Jake Waterfield: A Conservative case for cleaning up the House of Lords in the wake of Mandelson

Jake Waterfield is a young finance professional in London. He ran the 2025 London marathon to raise money for St Bartholomew’s Hospital who saved his life in 2024. 

The Mandelson scandal has not created a crisis in the House of Lords – it has, unfortunately, merely exposed one. For years, the venerable Upper House has been left vulnerable by lax standards, an ever‑growing membership, and appointments that too often undermine theseriousness of legislative duty.

If Conservatives want to preserve the Lords as a cornerstone of our constitutional system, we must lead the clean-up before others use this moment to justify tearing it down.

I have always believed that British institutions have endured not because they are ancient, but because they are trusted – and trust, once lost, is painfully hard to recover. When a Lord is pictured in his pants in the home of a convicted sex‑offender, or when allegations emergethat raise questions about judgment, decency, or even national interest, the public isn’t seeing a one‑off lapse but instead a system that is simply incapable of policing itself.

The truth is uncomfortable: this is not about one man or one scandal, but about a structure that has allowed too many questionable appointments, too little accountability, and too much complacency. The House of Lords is full of dedicated, expert, and principled individuals – but it is also an institution whose weaknesses have been ignored for too long.

For decades, prime ministers of all parties have treated peerages as political currency – some appointments have been well justified, others have been baffling. A system that relies on the personal discretion of party leaders will always be vulnerable to patronage, favour‑trading, and the occasional lapse in judgment. Unfortunately, these patterns mean that when scandals arise, the public sees not an isolated error but a pattern.

The Mandelson and Doyle episodes are simply the latest reminder that the Lords’ disciplinary and appointments processes are no longer fit for purpose. Sanctions are limited, investigations are slow and the appointments process lacks the independence and rigour that the public should rightfully demand. At present, the Lords can suspend a peer or issue a reprimand, but it cannot strip a title – only an Act of Parliament can, and it has not done so in over a century – Lord Mandelson is still Lord Mandelson.

Here’s the key issue – if we do nothing, the argument for full abolition of the House of Lords will grow louder and it will be harder to resist.

The Conservatives should not be dragged reluctantly into reform, we should be the ones leading it – not because we want to weaken the Lords, precisely the opposite, but because we want to preserve it.

In my mind, a reformed Upper House would be smaller, more disciplined, more transparent – not to mention more clearly rooted in merit, service, and expertise. Crucially, we should be pushing for reform in a way that strengthens, rather than undermines, the Lords’ constitutional role.

First, stronger disciplinary powers: The Chamber must be able to suspend, sanction or, in the most serious cases, expel members whose conduct brings the institution into disrepute. At present, its powers are too limited and too slow – a modern legislature cannot rely on voluntary resignations or ‘polite’ pressure.

Second, a cap on membership: With nearly 800 members, the Lords is one of the largest legislative chambers in the world – larger than the European Parliament, larger than the US Congress (that’s right, both chambers!), in fact it’s larger than almost every other legislative chamber on Earth. Of course, size alone does not determine quality, but a bloated institution undermines efficiency, credibility, and public confidence. A cap, phased in over time, would restore seriousness and reduce the temptation for prime ministers to treat peerages as political rewards. Six hundred is the oft cited figure of what is politically achievable (including by the Lords’ own Burns Committee) – it’s certainly a step in the right direction

Third, statutory safeguards around appointments: The House of Lords Appointments Commission should be strengthened and given the power to veto nominations that fail basic tests of propriety, integrity, or suitability. Prime ministers should not be able to override its advice

Fourth, a minimum and maximum age for service: The Lords should be a chamber of active contributors, not a retirement home for political veterans and nor, frankly, a springboard for those barely out of their twenties. The recent appointment of Baroness Smith of Llanfaes, a Plaid Cymru peer elevated at just 28, is a case in point. The optics were terrible – an Upper House that already struggles with public confidence hardly strengthens its legitimacy by elevating people younger than many graduate trainees – not to mention the manner in which she was nominated by her party. It’s no secret that most of our democratic peers recognise that certain constitutional roles require a degree of life experience – the US sets a minimum age of 35 for the presidency and 30 for the Senate. Even the most ardent defenders of youthful energy would struggle to argue that Britain’s legislature should have lower thresholds than America’s executive branch. A minimum age of, say, 40, would ensure that peers arrive with meaningful professional and civic experience, whilst a maximum age would ensure appropriate turnover, generational balance and active participation (attendance records from the Lords shows that attendance begins to decline when a member is in their late 70’s and then significantly after 80)

Fifth, a clearer distinction between honours and legislative authority: If someone is tobe honoured for public service, let them be honoured – but legislative power should not be a by‑product of our honours system. A reformed Lords should make this distinction explicit.If Conservatives do not lead sensible reform, others will push for radical reform – or worse, abolition. Labour has already flirted with sweeping changes, but has not delivered them  – no surprise there. The public mood is shifting, scandals are accumulating and every new controversy chips away at the legitimacy of an institution that plays a vital constitutional role.

The Lords is at its best when it is reflective, expert, and independent – a chamber that scrutinises legislation with seriousness and depth. But that legitimacy depends on the belief that its members are there because they deserve to be, not because they were favoured bythe right person at the right moment, or that they can’t be removed despite serious wrongdoing.

The Mandelson scandal is a reminder that even the most venerable institutions can drift into complacency if their foundations are not maintained. The Conservatives should seize this moment – not to score political points – but to strengthen the constitutional architecture of the country.

A smaller, more disciplined, more transparent House of Lords is not a concession but instead a confirmation of the principles that have always underpinned good governance: integrity, accountability, and service.

If we want the Lords to endure for another 700 years, we must be willing to reform it today.