Inside the Lords: Mandelson furore, threats to parliamentary democracy, decriminalising abortion
In her first Inside the Lords of 2026, Claire Fox argues that Labour should be under far more pressure over its numerous failings in government than the Epstein affair.
My first Inside the Lords of 2026, and what a lot has happened. The government is forging an increasingly illiberal path, neglecting voters real concerns (even cancelling local elections), and scandalising democratic procedure in parliament. Watch below.
This week, the spotlight has been on Peter Mandelson and Keir Starmer’s wilful neglect of his history with Epstein. Yet, even with the foundations of Starmer’s premiership looking ever shakier, should we allow Mandelson to be the cause of his downfall? His popularity has been in steep decline almost since the beginning of his time as prime minister. His government has neglected many Labour voters, failed to stand up for women in the implementation of the Supreme Court ruling, destroyed high streets through its shallow economic policy and failed to listen to the demands for a new approach to immigration and integration.
These important discussions are continually neglected and shunned by Labour’s government. I believe we need far more public debate about these issues, and a good place to start is Battle of Ideas North, in Manchester on Saturday 7 March.
A lack of respect for democracy
Wherever you stand on assisted dying, for example, the shenanigans from Labour parliamentarians in the Lords and the Commons – including threatening to use the Parliament Acts (which I try and explain here) to try and shove a Bill through without scrutiny – needs to be called out. Similarly, the lack of time debating the decriminalisation of abortion amendment, attached inappropriately to the Police Crime and Sentence Bill in the Commons, led to a public backlash about a lack of democracy.
I spoke about the shameful neglect of public interests, scrutiny and vetting in my interview with Julie Hartley-Brewer on Talk TV.
Assisted dying
Politics can be a morally difficult business. And sometimes I am torn. Last Friday, I spoke in support of the amendment to ensure that face-to-face consultations are necessary in relation to assisted dying.
Face-to-face consultations must be a requirement, unless in exceptional circumstances. Assessing someone with complex healthcare needs without a face-to-face meeting cannot possibly adequately fulfil the needs of this highly emotional and existential medical decision. Online assessments can often distort communication between healthcare professionals and patients, separating patients from these moments of personal relatedness and push them down a dehumanising path, where their decision can seem to be nothing more than another appointment on a screen.
A further concern presented by the Assisted Dying Bill last week was that we, in the Lords, were presented with the Private members’ bills and the Parliament Acts briefing. This briefing outlines the circumstances in which private members’ bills can be passed without the consent of the House of Lords. This only highlighted the willingness of the Labour government to push through legislation while bypassing the proper democratic procedure.
Decriminalising abortion
This week, the Lords debated amendment 191 to the Police Crime and Sentencing Bill, which would prevent women from being prosecuted for having an abortion beyond the current legal limit. The amendment has caused widespread public concern. There was anger at the notion of legalising abortion up to birth without any true public debate or discussion, compounded by how little time was spent discussing this amendment in the House of Commons.
Abortion may be a settled right in the UK, but it is a morally charged issue – evoking individual consciousness and red lines, especially around the 24-week limit. The lack of adequate time and debate has sparked a dangerous emotional backlash, bringing to the fore growing moral debates around abortion – despite the fact the rules around the provision of abortion are not changed by this amendment.
One of the rising debates is that around sex-selective abortion, which while covered heavily in the media and an issue that needs thinking about, is not changed by the amendment to this Bill. If you want to read more about the issue of sex-selective abortion in the UK, read my colleague Emma Gilland’s Substack on the issue here.
To be clear: amendment 191 simply disapplies the existing criminal law for women in relation to their own abortion. It doesn’t change law in relation to the provision of abortion, the time limit or the requirement for medical professionals. The debates thrown up by this amendment show the prevailing discomfort and moral differences felt towards abortion despite the widespread acceptance of it as a reproductive right. I agreed with the sentiment behind the amendment, but it needs to be properly discussed. At least in the Lords there was a long and ferocious debate on a highly contentious issue.
I will report back on the contentions, debates and amendments inside the Lords again soon. If you’d like to catch up on any of my speeches or questions in parliament, you can find them all on my YouTube here. And, as always, hit subscribe below to never miss one of our Academy of Ideas Substacks.
The most important thing Claire Fox said was that the Mandelson affair should not be the reason Starmer goes. Essentially, the scandal has been a godsend to the Labour Party, to the woke and to the media since it changes the subject from the really damaging stuff which is the grooming gangs, the new definition of Islamophobia and, of course, immigration. All that has been nicely kicked into the long grass. I'm afraid I'm just not interested in sex scandals of celebrities and the (unenviable) pampered lives of the very rich and powerful. The grooming gangs scandal is not basically sexual, it was sadism, unmitigated hatred meted out to defenceless young girls and connived at by 'respectable' people, police, social workers, MPs . Even the S.A. in the Thirties of Germany didn't carry out systematic torture and years long grooming of young Jewish girls, these are monstrous crimes. I find the enormous interest in Epstein somewhat dubious, it's almost as if people envied those who were part of this sordid and ultimately rather boring milieu.