The Epstein files shake the ancient foundations of the British House of Lords

LONDON (AP) — The fallout from the Jeffrey Epstein files has fallen on the gilded wood and stately red seats of Britain’s House of Lords.

The upper chamber of Parliament is in the spotlight after former UK ambassador to Washington Peter Mandelson was forced to resign as a member of the Lords over his friendship with the late sex offender.

Read more: A list of powerful men named in the Epstein files, from Elon Musk to former Prince Andrew

The incident has emboldened critics who say the unelected council is outdated, undemocratic and too slow to punish bad behavior by its members. Supporters say a council of more than 850 life members who hold the titles of “Lord” or “Lady” is an unwieldy but essential part of parliamentary democracy.

Almost everyone agrees that it needs reform, but this task has eluded successive governments.

“It’s chaos,” said Jenny Jones, one of the two Green Party members in the House of Lords. “Although we are a modern democracy, we have a semi-feudal system.”

Remnants of the past

For most of its 700-year history, the House of Lords has been composed of nobles – not women – who inherited their seats, along with a small number of bishops. In the 1950s, they were joined by “life peers” – retired politicians, civic leaders and other prominent figures appointed by the government, including the first female member of the House of Lords.

In 1999, Tony Blair’s Labor government expelled most of the more than 750 hereditary peers, but to avoid a revolt by the aristocrats, 92 of them were allowed to remain temporarily.

A quarter of a century later, the current Labor government of Prime Minister Keir Starmer has finally introduced legislation to oust the remaining “hereditaries”, describing them as indefensible relics of the past.

The Lords put up a fight, forcing a settlement that allowed some hereditary members to survive by being “recycled” into their life peers.

“Heritable peers actually work harder than their ordinary peers,” said Charles Hay, 16th Earl of Kynoll, who leads a group of non-party peers in the Lords. “That means you’re excluding a lot of people who are actually effective.”

Most agree that the House of Lords plays an important role in reviewing legislation passed by the elected House of Commons. The Lords can amend the bills and return them to lawmakers for another look. But when it comes time to argue, the Senate is supposed to yield to the will of the elected chamber.

Critics say the Senate has sometimes gone too far by blocking legislation, as is the case with the current bill to legalize euthanasia. It was approved by the House of Commons but was bogged down by hundreds of amendments in the House of Lords.

Lords in malpractice

Long gone are the days when unwanted lords could be imprisoned in the Tower of London or beheaded for treason.

Until recently, parliamentary authorities could do little about their peers who committed moral violations or crimes.

Lord Archer of Weston-super-Mare, known as thriller writer Geoffrey Archer, was jailed for perjury in 2001, while Lord Black of Crossharbour – media baron Conrad Black – served a US prison sentence after being convicted of fraud in 2007. Under the rules of the time, neither could be expelled from the Lords.

Since then, the law has been changed to allow members to be expelled for breach of the Lords Code of Conduct, imprisonment or failure to appear. To this day, no one has been fired for bad behaviour, although a couple resigned before being fired, including one who committed sexual assault and another who was photographed smoking cocaine with sex workers.

Their former peers must retain their noble titles and the character they bring. Mandelson – who asked Epstein in one letter: “Do you need a God on the board?” – He lost his job and faces a police investigation for misconduct in public office. But he remains Lord Mendelson.

Also under pressure is Starmer’s former chief of staff Matthew Doyle, now Lord Doyle, who was appointed to the House of Lords despite his friendship with a man later jailed for possessing indecent images of children.

Removing the disgraceful titles of Lords will require new legislation, something that has not happened since 1917, when several Lords were stripped of their titles for siding with Germany in the First World War.

Slow pace of change

Labor remains committed to eventually replacing the House of Lords with an alternative second chamber that is “more representative of the UK”.

But change is slow. In December, the Lords set up a committee to consider setting the retirement age at 80 and tightening participation requirements.

“Lords reform is icy,” said Meg Russell, a professor of politics who heads the Constitution Unit at University College London. “Things are talked about decades before they happen.”

The fall of Mandelson, who was appointed to the House of Lords in 2008 by the previous Labor government, has renewed concerns about the quality of members and the way they are selected. Anger among Labor lawmakers over Mandelson has escalated into a crisis for Starmer that could end his leadership.

Russell says the disagreements between Mandelson and Doyle show the need to change the way Lords are chosen. While Members of Parliament are appointed by an independent committee, most life ranks are awarded by the Prime Minister, often to reward aides, allies and donors.

“There’s really no proper quality check and no limit on numbers and it just seems outdated,” she said. “Clearly there needs to be more stringent processes in place to screen people as they come in.”

Jones’ Green Party wants to go further and abolish the House of Lords and replace it with an elected upper house.

“We should call it the Senate or something and stop these ridiculous class-based labels,” said Jones, whose official title is Baroness Jones of Moulscombe. “It would be a pleasure to be called Senator and not Lady.”