Starmer, Mandelson and parliamentary scrutiny: lessons for MPs

In the context of public loss of trust in governing institutions in today’s fragmenting media ecosystem and ‘post-truth’ world, it seems more important than ever that legislatures can hold politicians to the highest standards of candour.  

In the UK, despite the fact that the executive has powerful control of the legislature in many respects, the House of Commons has some surprisingly strong mechanisms for compelling government transparency and challenging potential dishonesty. Two key mechanisms for ensuring that parliamentarians have sufficient information about the working of government and have not been misled, both of which have been deployed in the context of the Mandelson scandal, are the ‘humble address’ and a Privileges Committee inquiry.

The humble address is an historic power for MPs to address the sovereign directly; a motion passed by a majority of members can request the King to direct his ministers to provide specific information directly to the House. Parliament has multiple scrutiny structures at its disposal, but the latest humble address – requiring the release of all communications around the appointment of Peter Mandelson – has demonstrated the power of this particular mechanism to expose the inner workings of government. Though MPs have opted not to use it this time, the cross-party Privileges Committee can be tasked by MPs with investigating people or organisations whose actions may have stopped the House from doing its job. Unusually the committee can compel MPs to give evidence and make recommendations which – if agreed by the House – can end political careers, as Boris Johnson discovered.

Transparency mechanisms are likely to see more frequent use

The humble address and Privileges Committee inquiries have, historically, been rarely used mechanisms. In part this is because their potential to hold individuals and governments to account was not well understood by parliamentarians. But it was also because both procedural devices require a majority of MPs to vote for them to be deployed. A government with a majority has usually been secure against either. But various trends suggest their use may increase.  

The first is an increasing public concern with truth in politics. In a ‘post truth’ world in which there is a decline in deference to institutions, official sources of information are questioned and politicians are increasingly distrusted, there has been a concomitant increase in the willingness of politicians to accuse each other of lying. In March 2026, in a sign of politicians’ awareness of public concern, the Welsh Senedd (almost unanimously) passed a law to make it illegal for candidates to lie during elections. Civil-society organisations are campaigning for similar legislation to be passed in Westminster. Growing public distrust makes it increasingly plausible for opposition politicians to accuse ministers of lying, and the prospect of a Privileges Committee inquiry (even if it is not agreed to) is a useful mechanism to highlight such allegations to voters.    

Our changing politics also means it is more likely that humble address and privileges referrals will succeed. The increasingly fragmented nature of parliamentary politics – particularly the development of strong groupings within parties willing to diverge from their leadership in parliament – makes it more possible for governments to be subjected to these procedural mechanisms despite having a parliamentary majority. Research has demonstrated an increasing willingness among individual backbench MPs to rebel, and they may be even more incentivised to do so if voting against scrutiny makes them look as if they are covering up for the government.  

It was in the fragmented parliamentary context of the aftermath of the Brexit referendum that Keir Starmer was able to secure a Commons majority for a humble address to access the government’s analysis of the potential impact of the UK’s departure from the EU. And despite Boris Johnson securing a sizeable majority in 2019, the level of frustration among his backbenchers meant that he was unable to resist a motion referring him to the Privileges Committee for lying to House about breaches of Covid regulations in No.10. And although Keir Starmer has seen off the opposition parties’ attempt to refer him to the Privileges Committee, with MPs rejecting the motion voted 335 to 223, he could not prevent the humble address despite his working majority of 165 votes.  

Current UK polls point to the potential for an even more fractured political landscape emerging at the next election. A party governing in this context as a minority or with some type of inter-party agreement may be even more likely to be challenged using these mechanisms – because the Commons majority required to deploy them may be easier to find.  

Transparency is important – but there are also risks and costs  

The power of MPs to hold ministers and others to account for being transparent and truthful to parliament is an extremely valuable mechanism. This is true even when the use of powers is considered and rejected – because parliamentary debates give MPs the chance to weigh the potential significance of specific accusations against political considerations. But these tools also have risks and costs which should be considered.  

In an ideal world, growing public accountability around truthfulness will encourage politicians to be scrupulously accurate in what they say to parliament. But high-profile accusations of lying will also, inevitably, reinforce the public’s cynicism about their political class; the prolonged Privileges Committee inquiry into Boris Johnson certainly cut through strongly to voters, for example.  

There is also a risk that internal investigations and the attendant media storm and political distraction they cause may lead voters to conclude that the country’s politicians are focused on the Westminster bubble rather than on fixing the problems they see in the country. And they would have a point. Had the Commons not been debating whether to subject Keir Starmer to a Privileges Committee inquiry, MPs could have spent their final sitting day before parliament was prorogued finalising the crucial details of multiple pieces of government legislation.

Humble addresses, while becoming an important mechanism for revealing government communications and documents around specific issues, also entail real costs that MPs need to bear in mind: the time and effort involved in identifying and supplying relevant material when other demands are pressing, and the potential knock-on effect of generating back-covering and defensive behaviours in the civil service and among politicians. A disinclination to record thinking in writing (or WhatsApp) lest it be revealed by a subsequent inquiry may have negative consequences for decision making and institutional memory.  

None of these costs and risks are, alone, a reason to reject the use of these important parliamentary transparency tools. But, if our changing political context makes politicians more likely to deploy them, they need to recognise the negatives and weigh them in the balance in their decision making. Meanwhile, backbenchers should continue to invest their efforts in the wider, standing system of scrutiny which remains at their disposal whether or not a majority can be found in the chamber. As the Foreign Affairs Committee’s inquiry into the Mandelson scandal is demonstrating, select committee inquiries can also be effective tools for investigating how decisions are made in government.