Question to the Cabinet Office:

To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by the Minister for the Cabinet Office on 9 June (HC5972), whether the email addresses that were redacted by the Cabinet Office in relation to the email on 18 June 2025 at 08.18 BST were (1) corporate email addresses, (2) Labour Party email addresses, or (3) other non-corporate email addresses, in relation to (a) Morgan McSweeney, and (b) Lord Mandelson.

I refer 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 passages copied below for ease. The methodological note included in this publication provides a detailed overview of the redaction process.

Redactions

33. It is a longstanding practice across successive administrations that, when the Government responds to a Humble Address motion, it has a responsibility to consider whether it is in the public interest to place certain information into the public domain. In line with practice across successive administrations, this is done using the principles of the Freedom of Information Act, and in line with the Ministerial Code and the resolutions on ministerial accountability, passed by both Houses in 1997 which state that "ministers should be as open as possible with Parliament, refusing to provide information only when disclosure would not be in the public interest, which should be decided in accordance with relevant statute."

34. As set out above, the Government’s overriding priority in responding to the Humble Address has been to respond fully, transparently and swiftly in order to meet the will of the House. Clearly, the scale of the Humble Address disclosure goes far beyond any usual Freedom of Information Act or other transparency request. However, the principles the Freedom of Information Act sets out have been used by previous administrations when responding to such motions - for example when responding to Humble Addresses relating to Randox and the Westferry Printworks. That means that, outside the process for managing papers prejudicial to UK national security or international relations, a number of targeted, specific redactions have been made in order to prevent real-world harms.

35. Specifically, these targeted redactions are in order to protect:

a. Individuals’ email addresses and phone numbers;

b. The identities of junior civil servants;

c. Third party data - including the personal or commercially sensitive data of third parties not relevant to the motion; and

d. Legal professional privilege.

36. A small amount of Peter Mandelson’s personal data has also been redacted: his signature and the location of his home.

37. In the interests of transparency, third party individuals who are considered to be public figures have been named. Third parties who have a reasonable expectation of privacy, because they are not public figures, have not been named. No references to current or former UK politicians have been redacted on the basis of their being third parties. Publication of the names of political figures from countries other than the USA has been limited to world leaders.

38. There has been particular public interest in information involving Global Counsel and Palantir. No redactions have been made to references to Global Counsel, other than to protect the privacy of individuals who are not public figures - their connection to Global Counsel has been made clear in those emails. References to Palantir and Anduril have only been redacted in cases where the redaction has been agreed with the ISC, i.e. on the grounds of being information that is prejudicial to UK national security or international relations.

39. Some company names other than Global Counsel and Palantir have been redacted where this is not relevant to the motion. The Government does not consider it to be in the interests of the taxpayer to damage the Government’s relationship with companies, to damage ongoing Government commercial negotiations, or to potentially damage those companies’ commercial prospects, if they are not relevant to the motion.

40. Where material that has been submitted to the Cabinet Office Humble Address team is already in the public domain, no redactions have been applied to that material.

41. The redaction process has been overseen by the Cabinet Office and, where relevant, in conjunction with the ISC. No Government Minister or Special Adviser has determined any of the redactions.

42. The following labels have been used for redactions in Volume II:

a. Redactions made with the agreement of the ISC have been labelled with asterisks ‘(***)’

b. All email addresses and phone numbers have been redacted with the label ‘PERSONAL’ c. A small amount of personal data contained in the body of documents has also been redacted with the label ‘PERSONAL’

d. All junior civil servants’ names have been redacted with the label ‘JCS’

e. Third party material not relevant to the motion and relating to individuals who are not public figures have been redacted with the label ‘THIRD PARTY’

f. Information relating to companies, where disclosure of the information would be commercially damaging, has been redacted with the label ‘THIRD PARTY’

g. Material attracting legal professional privilege has been redacted with the label ‘LPP’