Fact Check: Majority of Humble Addresses Submitted Without National Security Exemption

Only one in 18 Labour-proposed humble addresses contained national security exemptions, an analysis has revealed, contradicting Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s recent claims in Parliament.

During Prime Minister’s Questions on February 4, Sir Keir asserted that when Labour was in opposition, the party always included national security exemptions when drafting humble addresses. “When we were drafting humble addresses in opposition, we always made sure that that exemption was included because we knew how important it was to the then-government. I do not think I have seen a humble address without that exemption,” the Prime Minister told the Commons.

However, an investigation by the Press Association has found that out of 18 humble addresses proposed by Labour during Opposition Days between 2017 and 2024, only one contained specific wording establishing a national security exemption.

The single example featuring such an exemption was a 2022 motion that requested disclosure about Lord Evgeny Lebedev’s appointment to the House of Lords. That humble address specifically requested information “in a form which may contain redactions, but such redactions shall be solely for the purposes of national security.” Notably, this was the only proposal among the 18 that had clear national security implications.

Humble addresses, formal messages to the monarch that are considered binding if passed by Parliament, have become an increasingly important parliamentary mechanism for opposition parties seeking government transparency. Despite their current prominence, they were extremely rare before 2017, with none proposed during Opposition Days between 1992 and 2017, according to House of Commons Library data.

The Prime Minister’s comments came as the Conservative opposition prepared to move its own humble address aimed at forcing the Government to release information about Lord Peter Mandelson’s appointment as British ambassador to the United States.

The Press Association’s comprehensive analysis covered all humble addresses tabled by Labour on Opposition Days from 2015, when Sir Keir entered Parliament, through 2024, when Labour won the general election. Of these 18 motions, eight were adopted by the House while ten were rejected. Sir Keir personally moved three of them during his time as opposition leader.

The subjects of these addresses spanned numerous policy areas with varying degrees of sensitivity. Four addressed Brexit negotiations, two dealt with universal credit, and others covered topics including the Windrush scandal, healthcare policy, Covid-19 contracts, school building safety, and the Rwanda asylum scheme. None of these 17 other humble addresses contained the national security exemption language that the Prime Minister claimed was standard practice.

Humble addresses have emerged as a powerful tool for opposition parties seeking to extract information from government. Their constitutional significance lies in their status as direct communications to the monarch that, when passed by the House of Commons, create a binding obligation for the government to respond.

The discrepancy between the Prime Minister’s statement and the documented record raises questions about parliamentary accuracy at a time when the current government has emphasized the importance of transparency and factual precision in political discourse.

When the Labour Party was in opposition, it successfully used humble addresses to demand information on controversial issues, particularly during Brexit negotiations and other contentious policy debates. Now in government, Labour faces similar parliamentary tactics from opposition parties seeking accountability.

Neither Downing Street nor the Labour Party has issued clarifications regarding the Prime Minister’s statement as of publication time.