Could Baroness Mone lose her title and be removed from the House of Lords?

Baroness Michelle Mone’s admissions in a recent BBC interview that she lied to the media about her involvement in a company that supplied millions of pounds worth of PPE equipment to the government during the Covid pandemic has led to calls for her to be stripped of her peerage.

Sir Keir Starmer, as leader of the opposition, added significantly to the pressure by declaring: “I don’t think she should be in the Lords. I think the government should be held to account for this.”

Rishi Sunak was more cautious: “The government takes these things incredibly seriously, which is why we’re pursuing legal action against the company concerned in these matters. That’s how seriously I take it and the government takes it.”

David Cameron appointed Baroness Mone as a Tory peer eight years ago. Although she is no longer a member of the Conservative Party, the PPE Medpro scandal and the legal cases she has been involved in have been embarrassing for her and her former party.

Is Mone still a member of the House of Lords?

Yes, she is. However, she has been on a leave of absence since 6 December 2022 to deal with the PPE affair and associated civil and criminal litigation against her and her husband, Doug Barrowman.

She is also under investigation over whether she breached the House of Lords’ code of conduct by allegedly procuring contracts for PPE Medpro.

Technically she could end her absence and once again vote on laws, and, like all voting members of the peerage, be a legislator. She seems disinclined to, though, and was never that active.

If she was expelled would she lose her title?

Not necessarily. Nowadays, membership of the upper house, ie taking part in making laws and debates, isn’t synonymous with carrying a title. Most of the holders of the historic hereditary peerages, for example, no longer vote in the Lords, but are still viscounts, dukes, earls and so on. However, everyone voting in the Lords – aside from Church of England bishops – carries some sort of a title.

Why doesn’t she renounce her title and her peerage?

Presumably, she still likes it. But the bigger obstacle is that it’s not easy to renounce a life peerage, bestowed in effect by the prime minister rather than one inherited by an accident of birth. A law passed in 2014 does allow a life peer to resign from being a member of the House of Lords, but it appears that they are lumbered with the title and status of a life barony. Of course, using the title in everyday life isn’t compulsory, even if it can secure a better table at a certain type of restaurant. If David Cameron – now Lord Cameron – ever wished to return to the House of Commons and elective politics, he might not find it so difficult.

Can she be removed from the Lords?

Yes, but again there is that distinction between the actual membership of the Lords as a political and constitutional body; and membership of the peerage, in the sense of a group of people carrying fancy titles.

As things stand, because she hasn’t been convicted of a crime nor found to have broken any parliamentary rules, she’s perfectly entitled to her peerage. But removal is far from impossible.

The most straightforward way to satisfy her critics would be for the government to use its power to pass a simple act of parliament, to remove her from the Lords, and also strip her of her title. This hasn’t been done since 1917, during the Great War, when public opinion turned against German princes, albeit royal, carrying British peerages. (Such considerations also led to the British royal dynasty changing its name from Saxo-Coburg-Gotha to the House of Windsor). It’s a big deal and Baroness Mone might find few allies at Westminster to protect her.

Nonetheless, it is quite a momentous constitutional step to take while Baroness Mone hasn’t been found guilty of anything and may be vindicated. She says the only thing she’s done wrong is to mislead the media. There are certainly sound reasons why it should never be too easy to arbitrarily remove members of the legislature, either MPs or peers, from parliament.

What if she’s convicted of a serious offence?

That would potentially be a very different situation. The House of Lords Reform Act 2014 specifies that a peer, such as Baroness Mone, would cease to be a member of the Lords automatically if convicted of a “serious offence”. It defines a serious criminal offence as one that results in a jail sentence of more than a year. That would mean Baroness Mone would no longer attend the Lords, vote or take part in other proceedings. However, as noted, she would still retain the title of Baroness, which may mean more to her than taking part in all the politics. But it would probably disappoint an angry public.

It is worth noting that Baroness Mone and her husband are being investigated by the National Crime Agency for possible fraud and bribery offences, and those can carry custodial sentences of more than a year.

Are there any other options?

Yes. If Baroness Mone was sentenced to a lesser custodial sentence than one year she would be referred to a House of Lords committee that could recommend her expulsion, via a resolution in the upper house.

Alternatively, and quite startlingly, under the 2015 House of Lords (Suspension and Expulsion) Act, the Lords could quite simply suspend Baroness Mone’s membership or expel her even if she’s not convicted of anything. That requires a resolution being passed in the House of Lords to that effect. In other words, it is surprisingly easy if there’s a strong enough all-party sentiment.

But she’d still be Baroness Mone. To make her plain Ms Mone again would require a special piece of legislation.

Why was she appointed to the Lords?

Lots of people are asking this question. Michelle Mone, who came from humble origins, was a highly successful entrepreneur and, as it happens, a Tory. David Cameron made her a peeress in 2015, presumably to enhance the quality of proceedings by making her expertise available. There was some criticism but no great outrage at the move. Ironically, one Scottish Tory donor at the time attacked her for not being sufficiently committed to the party, or well-connected in Conservative circles: “I would expect longer than five or 10 minutes as a member of the party… I have not come across her at any event in Scotland or Westminster. It does seem a bit strange.”