When peers make headlines for the wrong reasons, the same question inevitably arises: how do you actually remove someone from the House of Lords? The recent cases of Lord Mandelson and Baroness Mone have thrust this into the spotlight, with even the Prime Minister publicly stating he lacks the power to strip a peer of their title
The answer reveals a troubling truth about accountability in our democracy. While removal is technically possible, it’s extraordinarily difficult, and is completely out of the hands of the British public. Members of the Lords are not only unelected, but virtually immune from democratic accountability.
It’s almost impossible to remove a peerage
When an elected politician does something wrong, they can be held accountable by voters at the next election. But this fundamental democratic principle doesn’t apply in the House of Lords. As described in ‘Gadd’s Peerage Law’, once the crown has granted a peerage it is “very difficult to deprive the holder of it”.
The uncomfortable fact is that the only way a peerage can be removed is through an Act of Parliament. This means that removing someone from the Lords requires introducing and passing new legislation through both Houses of Parliament – a lengthy, complex process that hasn’t been used for over a century.
The last time this happened was after World War One, when the Titles Deprivation Act 1917 was passed to remove peerages from those who had assisted Britain’s enemies. Four people lost their peerages under this Act in 1919.
Membership is nearly as hard to remove
While removing the peerage itself requires an Act of Parliament, some laws have been introduced that allow peers to lose their membership of the House of Lords.
Under the House of Lords Reform Act 2014, members sentenced to more than one year in prison automatically cease to be members, though they keep their peerage title. The House of Lords (Expulsion and Suspension) Act 2015 allows the House to vote to expel members for Code of Conduct breaches, but only for conduct that occurred after June 2015. Peers who don’t attend for six months are also at risk of losing their membership of the House of Lords, unless they’ve obtained leave of absence. And since 2014, life peers can choose to resign their membership voluntarily.
And that’s exactly what happened in the recent controversy. When public pressure mounted, Lord Mandelson chose to stand down from the House of Lords. But that was a decision that he made entirely himself. Not by you, not by Parliament. Him alone.
This is what passes for accountability in the House of Lords – waiting and hoping that peers will do the right thing and remove themselves. There’s no mechanism for the public to demand their removal. No electoral consequence. Just the hope that enough embarrassment might convince someone to walk away voluntarily.
It’s time for an elected House of Lords, chosen by us
Recent controversies have led to calls to “modernise disciplinary procedures” and “strengthen circumstances in which disgraced members can be removed.” But these proposals still leave decisions in the hands of other unelected peers, not the public. Piecemeal changes won’t fix the fundamental democratic deficit. Only an elected second chamber will give the British people real power over those who make our laws.
If Lords had to stand for election, they would answer directly to the people. Voters could remove underperforming members at the ballot box – the most powerful form of democratic accountability. It’s time to bring democracy to both chambers of our Parliament.
You can demand real action
Sign our petition calling for an elected House of Lords. Add your voice to thousands of others demanding a democracy where every lawmaker answers to the people.
Together, we can end the era of unelected, unaccountable power.
Add your name here →