Labour’s Security Exemption Claims Scrutinized Following Parliamentary Debate

Sir Keir Starmer’s recent assertion about Labour’s consistent inclusion of national security exemptions in parliamentary motions has come under scrutiny following detailed analysis by the Press Association.

During Prime Minister’s Questions on February 4, Starmer claimed that when Labour was in opposition, the party “always made sure that [a national security] exemption was included” when drafting humble addresses in the Commons. “I do not think I have seen a humble address without that exemption,” he stated.

However, analysis of parliamentary records tells a different story. Out of 18 humble addresses proposed by Labour on Opposition Days between 2017 and 2024, only one contained explicit wording establishing a national security exemption—the motion regarding Lord Evgeny Lebedev’s appointment to the House of Lords.

The Press Association’s investigation covered the period from 2015, when Starmer first entered Parliament, through to 2024 when Labour won the general election. The analysis found that the majority of Labour’s humble addresses addressed various policy areas including Brexit, universal credit, healthcare, education, the Windrush scandal, and the Rwanda asylum scheme—none of which contained the security exemptions Starmer referenced.

Humble addresses, formal messages to the monarch that are considered binding if passed, have historically been rare in parliamentary procedure. According to House of Commons Library data, none were put forward on Opposition Days between 1992 and 2017, marking Labour’s subsequent use of the mechanism as relatively novel in modern parliamentary practice.

The Prime Minister’s comments came at a politically charged moment, as the Conservative Party was preparing to move a humble address that would compel the Government to release information about Lord Peter Mandelson’s appointment as British ambassador to the United States.

The 2022 humble address concerning Lord Lebedev stands as the exception to Labour’s practice. That motion specifically requested information “in a form which may contain redactions, but such redactions shall be solely for the purposes of national security”—language that has not appeared consistently in Labour’s other parliamentary motions.

Of the 18 humble addresses analyzed, eight were adopted by the House while ten were rejected. Starmer himself was directly responsible for moving three of these motions during his time in opposition.

The controversy highlights the increasing use of humble addresses as a parliamentary tool for opposition parties seeking to force government transparency on contentious issues. Once an obscure and rarely utilized parliamentary mechanism, humble addresses have become more common since 2017 as a means to compel the release of information that governments might otherwise withhold.

The discrepancy between the Prime Minister’s claim and the parliamentary record raises questions about the government’s commitment to consistent standards regarding national security exemptions when requesting sensitive information—a principle that appears to have been applied selectively rather than universally during Labour’s time in opposition.

The debate over security exemptions comes amid heightened scrutiny of diplomatic appointments and government transparency, reflecting broader tensions about the balance between public accountability and protecting sensitive national security information in parliamentary proceedings.