated requests for communications involving Lord Mandelson before receiving the full material required by Parliament.
The row centres on the so called “Mandelson files”, a large collection of documents relating to Lord Mandelson’s appointment, vetting and work as Britain’s ambassador to the United States. The files are being released following a parliamentary motion which compelled ministers, officials and special advisers to hand over communications involving the Labour grandee.
However, sources familiar with the process claim the Cabinet Office encountered resistance when it first sought the material. Initial requests focused on messages linked directly to ministers’ official duties, allowing some ministers to argue that personal exchanges with Lord Mandelson fell outside the scope of the request.
Officials reportedly became concerned when ministers known to have regular contact with Lord Mandelson submitted “nil returns”, suggesting no relevant communications existed. This prompted a second request, this time demanding all communications, including personal conversations that Parliament had ordered to be disclosed.
According to Whitehall sources, some ministers were reluctant to reveal the extent of their relationship with Lord Mandelson. Critics argue this reflects a wider culture within Labour of limiting transparency whenever politically embarrassing information threatens to emerge.
The latest revelations are likely to intensify scrutiny of Sir Keir Starmer’s decision to appoint Lord Mandelson to one of Britain’s most important diplomatic posts. Questions have persisted over Mandelson’s past associations and influence within the Labour Party, concerns that opponents say have never been fully addressed.
The second batch of documents, due to be published next week, is expected to contain WhatsApp messages and other communications between Lord Mandelson and serving ministers. Reports suggest the disclosures may reveal the extent to which Mandelson continued to offer advice and exert influence across government despite serving in a diplomatic role.
Further controversy surrounds the handling of the release itself. The Intelligence and Security Committee has reportedly expressed frustration over redactions and delays, raising concerns that some material may never reach the public domain. Committee members have argued that Parliament, rather than officials, should determine what information ought to be published.
There are also fears that some communications have already been lost. Certain WhatsApp messages cannot be recovered because disappearing message settings were enabled, while communications involving former Downing Street chief of staff Morgan McSweeney were reportedly lost after his mobile phone was stolen.
For Labour, the episode risks reinforcing accusations that the party entered government promising openness but has become increasingly defensive when faced with scrutiny. While ministers insist they have complied with requests made under the parliamentary process, critics argue that the need for repeated demands raises uncomfortable questions about what ministers were initially prepared to disclose.
With the next tranche of files still to come, the controversy shows little sign of fading. Instead, it threatens to deepen concerns about transparency, accountability and the continuing influence of one of Labour’s most powerful political figures.
