The documents published across the first and second tranches represent the entirety of the material held by the Government available for disclosure, with the exception of those documents withheld exclusively at the request of the Metropolitan Police. To avoid prejudicing active law enforcement inquiries, it would be inappropriate to comment on whether specific individual items of correspondence form part of the material withheld by the police.

The Government recognises that, under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (VCDR), the premises of a diplomatic mission are inviolable. The UK complies with its international obligations under the VCDR. Where appropriate, law enforcement authorities may seek a waiver of inviolability from the sending State through established diplomatic channels.

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’

I refer the Noble Lady 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 passage copied here for ease. The methodological note included in this publication provides a detailed overview of the information gathering process.

Scope of searches

18. In order that the Government could respond swiftly and transparently to discharge the spirit and letter of the Humble Address, search parameters were included based

on the limbs of the Humble Address motion. These were as follows:

a. Individuals in scope of the limbs of the motion seeking direct correspondence with Peter Mandelson (via email and other electronic messages) were specified as all Ministers, Pay Band 3/4 Special Advisers, Permanent Secretaries and Directors General. This was on the basis that these were the individuals most likely to have come into contact with Peter Mandelson.

b. These individuals were instructed to search their work devices and personal devices for any relevant information.

c. Minutes of meetings between those same individuals and Peter Mandelson where they were the principal attendees were requested, not where they were one member among wider cast lists (for example not including formal committee meetings such as the National Security Council).

d. Electronic messages involving Peter Mandelson that were exchanged as part of a group were requested, as well as those directly between an in-scope individual and Peter Mandelson.

19. While commissions to departments did not specifically request invitations to meetings or schedulers from individuals’ calendars, where these have been provided to the Cabinet Office Humble Address team and where relevant, they have been included in the publication.

20. Some material has been included in the publication where it does not meet the above criteria but includes content relevant to areas where Parliament has expressed a significant interest, such as Peter Mandelson’s campaign to become Chancellor of Oxford University. Material of a party political nature is included in the publication, contrary to usual practice and precedent for information ‘held’ by the Government, in order to demonstrate the maximum possible transparency.

21. Some information was deemed out of scope via the commissioning process so as to keep the returns focused on the most relevant information:

a. Obvious ephemera - for example press cuttings, out of office replies, FCDO internal corporate messaging.

b. Anything which was clearly related to the corporate management of British Embassy Washington (e.g. FCDO personnel decisions and discussions, individual performance reporting, embassy staffing and management plans, estate issues).

c. Routine Embassy business (such as consular work and copylists containing FCDO Diplomatic Telegrams, regional updates, thematic notes and briefing materials, press lines, corporate updates and newsletters).

d. Purely personal information that would not usually be considered ‘held’ by the Government (for example relating to family matters or medical information).

22. On 31 March the SRO wrote to Peter Mandelson - via his solicitors - to request any information held on his personal phone. Peter Mandelson declined to comply with this request. The Government has no further recourse to search the personal devices of Peter Mandelson.

I refer the Noble Baroness to the answer provided on 8 September in response to Question 26855 which is copied below:

All Ambassadors Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary accredited to the Court of St James's are Ambassadors to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

The UK takes the threat from the Russian State extremely seriously. The UK has revoked accreditation from or declared persona non grata numerous Russian diplomats, either to target and dismantle Russian intelligence gathering operations in the UK, or as reciprocal action when British diplomats are expelled under baseless accusations.

The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office does not collect statistics relating specifically to border control measures implemented in overseas jurisdiction.

The Government recognises that, under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (VCDR), diplomatic bags and certain diplomatic consignments are afforded specific immunities. The UK complies with its international obligations under the VCDR, and there are long-established rules concerning the use of diplomatic consignments which we expect all states to adhere to. Relevant authorities continually assess and manage the risks of misuse of diplomatic privileges, including for the unlawful importation of prohibited weapons.

