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