4 hours ago
7
Peter Mandelson has resigned from the House of Lords, but even if he is sentenced to prison for misconduct in public office he can still use the title Lord Mandelson until either an act of parliament, or death, takes it off him. That sums up the problem with living in a semi-feudal system.
Patronage first lifted Mandelson into the Lords in 2008, despite his being forced to resign twice as a minister. The first resignation came in 1998 when he failed to declare a home loan from a millionaire backer; the second time, in 2001, was because he helped a millionaire funder for the Millennium Dome get a British passport. So elevation to the Lords allowed him to maintain influence despite his conduct losing him two ministerial positions.
Keir Starmer’s patronage lifted Mandelson up again, to the US ambassador job, despite his links to Jeffrey Epstein being well documented in mainstream and social media. Mandelson’s career is littered with dishonesty and scandal, but many (so-called) sensible voices in the media and politics argued he was the right man to represent our country on the world stage. The truth is that everyone knew the risks, but no one cared – because everyone assumes that corruption is the norm.
In a world dominated by rich and powerful men, Mandelson was a go-between, close to important people and the corridors of power. His elevation to the Lords undoubtedly increased his stature, and with it his access. Mandelson will not return to the Lords, but among the remaining peers, what amounts to cash for access is often done subtly and within the rules. So where are the political checks and balances that voters used to expect?
A report last February showed that nearly 100 members of the Lords were paid to give political or policy advice by commercial firms. One former minister earned millions of pounds by working for 30 companies. Multiple peers are being paid by foreign governments, including repressive regimes.
Politics and business are bound together in the Lords, with peers able to book plush rooms to pursue their private interests. Perhaps that is why the Earl of Shrewsbury forgot he couldn’t claim travel expenses to attend a business conference. He got banned from the Lords for the second time in three years.
Last year, Ian Duncan, a deputy speaker of the Lords, was found to have breached the rules by providing a parliamentary service for Terrestrial Energy when he facilitated an introduction between its chief executive and a new energy minister. Several others have apologised for similar slip-ups, such as promoting their cryptocurrency companies and seeking to profit personally from their membership of the second chamber.
In November, the Lords conduct committee suspended David Evans and Richard Dannatt after finding that each had breached rules prohibiting members from offering parliamentary services for payment or reward. They will be back at work by Easter.
Finally, it’s unbelievable that Michelle Mone still has a peerage, despite lying about being closely involved with a company run by her husband that sold faulty Covid PPE gear, and cost us taxpayers more than £100m. The pandemic cost the government an estimated £11bn in fraud and error, not helped by the fast-track scheme for contracts set up by the Conservatives that bypassed the usual checks and safeguards.
Then, of course, there are the peers who don’t do any work – those who turn up only rarely, while loving the prestige that comes from being part of this grand but semi-derelict club.
Reforming such an ingrained workplace culture of treating politics as a business opportunity requires taking away peerages. I don’t say that lightly. I am honoured to be a peer. As someone from a poor working-class background, born and bred on a council estate, I get furious at the people who don’t take the job seriously. It comes with an obligation to work to improve legislation and help our society to function better.
Many peers feel the same way, and see the second chamber as a workplace where you do an important public service. We have some success, but we lack the democratic legitimacy to challenge the government. And, of course, all of us peers are here because of political patronage, or inheritance. For all the good we are able to do, it would be better still to tear up the system and rebuild it in a more democratic way.
The question is not why Mandelson is allowed to keep his title, it is why the system of patronage and an unelected second chamber is still allowed to exist. It’s way past time to abolish it and urgently replace it with something elected and modern.
-
Jenny Jones is a Green party peer