The United States embassy has confirmed that it has recalled a member of staff to the United States due to an investigation in the United States. The Metropolitan Police was notified on 25 August and remains in contact with US law enforcement. It is inappropriate for me to comment further during a live investigation, but I expect all diplomats in the United Kingdom to respect our laws, and any breach is treated seriously.

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of reports that US officials removed a US diplomat who was accused of possessing indecent images of children from UK soil in August without informing UK authorities.

With respect to the noble Baroness, I would not conflate the two cases; there are different issues at hand. As I have said, the United States has recalled the individual back to the United States, informed the Metropolitan Police, which is investigating and co-operating on whether there are issues that it needs to investigate and examine. There is a protocol between the United States and others. In relation to the Harry Dunn case, may I just say that that that was under the last Government? There was an investigation. There have been 12 recommendations made. We intend to accept all those recommendations. We are looking as to how we can update the family of Harry Dunn, which we will do by the end of this year. I assure the noble Baroness that we take these matters seriously and the Metropolitan Police is examining and discussing with the embassy what the circumstances were.

I am very grateful to the Minister for his last sentence. Unfortunately, it is exactly the same as the Government said in 2019 when Anne Sacoolas killed Harry Dunn in a road collision and the US authorities spirited her out of the country, saying that she had diplomatic immunity. Can the Minister explain what the Government are doing to ensure that the USA Government abide by the rules that the USA insists other countries have to follow when crimes are committed by foreign diplomats there? Have the US authorities agreed that the Met Police can now interview the suspect and investigate any other evidence of this crime?

With due respect to the noble Lord, the details of the reasons why the individual was recalled to the United States are still under discussion. The Metropolitan Police was informed that that there was a US investigation relating to indecent images of children, but the offences are now being investigated and the individual has been recalled to the United States. The Metropolitan Police is examining and co-operating and discussing with the US authorities. I also say to the noble Lord that, on the previous case he mentioned, this Government looked at the lessons learned, have accepted all 12 recommendations, will implement all 12 recommendations and will write to the family by the end of this year on progress on that implementation.

My Lords, further to what the Minister said about the review which was carried out by Dame Anne Owers, she concluded that the FCO missed multiple opportunities to influence the US Government and failed to treat that case as a priority. HMG—this HMG, not the last one—said that lessons will be learned from that review and from the Sacoolas case and applied to future cases, so with great respect to the Minister, the Sacoolas case is highly relevant.

As I have said to the House already, the Metropolitan Police was informed by the US authorities on 25 August of a US investigation relating to indecent images of children. As a result of the investigation, a member of US embassy personnel who was at that point based in London was recalled to the United States, where the investigation is focused. Senior officials, and indeed Ministers—in this case, a Minister in the Foreign Office—have discussed the case with senior diplomats in the US embassy to ensure that maximum co-operation occurs with UK law enforcement. Again, the Metropolitan Police is in contact with US law enforcement partners as investigations continue. The important point I would make to the noble Lord is that the US investigation relating to indecent images of children is ongoing in the United States, and that is the key point to this item before the House today.

My Lords, it has been reported that the Metropolitan Police was informed by American authorities only after they had removed the diplomat from British soil. Can the Minister tell the House exactly when the Government were made aware of the allegations, when they were informed of the diplomat’s removal and whether that sequence of events breached any protocol governing co-operation between British and American authorities on serious criminal allegations?

I refer the Noble Lord to the answers given on this matter by the former Prime Minister on 22 April 2026 at Prime Minister's Questions, Official Report, Column 314, copied below:

"Matthew Doyle worked for many years in public service for me as Prime Minister and other Ministers. When people leave roles in any organisation, there are often conversations about other roles that they want to apply for, but nothing came of this."

I refer the Hon Member to the Government’s statement and release of information on 1 June 2026 in response to the Humble Address, in particular the section entitled 'Government methodology in complying with the Humble Address' in the document laid before Parliament.