Business of the House

Jeremy Wright Excerpts

Thursday 23rd April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Since I was brought into that question, I just want to add that the Leader of the House is absolutely correct. We are almost there, and almost ready to bring it forward.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)]

With your indulgence, Mr Speaker, I want to raise three points with the Leader of the House about the operation of the Humble Address agreed by the House on 4 February. I make clear that I do so on behalf of the Intelligence and Security Committee. First, I invite the Leader of the House to confirm that under the terms of the Humble Address, no one within Government has the right to withhold, deny or not disclose the existence of any document within the scope of the Humble Address.

Secondly, as the Leader of the House knows, the exemptions set out in the Humble Address that relate to the Intelligence and Security Committee are about redactions that need to be made to protect either national security or international relations. Beyond that, the Government produced a document to go along with the first disclosure of material on 11 March, which set out a number of grounds on which the Government would also seek to redact information. If you will permit me, Mr Speaker, I will quote what they are. The document mentions

“Individuals’ email addresses and phone numbers; the identities of junior civil servants; personal data of third parties where this is not in scope of the motion; and legal professional privilege.”

It also makes reference to a

“small amount of Peter Mandelson’s personal data”,

and then says that

“It may also be necessary for the government to make further redactions in future publications based on other public interest principles, including commercially sensitive information.”

I invite the Leader of the House to confirm that if the Government intend to do so, they need to come to this House to explain what those grounds for redaction will be, because—as I hope he will agree—they are not covered by the terms of the Humble Address as it stands. It is important that the House has the chance to validate the Government’s view that further redactions would be appropriate.

My third point is about redactions on grounds other than national security or international relations. As the Leader of the House knows, the Committee I am part of is going through documents now to confirm that the redactions the Government propose to make are appropriate on the grounds of national security or international relations, but no one is doing the same work in relation to redactions that the Government seek to make for other reasons. Should they not be, and should there not be an opportunity for someone in this House to look at the unredacted versions of those documents, to confirm that the redactions the Government are seeking to make are appropriate?

[Sir Alan Campbell]

First, I place on record our gratitude to the Intelligence and Security Committee for its time and its consideration of the large number of documents that it is reviewing. Further documents have been gathered, and the Government are working at pace to ensure that the ISC has all the relevant documentation as soon as possible. On Tuesday 21 April, the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister committed to the House that

“we will release that further material shortly, subject to the processes ongoing with the Metropolitan police”—

which I know the right hon. and learned Gentleman understands—

“and the Intelligence and Security Committee, and we will continue to keep Members updated as we make progress.”—[Official Report, 21 April 2026; Vol. 784, c. 235.]

The Prime Minister has been very clear that he expects us to make progress as quickly as possible, but as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, there are literally mountains of documents to wade through.

As for what the ISC was asked to do, I do not believe that that has fundamentally changed. My view, which I have expressed in one of these sessions, is that the Government would be wise to get as much information as possible out as quickly as possible, and to do as little redaction as possible. However, if I have understood him correctly, the right hon. and learned Gentleman raises an interesting question about what the Government have subsequently said about what they might or might not do. I want to go away and think about that, because from what he has said—and I trust him absolutely on these matters—it does seem somewhat at odds. Were the Government to change those terms, I would expect them to come to this House and do so.