Question to the Cabinet Office:

To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by the Minister for the Cabinet Office on 10 June (HC5973), whether the referenced search parameters included material of a party political nature held by the No. 10 Political Office, or whether documents and emails held by the No. 10 Political Office and its staff were deemed out of scope of the Government response to the Humble Address of 4 February.

I refer the Noble Lady to the Government’s statement and release of information on 1st June, providing an update on the response to the Humble Address, with the relevant passage copied here for ease. The methodological note included in this publication provides a detailed overview of the information gathering process.

Scope of searches

18. In order that the Government could respond swiftly and transparently to discharge the spirit and letter of the Humble Address, search parameters were included based

on the limbs of the Humble Address motion. These were as follows:

a. Individuals in scope of the limbs of the motion seeking direct correspondence with Peter Mandelson (via email and other electronic messages) were specified as all Ministers, Pay Band 3/4 Special Advisers, Permanent Secretaries and Directors General. This was on the basis that these were the individuals most likely to have come into contact with Peter Mandelson.

b. These individuals were instructed to search their work devices and personal devices for any relevant information.

c. Minutes of meetings between those same individuals and Peter Mandelson where they were the principal attendees were requested, not where they were one member among wider cast lists (for example not including formal committee meetings such as the National Security Council).

d. Electronic messages involving Peter Mandelson that were exchanged as part of a group were requested, as well as those directly between an in-scope individual and Peter Mandelson.

19. While commissions to departments did not specifically request invitations to meetings or schedulers from individuals’ calendars, where these have been provided to the Cabinet Office Humble Address team and where relevant, they have been included in the publication.

20. Some material has been included in the publication where it does not meet the above criteria but includes content relevant to areas where Parliament has expressed a significant interest, such as Peter Mandelson’s campaign to become Chancellor of Oxford University. Material of a party political nature is included in the publication, contrary to usual practice and precedent for information ‘held’ by the Government, in order to demonstrate the maximum possible transparency.

21. Some information was deemed out of scope via the commissioning process so as to keep the returns focused on the most relevant information:

a. Obvious ephemera - for example press cuttings, out of office replies, FCDO internal corporate messaging.

b. Anything which was clearly related to the corporate management of British Embassy Washington (e.g. FCDO personnel decisions and discussions, individual performance reporting, embassy staffing and management plans, estate issues).

c. Routine Embassy business (such as consular work and copylists containing FCDO Diplomatic Telegrams, regional updates, thematic notes and briefing materials, press lines, corporate updates and newsletters).

d. Purely personal information that would not usually be considered ‘held’ by the Government (for example relating to family matters or medical information).

22. On 31 March the SRO wrote to Peter Mandelson - via his solicitors - to request any information held on his personal phone. Peter Mandelson declined to comply with this request. The Government has no further recourse to search the personal devices of Peter Mandelson.