2.4 – The ways in which Parliament interacts with the Executive
Last week, the Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, was hit by a political tsunami following revelations about Peter Mandelson. Across the week, and following the US Department of Justice’s publication of the Epstein Files, it was alleged that not only had Mandelson maintained a close relationship with Epstein following his conviction for serious sexual offences, he also forwarded confidential and sensitive documents to Epstein.
In Parliament, pressure was placed on Keir Starmer to disclose precisely what he knew about Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. During Prime Minister’s Questions, there were audible gasps when Starmer confirmed that the official security vetting carried out on Mandelson prior to his appointment as UK Ambassador to the US had mentioned Mandelson’s ongoing relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.
Wednesday was an Opposition Day in the Commons. The Conservatives used this opportunity to try to force the government to disclose the files relating to the appointment of Peter Mandelson. This was to be done by using a Humble Address motion. This is an address asking the Monarch for something. As the government acts in the Monarch’s name, any vote in favour of a Humble Address is seen as a binding instruction to the government. If a government ignored a Humble Address motion, the House of Commons could then vote to hold it in contempt – a position no government wants to be in.
Initially, the government attempted to table an amendment to the Humble Address that would allow the release of the papers but with an exemption for anything that might relate to national security or harm Britain’s diplomatic relationships with other states. MPs immediately raised concerns that this could allow the Prime Minister to avoid disclosing embarrassing information under the guise of national security. As the debate was held in Parliament, it became very clear that many Labour MPs were angry about this plan. Most notably, Angela Rayner, the former Deputy Prime Minister, made it clear that she would not support the government’s amendment. As the afternoon developed, it became clear that Starmer was going to have to backtrack. A compromise agreement was reached between the government and opposition whips that would see the documents given to the Intelligence and Security Committee. This committee is a Joint Committee, made up of both the Commons and Lords and acts as an independent body from government. The ISC will decide on what information should be released, redacted or withheld from publication.
Again, this debacle has shown the weaknesses of the government and managing situations. It has again led to question marks being placed against the competency and judgement of Keir Starmer, at a time when his political authority has clearly been dwindling.