Mandelson Peerage Row: Why Stripping a Title is Exceptionally Complex
Keir Starmer has 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 storm centres on emails suggesting Epstein sent thousands of pounds to Mandelson's husband and shared confidential, market-sensitive information from inside Number 10 during Mandelson's tenure as business secretary.
However, the Prime Minister's wish to expel Mandelson confronts a labyrinth of constitutional and procedural hurdles. Removing a peerage is an exceptionally complex undertaking, with multiple potential pathways, none of them straightforward.
Starmer's Power and the Push for Resignation
Despite his firm stance, Keir Starmer does not possess the direct authority to remove Mandelson from the Lords. He has publicly stated he "believes that Peter Mandelson should not be a member of the House of Lords or use the title". His strategy, therefore, hinges on urging the Lords to implement reforms that would simplify the expulsion process for disgraced members.
In the interim, Downing Street's primary hope is that Mandelson resigns voluntarily. The peer is currently on a leave of absence from the Lords and has resigned from the Labour Party, but this does not address the core issue of his title.
The Limits of Resignation and Absence
Under the 2014 House of Lords Reform Act, Peter Mandelson could formally resign from the Lords and relinquish his peerage. Crucially, however, this action would not strip him of his title. He would remain entitled to use the style 'Lord Peter Mandelson of Foy and Hartlepool'.
There is an alternative, quieter exit. His current leave of absence, originally for his role as US Ambassador, lasts until the end of the parliamentary session in May. If he fails to return and retake the oath in the subsequent session, his membership would automatically lapse. Yet, even in this scenario, the title would persist.
The Expulsion Route and Rule Changes
If Mandelson does not resign, expulsion under the Lords' code of conduct remains a theoretical possibility under the 2014 Act, but it is fraught with difficulty. A formal complaint would need investigation, and a significant question looms over whether the current, strengthened code can be applied retrospectively to past actions.
The government appears to be banking on the Lords changing their own rules to facilitate removal. When asked if Starmer wanted Mandelson out "by hook or by crook", the Prime Minister's spokesperson gave an emphatic affirmative. The Labour manifesto includes an intention to toughen the criteria for removing members, though this is not yet part of the Lords' legislative programme and no preparatory work seems underway.
The Near-Impossibility of Losing the Title Itself
The most formidable barrier is the peerage itself. A title is granted by the Crown, and according to the authoritative Gadd's Peerage Law, it becomes "very difficult to deprive the holder of it". The only mechanism for complete removal is an act of parliament, a step last taken under the Titles Deprivation Act of 1917 against peers who aided Britain's enemies in wartime.
Number 10 believes pursuing such legislation would be exceptionally constitutionally difficult, even with a large Commons majority. The precedent is clear: many former peers, including hereditary peers removed in the late 1990s, continue to use their titles. Under the present system, it appears virtually impossible for even the most egregious conduct to result in the loss of a lordly title.
