LONDON (AP) — Fallout from the Jeffrey Epstein files has landed on the gilded wood and plush red benches of Britain’s House of Lords.
Parliament’s upper chamber is in the spotlight after former U.K. ambassador to Washington Peter Mandelson was forced to resign as a member of the Lords because of his friendship with the late sex offender.
The episode has emboldened critics who say the unelected house is antiquated, undemocratic and far too slow at punishing bad behavior by its members. Supporters say the chamber of more than 850 members-for-life who sport the titles of “Lord” or “Lady” is an unwieldy but essential part of parliamentary democracy.
Almost everyone agrees it needs reform, but that task has eluded successive governments.
“It’s a mess,” said Jenny Jones, one of two Green Party members of the Lords. “In spite of our being supposedly a modern democracy, we have a semi-feudal system.”
Relic of the past
For most of its 700-year history, the House of Lords was composed of noblemen — not women — who inherited their seats, alongside a smattering of bishops. In the 1950s, these were joined by “life peers” — retired politicians, civic leaders and other notables appointed by the government, among them the first female members of the Lords.
In 1999, the Labour government of then-Prime Minister Tony Blair evicted most of the more than 750 hereditary peers, though to avoid an aristocrats’ rebellion, 92 were allowed to remain temporarily.
A quarter century on, Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s current Labour government finally introduced legislation to oust the remaining “hereditaries,” calling them an indefensible relic of the past.
The lords have put up a fight, forcing a compromise that will see some hereditary members allowed to stay by being “recycled” into life peers.
“Hereditary peers actually work harder than average peers,” said Charles Hay, the 16th Earl of Kinnoull, who leads the group of cross-bench, or non-party affiliated, peers in the Lords. “It means that you chuck out a lot of people who are actually being effective.”
Most agree that the House of Lords plays an important role in reviewing legislation passed by the elected House of Commons. The lords can amend bills and send them back to lawmakers for another look. But when push comes to shove, the upper house is supposed to give way to the will of the elected chamber.
Critics say the upper chamber has sometimes overstepped the mark by blocking legislation, as with a current bill to legalize assisted dying. It was approved by the Commons but has become bogged down with hundreds of amendments in the Lords.
Lords-a-misbehaving
Long gone are the days when out-of-favor lords could be imprisoned in the Tower of London or beheaded for treason.
Until recently there was little parliamentary authorities could do about peers who commit ethical breaches or crimes.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, otherwise known as the thriller-writer Jeffrey Archer, was imprisoned for perjury in 2001, while Lord Black of Crossharbour — the media baron Conrad Black — served a U.S. prison sentence after a 2007 fraud conviction. Under the rules of the time, neither could be kicked out of the Lords.
Since then, the law has been changed to allow members to be expelled for breaching the Lords code of conduct, imprisonment or non-attendance. To this day, no one has been expelled for bad behavior, though a couple have quit before being kicked out, including one who committed sexual assault and another filmed allegedly snorting cocaine with sex workers.
Ex-peers get to keep their lordly titles and the cachet they bring. Mandelson — who in one message asked Epstein: “Need a Lord on the board?” — has lost his job and faces a police investigation for misconduct in public office. But he remains Lord Mandelson.
Also under pressure is Starmer’s former chief of staff Matthew Doyle, now Lord Doyle, appointed to the House of Lords despite his friendship with a man later jailed for possessing indecent images of children.
Removing disgraced lords’ titles would require new legislation, something that has not been done since 1917, when several lords were stripped of their titles for siding with Germany in World War I.
Slow pace of change
Labour remains committed to eventually replacing the House of Lords with an alternative second chamber that is “more representative of the U.K.”
But change is slow. In December, the Lords set up a committee to look at introducing a retirement age of 80 and tightening up the participation requirement.
“Lords reform is glacial,” said Meg Russell, a politics professor who heads the Constitution Unit at University College London. “Things are talked about for decades before they happen.”
The fall of Mandelson, who was appointed to the Lords in 2008 by a previous Labour government, has renewed concern about the quality of members and the way they are selected. Anger among Labour lawmakers about Mandelson escalated into a crisis for Starmer that could yet end his leadership.
Russell says the Mandelson and Doyle controversies show the need to change the way Lords members are chosen. While crossbenchers are appointed by an independent committee, most life peerages are handed out by the prime minister, often to reward aides, allies and donors.
“There’s really no proper quality check and there’s no limit on numbers and it just looks so anachronistic,” she said. “It’s clear that there ought to be more rigorous processes to check people on the way in.”
The Green Party that Jones represents wants to go further and abolish the Lords, replacing it with an elected upper house.
“We should call it the Senate or something and stop this ridiculous class-based nomenclature,” said Jones, whose formal title is Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb. “I’d be happy to be called senator and not lady.”
