Parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) - their role in what documents on Mandleson should be released

@bbcr4today this morning had an interesting update on what happened yesterday in the UK parliament as labour MPs sat stone/grim faced and silent as Kier Starmer (the Prime Minister) faced questions about what he knew about Peter Mandelson's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.

The PM said he'd been repeatedly lied to by "Mandelson"  and he regretted appointing him.  Kemi Badenoch (Leader of the Conservatives) called into question the PM's judgement.

The PM also said he'd release any information bar that which impacted on national security or international relations.  Kemi Badenoch suggested any potentially sensitive documents go to Parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee.  She suggested the ISC should decide what was released.  Apparently later in the day MPs debated the ISC idea.  Ministers did climb down and agree to send some documents to the ISC for them to decide what should be released.

Amol Rajan, in an interview with Dominic Greave, (a British barrister and former MP who served as Attorney General 2010-14 and who chaired the ISC 2015-19), brought out the following points via his questioning.

- As much of the documentation that can be released should be released, but its not unreasonable for the government to consider some of the documents as highly confidential and capable of prejudicing the UKs international relations.

- The proposed mechansims to do so, using the ISC, makes a lot of sense.

- MPs and parliament also have a duty to not prejudice a criminal investigation, so that also might mean some documents can only go to the ISC .

- Dominic claimed the ISC "has never leaked" - but according to this 2014 post on a University of Lincoln site the ISC has leaked - at least about early revelations on forthcoming ISC reports.

- The ISC has never historically had the power to decide what confidential documents are released.  That is usally something that the government decides on.

- The ISC might make some general comments about whether, given the documents it has seen, it can reassure the public that a proper process has been followed.

The other obvious point I'd make is that in revealing documents the security establishment would not want a fuller picture (than is available now) to emerge on how vetting is done. For the simple reason that such additional information would allow those trying to get round such vettings a better chance of doing so.

Notes

Dominic's official portrait is from Parliament's website 

The security camera photo is by Joe Gadd on Unsplash

forgiveness versus abuse quote

 

7 minute clip - Self-Determination Theory Explained

Battle of Normandy (D-Day) in 60 Seconds With Troop Numbers

12 Questions for senior managers to ask - derived from NAO report on Audit insights: lessons and findings from the NAO’s financial audits in 2024-25 (UK)

You can find the full report here.  From the notable themes (figure 3) and lessons from case studies in the report I've created 12 questions departments and senior managers ought to ask themselves annually.

1)  Have we got the basics right on financial data and reporting that data? (my suggestion for £the basics" are timely and accurate with clear graphics on trends in costs and income and variance to budget)

2) Do our core processes and controls retain sufficient information to ensure they are fit for purpose with data recorded accurately 1st time?

3) How do our controls on IT finance systems spot fraud, unauthorised changes and inefficiencies?

4) Have we replaced manual processes with automated ones to improve efficency and data quality?

5) Do our asset records have clear condition information and clarity on how assets are valued - do the records help us plan work on our assets better?

6) How have we improved processes and controls on our asset records?

7) What progress have we made on implementing audit recommendations?

8) Do our reports clearly align with strategic objectives and give readers a better and more transparent understanding of risk and impact when it is integrated across different organisational functions?

Compensation Schemes

9) When creating a new body or scheme, have we built sufficient capacity within enabling corporate functions, including financial reporting, that are key to supporting operational delivery?

10) Are estimates of future costs based on the most current and best available evidence obtainable?

Digital transformation and IT change

11) Did we put appropriate controls and governance in place when attempting IT change?  E.g.

 

• Governance and capability: Appropriate change governance processes and controls need to be in place and development teams must have sufficient capability.

• Testing and ‘go live’ decisions: Testing must be comprehensively planned through consultation with impacted stakeholders and go live decisions must be based on evidence that all risks have been mitigated or accepted.

• Post-implementation reviews: Actions to learn lessons and confirm outcomes must be carried out in a timely fashion.

Asset management

12) Do the senior people consistently and regularly promote a culture where process, controls and record-keeping are valued?

Background

The National Audit Office (NAO) provides an independent audit opinion on around 400 annual report and accounts (ARAs) each year

For the first time, the NAO has brought together thematic insights from recent financial audits and wider assurance work to highlight opportunities to strengthen financial management and reporting in government and, in turn, help improve productivity and resilience in public service delivery.

4min 48sec clip - How are Staples Made? | History of Staple-making

3min 24sec clip - Emotional Intelligence

Simplified Map Of The The Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade

The Charity Commission and the Church of England - a tangled web

Perhaps if the Charity Commission and the Church of England sat down to discuss their differences on - 1) defining what safeguarding is; 2) the complex multiple charity landscape within diocese and overlapping lay and ecclesiatical "laws" - then they might be able to work together better?

The UK's charity regulator, the Charity Commission (CC) has recently been paying some attention to the Church of England (CofE) and safguarding. 

Last year CC said it didn't think the CofE was going fast enough on improving safeguarding.  

This year CC has already given two diocese warnings about trustees not having sufficient oversight on safeguarding issues which should have been reported to CC as serious incidents.  CC highlighted the need for attention by trustees and charity leaders when handling allegations related to individuals in positions of power or influence, including spiritual influence.  Technically CC's warnings to the two diocese were to their Diocesan Board of Finance (DBF).  Each DBF is a charitable company.  

The reaction from the two diocese was very different.  Liverpool accepted CC's findings.  Chelmsford disagreed with its conclusions, describing the warning as "disproportionate".  Bar voicing its opinion Chelmsford appears to have stopped short of challenging the CC through the CC decision procedure, or through the First-tier Tribunal or indeed through the Courts.

What both CC and the CofE seem to be ignoring are some critical differences they have in their understanding of what safeguarding covers and what charity is in charge of what bits of church operations.  

How is safeguarding is defined?    CC thinks safeguarding covers protecting all people who come into contact with a charity through its work.  CofE safeguarding seems to focus particularly on children and vulnerable adults.

Are DBF and the Diocese the same thing?  Each employs various staff (clergy or not). But the DBF doesn't employ all the priests out in the parishes. Nor does it employ the Bishops and Archdeacons.  Nor does it employ the voluntary, (often), Safeguading Officers out in each parish.  Indeed Parochial Church Councils (PCC) are actually charities seperate from DBF.

To complicate matters further much of how the diocese is governed is covered by ecclesiatical laws, called Measures.  And sitting over the diocese management is something called the Bishops Council, whose members are normally also the trustees of the DBF.

Footnotes

1. CC's online details on Liverpool's DBF summarise its charitable object as been "To advance religion and to act as the administrative unit of the Church of England in the diocese".  The detail in the 1926 Memorandum adds in lots more about raising the £ to pay for the diocese activities and managing the £. (2003 appears to be the last update to the Articles).

CC's online details on Chelmsford's DBF summarise its chartiable object as being "To assist and promote the work of the Chutch of England in the diocese of Chelmsford". The detail in the 2018 Memorandum and Articles has more detail on raising £ and managing them. 

Hat tip to Alina Grubnyak on Unsplash for the picture

4min 49sec clip - How are Paper clips Made? | Unraveling the History of Paper Clips: From Invention to Innovation