Kemi Badenoch, the Conservative leader, is leveraging a little-used parliamentary tactic known as a humble address to demand the release of documents linked to the appointment of Peter Mandelson as Britain’s ambassador to the United States. This move aims to unearth due diligence materials from the Cabinet Office, as well as communications between Mandelson and Morgan McSweeney, a key ally and current chief of staff at No 10.
What is a Humble Address?
A humble address is a formal parliamentary motion that can be proposed by opposition parties during designated sessions in the House of Commons. Officially, it serves as a petition to the monarch, intended to compel the government to disclose information, particularly from departments led by secretaries of state. Such motions can be debated and amended, akin to any legislation.
In the current instance, the government has introduced an amendment stipulating that all documents will be shared, barring those deemed sensitive to UK national security or international relations. If passed, humble addresses are believed to have binding authority, obliging the government to comply.
Historical Context
While humble addresses have rarely been invoked in recent history, their origins trace back to 1715, during the early days of George I’s reign, when they were employed to address perceived threats to national security. Notably, John Stuart Mill made use of this procedure in 1866 in his advocacy for women’s suffrage.
In recent years, the perception of humble addresses has evolved. Initially considered a ceremonial gesture, opposition parties have increasingly adopted them as tactical tools to extract sensitive information from the government. A pivotal moment occurred in 2017 when the then Tory government was compelled to release confidential documents concerning the economic consequences of Brexit following Labour’s use of a humble address.
Recent Utilisation and Implications
The rise of humble addresses as a political weapon has spurred both controversy and strategic manoeuvring. For example, during his tenure as Labour’s shadow Brexit secretary, Keir Starmer successfully employed a humble address to obtain security assessments related to Evgeny Lebedev’s peerage, a move that embarrassed the government and garnered support from some Conservative dissenters.
Notably, the effectiveness of humble addresses hinges on parliamentary procedure. While some, like Jacob Rees-Mogg, argue the term “binding” is not explicitly used in parliamentary texts, historical precedent suggests that such motions have generally been regarded as obligatory. The former Speaker, John Bercow, affirmed the traditional view that these motions carry weight and should be honoured by the government.
Why it Matters
Badenoch’s pursuit of transparency through a humble address highlights the ongoing tensions within British politics regarding accountability and the flow of information. As the Conservative Party faces scrutiny over its internal decisions and appointments, this tactical manoeuvre not only seeks to shed light on a controversial ambassadorial choice but also underscores a broader shift in how parliamentary procedures are employed in the quest for governmental transparency. The outcome of this initiative could have lasting implications for both the Conservative leadership and the dynamics of opposition strategy in Parliament.
