The Constitutional Challenge of Removing a Peer
Prime Minister Keir Starmer has publicly declared his desire to see Peter Mandelson removed from the House of Lords, following revelations of deeper connections between the Labour peer and the convicted paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein. This political move, however, encounters a labyrinth of constitutional complexities that make stripping Mandelson of his peerage an exceptionally challenging endeavour.
Starmer's Stance and Parliamentary Limitations
While Starmer has unequivocally stated that Peter Mandelson should not remain a member of the House of Lords or continue using his title, the Prime Minister himself lacks the direct authority to enforce such a removal. Instead, the government is advocating for reforms within the Lords to facilitate the expulsion of peers under controversial circumstances. Currently, Mandelson is on a leave of absence from the chamber and has resigned from the Labour Party, yet these actions do not address the core issue of his peerage status.
Potential Pathways for Mandelson's Departure
Under the provisions of the 2014 House of Lords Reform Act, Mandelson possesses the option to resign from the Lords and relinquish his peerage voluntarily. However, this course of action would not result in the forfeiture of his title; he would retain the right to be addressed as Lord Peter Mandelson of Foy and Hartlepool. Alternatively, if he fails to return and retake the oath following his current leave of absence, which expires in May, his membership could lapse automatically. Yet again, this procedural lapse would not strip him of the honorific title.
The Hurdles of Expulsion and Rule Changes
Should Mandelson choose not to resign, expulsion via the Lords' code of conduct presents another potential route, albeit one fraught with difficulties. A formal complaint would need to be lodged and thoroughly reviewed, with significant uncertainty surrounding whether retrospective application of the strengthened code is permissible. The government's hope appears to lie in persuading the Lords to amend their own regulations, making it easier to remove disgraced members. The Labour manifesto includes intentions to bolster such circumstances for removal, though no concrete preparatory work has yet been undertaken to implement these changes.
The Near-Impossibility of Title Stripping
Ultimately, the most formidable barrier lies in the very nature of a peerage itself. Granted by the Crown, a peerage is exceptionally difficult to revoke, as outlined in Gadd's Peerage Law, the authoritative guide on Lords procedure. Historically, deprivation has required an act of Parliament, such as the Titles Deprivation Act of 1917, which targeted peers who aided Britain's enemies during wartime—a scenario far removed from the current context. Constitutional experts suggest that even with a substantial Commons majority, pursuing legislative action to strip Mandelson of his title would be extraordinarily challenging. Consequently, many former peers, including hereditary lords removed in the late 1990s, continue to use their titles, underscoring the systemic resilience of peerage privileges.
