Peter Mandelson may have lost his prestigious posting as ambassador to Washington, resigned from the Labour Party and stepped down from an active role as a legislator in the House of Lords, but there is one thing he retains: his title.

He can still style himself Baron Mandelson, of Foy in the County of Herefordshire and of Hartlepool in the County of Durham.

Arrested and bailed after emails appeared to suggest that he received payments and shared sensitive government information with convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein (although he is understood to insist he has not acted in any way criminally and has no recollection of receiving the alleged sums), politicians are asking why he can keep the grand moniker.

Labour MPs have expressed fury over the appointment, calling it a “betrayal,” while Keir Starmer has apologised, and promised to make good on new powers to strip peers of their titles.

Currently, sanctions against a peer for bringing the House of Lords into disrepute are handled through the House of Lords Conduct Committee and the Commissioner for Standards, with options ranging from demanding an apology to expulsion.

The i Paper understands the Government is considering increasing its powers to strip titles too. Ministers want “a piece of legislation that stands the test of time,” and are also considering expanding the definition of what is considered wrongdoing.

In the House of Commons, a recall petition can prompt a by-election if an MP is suspended for a minimum of 10 sitting days or if they are convicted of an offence – the MP will lose their seat and the by-election be triggered if at least 10 per cent of voters in the constituency sign the petition.

However, the Lords do not automatically remove a peer’s title or seat, even if found guilty of criminal misconduct, unless a new act of parliament is passed.

Once in ermine, peers can stay put until they retire. What’s more, they can claim an untaxed day rate of £371 for turning up to Westminster. The only risk for disgraced peers when pitching up is the raised lordly eyebrows of moral disapproval. Mandelson might be the latest, but bringing the House of Lords into disrepute is not a new problem.

Scroll back to November 2004. Rooting through his sporran at 2.15am, a Scottish peer drew out some matches and set light to some hotel curtains. Mike Watson had been drinking at Edinburgh’s Scottish Politician of the Year Awards and was later jailed for 16 months for fire-raising. His political punishment was less straightforward. A member of the Lords since 1997, Lord Watson of Invergowrie was expelled by the Labour Party for seven years but could not simultaneously be thrown out of the upper chamber. Until 2015, there was simply no mechanism to get rid of him.

Ditto peer John Taylor, sentenced to 12 months in prison after fiddling £11,000 of taxpayers’ money in the 2009 expenses scandal. While he resigned the Conservative whip, Lord Taylor of Warwick stayed put on the red benches, where he remains today.

Perhaps the most famous case was Jeffrey Archer, former Tory politician and novelist, and guilty of two counts of perjury and perverting the course of justice. Even after serving two years in prison, Lord Archer of Weston-super-Mare remained a peer until he retired in 2024.

Previous attempts have foundered. Deciding where to draw that ethical line to remove peerages and titles isn’t easy. It was only in 2015 that peers could be kicked out at all, and even then, they retained their titles.

One peer pointed to the contributions of John Bird, founder of The Big Issue magazine sold by the homeless, who drew upon his own stints as a youngster in jail to inform his later work in the Lords. Barring him would deprive the upper chamber of his experience of the criminal justice system. Or take the case of the late Edward Douglas-Scott-Montagu, Baron Montagu of Beaulieu, imprisoned for 12 months for “consensual homosexual offences” in the 1950s before its decriminalisation, and a man widely considered the victim of a miscarriage of justice.

“You need to think carefully about where to draw the line: do you want to stop people who have served their time and whose convictions are now spent? Is there really no room for redemption in public life?” the peer told The i Paper.

It’s a head-scratcher for ministers in the Cabinet Office as they design the bill which will be introduced before the end of this parliamentary session next month. Even those who have brought the House of Lords into disrepute can change. Firestarter Lord Watson went on to campaign for animal rights. Expenses-fiddler Lord Taylor helps young people with their leadership skills.

Besides, any changes in the Lords to take away titles won’t solve the fundamental mistake made by Starmer and others before him. The Prime Minister appointed Mandelson to the role of US ambassador despite knowing about his friendship with Epstein.

Starmer’s former director of communications Matthew Doyle is another example. Baron Doyle, of Great Barford in the County of Bedforshire, was suspended by Labour for his links with a paedophile only a month after being ennobled, even though Starmer had been warned of the connection in advance. Doyle apologised for his past association with Sean Morton, a former Labour councillor in Moray who admitted indecent child image offences in 2017.

Doyle is currently suspended and subject to a party investigation, even as members of the Cabinet say he should resign from the Lords. As he awaits the outcome, some Labour MPs and former colleagues are furious he was ever appointed in the first place. Meanwhile, a senior Labour Party source said Doyle would likely be asked to sit down with survivors of sexual abuse for a “long, lengthy, uncomfortable discussion” before there is any suggestion of his being readmitted to the party.

The Government may also face pushback from the Lords who could advise tighter controls on the award of peerages in the first place, possibly with enhanced powers for the House of Lords Appointments Commission.

Only then might successive governments sidestep the lack of due diligence before appointments, and the sometimes casual awarding of peerages in a never-ending arms race to pack the upper chamber simply to outnumber political opponents.

© iNews