Mandelson disclosures: What is a humble address and why are the Tories using one?

Kemi Badenoch hopes parliamentary procedure will release documents relating to ambassador’s appointment

Kemi Badenoch is using an arcane parliamentary procedure known as a humble address to try to compel the government to release documents relating to the appointment of Peter Mandelson as Britain’s ambassador to the US.

The Conservative leader’s aim is to secure the release of documents including the due diligence work carried out by the Cabinet Office, and emails between Mandelson and Morgan McSweeney, an ally of the former peer who is now chief of staff at No 10.

What is a humble address?

It is a motion sometimes tabled by the opposition on a day in the House of Commons allocated for the discussion of subjects chosen by non-government parties.

Officially a petition to the monarch, which can be used as a way of extracting something from the government, it is used for reasons including calling for papers from departments headed by a secretary of state.

It can be debated, amended and voted on like any other motion. In the case of the one put forward this week, the government has added an amendment stating that all documents would be published “except papers prejudicial to UK national security or international relations”.

If agreed, humble addresses are understood to be binding on the house.

What is their history?

Humble addresses have rarely been used over the past 200 years, but were deployed as far back as 1715, during the first parliament of George I, to address what its proponents viewed as national security fears “abetted and encouraged by treasonable practices at home, in favour of a Popish Pretender”.

John Stuart Mill, a liberal philosopher and MP, used a humble address in 1866 as part of the campaign to extend votes to women.

Have they become more frequent?

While originally regarded as a polite, ceremonial message, one view is that they have been politically weaponised in recent years by opposition parties looking for procedural back doors to force the release of sensitive documents.

A key moment came in 2017 when the Tory-led government conceded that it had to share dozens of previously confidential documents assessing the economic impact of Brexit after Labour used a humble address demanding their release.

Its use resulted in criticism that Labour was trying to drag the queen into the Brexit debate, but humble addresses were used again on occasions in 2018 and 2019, again for Brexit-related reasons.

In opposition, Keir Starmer used one in 2022 to force the publication of security advice relating to Evgeny Lebedev’s peerage, humiliating the government by attracting the support of Tory rebels.

How powerful are they?

Starmer, who was Labour’s shadow Brexit secretary when he tabled a humble address in November 2017 seeking the release of economic impact assessments, told the House of Commons debate at the time: “We believe this is a binding motion.”

The former Tory MP Jacob Rees-Mogg noted that Erskine May – the guide to parliamentary practice – does not use the word “binding” but states that each House of Commons member has the power to call for the production of papers by means of a motion for a return. “Power is something pretty forceful, and is much more than just an expression of will,” he added.

The then speaker, John Bercow, concluded: “Motions of this kind have traditionally been regarded as binding or effective. Consistent with that established pattern, I would expect the vice-chamberlain of the household to present the humble address in the usual way.”

The passing of a motion for a return also raises the prospect of the government being held in contempt of parliament if it does not abide by the resolution.

A November 2017 blog post by Andrew Defty of the University of Lincoln noted Labour’s repeated use of the procedure, and how the government at the time sought to place pressure on Labour’s tactic by writing to the privileges committee to ask it to consider whether it was appropriate. Now in opposition, it is the Tories themselves who are turning to the procedure.