News

A Humble Address: How MPs confronted the Mandelson scandal - Parliament Matters podcast, Episode 130

6 Feb 2026
Image © UK Embassy to USA / House of Commons
Image © UK Embassy to USA / House of Commons

It has been a bruising week for the Prime Minister after the House of Commons backed a Conservative “Humble Address” demanding documents on Sir Keir Starmer’s vetting of Lord Mandelson for the Washington Ambassadorship. We explain how the procedure works, what role the Intelligence and Security Committee may play in decisions on disclosure, and how legislation to strip a peerage could be introduced. Plus, the latest on the Restoration and Renewal of Parliament as yet another report lands with a new set of costings.

Listen and subscribe: Apple Podcasts · Spotify · Acast · YouTube · Other apps · RSS

The humble address – a procedural device revived by Sir Keir Starmer himself during the Brexit years – operates like a “parliamentary can-opener”, and in this case sharply intensified the pressure on the Prime Minister as Labour MPs signalled support for the Conservative Party's motion.

We unpack the debate’s twists and turns, including a manuscript amendment that called for Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee to be involved in assessing the Government’s proposed national security redactions after MPs warned the government’s original plan of leaving it to the Cabinet Secretary looked like “marking your own homework”.

We explain how the Intelligence and Security Committee says the disclosure process should work. We also examine how police interest may complicate publication and ask whether the “traitorous” language used in the Commons about Lord Mandelson could have consequences if any criminal proceedings follow. Then we examine the thorny constitutional problem of revoking a peerage, contrast it with removal from the Privy Council, and consider whether legislation could open the door to future political misuse.

Finally, we turn to the latest Restoration and Renewal report on the crumbling Palace of Westminster – yet another “Groundhog Day” moment – setting out the familiar conclusion that full decant remains the fastest, safest, and most cost-effective option, and discuss why the politicians will hesitate over the eye-watering numbers and the politics of moving out.

Watch on our YouTube channel (captioned)

Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Resources

Transcript

Please note, this transcript is automatically generated. There may consequently be minor errors and the text is not formatted according to our style guide. If you wish to reference or cite the transcript copy below, please first check against the audio version above.

Intro: [00:00:00] You are listening to Parliament Matters, a Hansard Society production supported by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust. Learn more at hansardsociety.org.uk/pm.

Ruth Fox: Welcome to Parliament Matters, the podcast about the institution at the heart of our democracy, Parliament itself. I'm Ruth Fox.

Mark D'Arcy: And I'm Mark D'Arcy. And coming up this week.

Ruth Fox: Power, plutocracy, pimping and peerages.

Mark D'Arcy: Should there be a way to defrock errant peers?

Ruth Fox: And groundhog day in the ongoing saga of how and when to save Parliament's crumbling buildings.

Mark D'Arcy: And Ruth, what a week it's been. This has been the week so far of Peter Mandelson in Parliament, and not in a good way. Peter Mandelson, the twice resigned cabinet minister, forced to resign again as [00:01:00] Britain's Ambassador to Washington. Let me correct myself. He didn't resign for the third time. He was in fact sacked, but there's three top level jobs that he's lost during his long career.

Peter Mandelson has been causing all sorts of difficulties for Sir Keir Starmer's government. Should they have appointed someone who turned out to have close links to the paedophile and financier, Jeffrey Epstein. Should he have been more closely scrutinised? Should he not have been given the job at all? What did Sir Keir Starmer know about his relationship with Epstein and when did he know it? Full transcript →

Subscribe to Parliament Matters

Use the links below to subscribe to the Hansard Society's Parliament Matters podcast on your preferred app, or search for 'Parliament Matters' on whichever podcasting service you use. If you are unable to find our podcast, please email us here.

Apple Podcast logo

Apple

©

YouTube Podcasts

Spotify logo

Spotify

More ways to subscribe
Parliament Matters homepage

Latest / Highlights

News / Parliament Matters Bulletin: What’s coming up in Parliament this week? 23-27 March 2026

The Prime Minister will face questions from the Liaison Committee, comprising Select Committee chairs. The Conservatives will choose the topic for Tuesday’s Opposition Day debate, while the Home Secretary and the Energy and Transport Secretaries will take oral questions from MPs. The Commons will consider Lords amendments to the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, National Insurance Bill, and Victims and Courts Bill, and will continue Committee Stage scrutiny of elections legislation. In the Lords, the Pension Schemes and the Crime and Policing Bills will complete their final stages, while Peers continue scrutiny of the English Devolution Bill. MPs will also debate an e-petition on the puberty blockers trial. Select Committees will focus on child poverty, dynamic alignment, the Defence Investment Plan, energy resilience, national resilience, and Royal Mail service delivery.

22 Mar 2026
Read more

News / Who really decides Immigration Rules: Parliament or the Home Secretary? - Parliament Matters podcast, Episode 137

Who really controls immigration law when Ministers can rewrite key rules with minimal parliamentary scrutiny? Jonathan Featonby of the Refugee Council explains the Home Secretary’s far-reaching powers over Immigration Rules. We also discuss the Crime and Policing Bill, where amendments on AI and abortion highlight the challenges posed by rushed law-making and executive overreach. And we look ahead to the next phase of the assisted dying debate, as supporters in the House of Commons prepare for a renewed legislative push in the next parliamentary Session. Listen and subscribe: Apple Podcasts · Spotify · Acast · YouTube · Other apps · RSS

20 Mar 2026
Read more

News / Jury trials under threat? The Courts and Tribunals Bill explained - Parliament Matters podcast, Episode 136

Plans to restrict the right to a jury trial have cleared their Second Reading in the Commons, but the proposals in the Courts and Tribunals Bill face growing resistance, including from Labour rebels. We discuss the legal and constitutional implications with barrister Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, examining what the reforms could mean for defendants’ rights and the criminal courts system. We also assess the passage of legislation removing hereditary Peers from Parliament, and the late compromise that eased opposition in the House of Lords. Meanwhile Sir Lindsay Hoyle clashes with the Chief Whip over delays in the division lobby, and newly released papers on Peter Mandelson’s Washington appointment raise fresh political questions. Listen and subscribe: Apple Podcasts · Spotify · Acast · YouTube · Other apps · RSS

13 Mar 2026
Read more

Briefings / Last-minute powers and limited scrutiny: Parliament and the risks of consigning online safety law to delegated legislation

Two late-stage government amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill and the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill would grant Ministers significant powers to reshape key parts of the Online Safety Act through delegated legislation. While the policy goals may attract support, the method raises serious constitutional concerns about parliamentary scrutiny and accountability. Using these amendments as a case study, this briefing explores the risks of relying on regulations to make policy and explains how the Hansard Society’s proposed reforms to the delegated legislation scrutiny system could better balance governmental flexibility with democratic oversight.

09 Mar 2026
Read more

News / Is the assisted dying bill being filibustered? - Parliament Matters podcast, Episode 135

Debate over the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill has been so slow in the House of Lords that opponents of the Bill are accused of deliberately running down the clock. Conservative Peer Lord Harper rejects claims of filibustering, arguing that Peers are undertaking necessary scrutiny of a flawed and complex bill. He contends the legislation lacks adequate safeguards and was unsuited to the Private Member’s Bill process and discusses whether MPs might attempt to revive it in a future parliamentary Session. Listen and subscribe: Apple Podcasts · Spotify · Acast · YouTube · Other apps · RSS

10 Mar 2026
Read more

Categories

Themes

Contact

Legal

Fundraising Regulator logo