Five questions left unanswered by the Mandelson files

A second batch of papers relating to Lord Mandelson's time as UK ambassador to the US was published on Monday.

It comes after MPs voted to release the documents in February, aiming to reveal behind-the scenes-discussions about how he was appointed to the role.

The peer was sacked from the job last year following revelations in the United States about the extent of his relationship with the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

The document release totalled more than 1,500 pages. But some questions about the appointment remain unanswered.

The files contain more than 160 pages of messages and WhatsApps between Lord Mandelson and government ministers and officials.

But the disclosure did not include information from the peer's personal phone, after he declined a request from officials to hand it over.

We have not seen messages from Morgan McSweeney, Sir Keir Starmer's former chief of staff, who resigned following Lord Mandelson's sacking after mounting scrutiny over his role in pushing for the peer's appointment.

McSweeney reported his government phone had been stolen last year, and police say the device has not been recovered.

That means McSweeney has not been able to provide all his messages, although it is understood he has provided some of his messages to Lord Mandelson to the Cabinet Office, possibly from his personal phone.

Cabinet Office Minister Nick Thomas-Symonds has also said his personal phone was stolen last year. He says the device would have also contained messages with the peer. An ally has said he has shared details of the messages he could recall.

Some messages published by the government have been redacted for reasons of national security, or to protect the UK's diplomatic relations, so we don't know what those messages say.

The government has said Lord Mandelson was granted security clearance for the role by the Foreign Office, against the recommendation of United Kingdom Security Vetting (UKSV), which vetted him for the role.

Downing Street has said neither the prime minister nor any other government minister was aware of this at the time.

We had already seen a blank template version of UKSV's vetting form, published by the Cabinet Office, showing three tick boxes - green, amber and red - where officials can record their view on whether clearance should be given.

But the second batch of documents published on Thursday did not contain a copy of Lord Mandelson's vetting form.

Nor did it contain a document summarising his vetting, which is understood to be nine pages long.

A first tranche of documents, published in March, included a blank template sent to Mandelson for him to make a declaration of interests, but we have not learned any further details in these second set of papers.

The completed declaration of interest form, including details on conflict of interests and any action agreed to address any conflicts, also does not appear.