Lord Mandelson: Government Response to Humble Address

(Urgent Question): To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the Government’s approach to redacting or withholding documents within scope of the Humble Address agreed by the House on 4 February 2026.

As I have set out to this House on previous occasions, the Government are working to comply with the motion passed in February. I can reassure the House that this remains the case, and I can provide the following update today.

The Government confirmed before Prorogation that we had referred more than 300 documents to the Intelligence and Security Committee. At the time, that represented all the documents in scope of the motion where the Government believed that publication would be prejudicial to UK national security or international relations. The Government have repeatedly assessed all the documents we have collected to make sure that all of those that need to be referred to the ISC are referred to the Committee. As part of this quality control process, the Government identified a small number of further documents that we felt should be reviewed by the ISC, and we immediately submitted those documents to the Committee. As Friday’s statement from the Committee set out, it has now considered all those documents.

As I have previously said to the House, the Government will be publishing a second tranche of material. This is currently being finalised and will be one of the largest Government publications ever laid in this House. That is reflective of the breadth of the motion, and also the Government’s commitment to transparency in responding to it. It constitutes a very significant disclosure exercise involving sensitive material from across Government. The Government have taken seriously our obligations to comply with the Humble Address in full, while also upholding other public interest issues, such as our duty of care to junior staff. The Government have carried out this work according to a robust process, with assurance from an independent KC.

Given that the House is due to rise on Thursday, and given the length of the publication, the second tranche will now be published after Whitsun recess to give the House sufficient time to review the material and to be able to ask me and the Government questions. It could have been published this Thursday, but I felt that the House would have deemed that to be inappropriate, given that it will be such a significant publication. [Interruption.] To refer back to my previous comments, this will be the largest publication—other than, I think, the Chilcot inquiry report—ever published to the House.

Order. Minister, you have been in the House for some time. Ministers have three minutes to respond to an urgent question, and it is over three and a half minutes now. I was not given notice of extra time being needed, and other people would obviously need to know that, too. I set out the rules of the House, and we should adhere to them. We have broken them once again, and we have only been back a few days.

Forgive me, Mr Speaker. In that case, I will sit down and provide further detail in answer to questions from Members.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question, and I thank the Minister for what he has said. As you and the House know, the Intelligence and Security Committee has been considering redactions to documents on the grounds that, if unredacted, those documents may prejudice national security or international relations. It has become apparent to us that the Government also intend to redact documents for other reasons not specifically permitted in the Humble Address or, in some cases, to withhold documents altogether.

As the Minister says, the Government issued a list of further grounds on which they intended to redact along with the first tranche of documents that they published. Those grounds include email addresses, phone numbers and what is described as personal data. There is no mechanism for the House to confirm that those redactions are limited only to what is necessary, but I want to ask the Minister about material that the Government intend to withhold for yet further reasons, such as commercial confidentiality or to protect the monarch. The Government also intend to withhold some documents related to vetting in their entirety.

I should make it clear that my Committee has considerable sympathy with the substantive arguments that the Government may make for withholding information beyond that currently justified in the Humble Address. There are, for example, valid concerns about the disclosure of information given in a vetting process inhibiting future subjects of vetting, or those who are asked about them, from being as open and forthcoming as they need to be for vetting to be effective. However, we cannot accept that the Government are entitled to ignore, or unilaterally alter, the terms of the Humble Address.

Does the Minister accept that if the Government want to argue that the Humble Address is too broad as drafted and needs to be refined, they must come to the House and make that argument, and secure the House’s consent to any alteration? Does he further accept that without doing so, when the next set of documents is published with information withheld, the Government will not succeed in persuading the House or the wider world that this matter is closed? Finally, does he accept that if the Government took it upon themselves to redact or withhold information contrary to the terms of the Humble Address by which they agreed to be bound in February, that would be an issue not just of process, but of parliamentary sovereignty?

In response to the questions from the right hon. and learned Gentleman about compliance with the Humble Address, I refer him to the statement that I have made previously in relation to the principles set out in legislation and the motions of the House.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman was, I think, asking me specifically about personal data that was collected as part of the security vetting process. As I think he suggested, the raw data that is collected as part of those investigations—perhaps relating to how much money someone has in a particular account, or with whom that person may have had a personal relationship in the past—would never be published, because if we did so, people would feel unable to answer those questions honestly and frankly in any UK security vetting investigation in the future, which would undermine the very basis of our national security system.

I call the Chair of the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy.

My first concern is about the number of WhatsApp and other channels that have been used for very informal but important communications between officials and Ministers—a practice that seems to have started very actively under the Johnson Government and continued thereafter. My second concern is about the use of low-level IT systems for quite serious documents of record. Can the Minister update the House on what is being done to tighten up those important channels?

I share those concerns as well as similar concerns that have been raised by the Intelligence and Security Committee, not only about the extensive use of what we call non-corporate communications channels but about information that should have been on a higher level of classification that was shared at “official sensitive”. I have already announced to the House the imminent start of a review of the use of non-corporate communications channels, and I shall be taking further action to ensure that sensitive information is shared at the appropriate classification.

I call the shadow Minister.

The House gave the Government a clear instruction that the only documents that could be redacted were those that might prejudice UK national security or international relations, and all those documents were to be referred to the Intelligence and Security Committee, so for my incredibly respected right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) to say that the Government have applied redactions to documents sent to the ISC, beyond the scope agreed by the House, and have also withheld documents entirely from the ISC, is an extremely serious matter that completely undermines what the House agreed. There may be legitimate reasons why the Government do not want to place certain matters in the public domain, but if the Humble Address motion does not allow for redaction on those grounds, the Government cannot just unilaterally decide to ignore the will of the House.

Sadly, this pattern of backsliding fits a pattern of behaviour. The Prime Minister’s chief of staff had to resign over the Mandelson scandal, but apparently he is already back and advising the Prime Minister. We forced the Government to hold an inquiry into the grooming gangs, but then they sabotaged it and dragged their feet for a whole year. We said that it needed to be harder to obtain indefinite leave to remain; the Home Secretary said she would do it, but Labour Back Benchers did not like it, and now it is not in the King’s Speech. Again and again, as soon as attention moves elsewhere, the Government start backsliding.

We now expect the Government to discuss their approach to the Humble Address constructively, and we would welcome such discussions. Let me therefore ask the Minister some questions. Now that the ISC has reviewed all the documents, when will the Government release all the rest of the Mandelson files? The Minister has said “after Whitsun”; when after Whitsun? Will the Government return to the House to ask permission for the redactions that they clearly wish to make which go beyond the scope of the Humble Address? Will the Minister brief Opposition Members, on Privy Council terms, about the broader redactions that the Government clearly wish to make?

I take these matters very seriously, as I am sure Members across the House would recognise, and I will not for one instant countenance the idea that, as loud as the hon. Gentleman may want to shout it, there is a cover-up. If there was any suggestion of a cover-up, I would not be standing at this Dispatch Box to defend the process; I would resign. That has not been the case, and I suggest the hon. Gentleman may want to focus on the substance of the matter at hand.

On the questions the hon. Gentleman has put to me, I have answered them in the statement and in my answer to the deputy Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, and I refer him to my previous answers.

I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

I rise to support the ISC in its carefully considered concerns, and I am disappointed at the answer that the Government have given. It seems to me that one of the questions on the Mandelson appointment is: why, when the United Kingdom Security Vetting document had two red boxes ticked, including “This man should not be appointed”, was that somehow or other translated into “He should be appointed”?

It is very important that the public know and understand that we are learning from the mistakes that were clearly made, and we cannot know that lessons have been learned unless the documents are checked. My Committee and the ISC are trying our best to get to the truth, and we are having obstacles put in our way. For that reason, I believe that the ISC should be allowed to look at the file, with proper redactions, to understand how mitigations could be put in place to make us safe when it came to the appointment of Peter Mandelson.

To confirm, the documents that relate to the recommendation put to the Foreign Office and the Foreign Office’s decision to appoint Peter Mandelson irrespective of the recommendation that was put to it have been referred to the Intelligence and Security Committee. What has not been referred is the raw data collected as part of interviews undertaken with Peter Mandelson, which in any circumstances we would not share in relation to any appointment. I confirm that neither I nor any decision maker in this process has seen that level of personal detail, because it is kept so securely to ensure that, when people go through this process, they feel able to give full and frank answers, without a wide range of politicians or others seeing their deeply personal information.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.