Fallout from Epstein Files Hits Britain's House of Lords

Critics say the unelected upper chamber is antiquated and too slow to punish bad behavior by members

Published on Feb. 23, 2026

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

Fallout from the Jeffrey Epstein files has landed on the House of Lords, Britain's unelected upper chamber of Parliament. Former U.K. ambassador Peter Mandelson was forced to resign as a member of the Lords due to his friendship with Epstein, emboldening critics who say the chamber is antiquated, undemocratic, and too slow to punish misconduct by its members. While the Lords play an important role in reviewing legislation, some argue they have overstepped by blocking bills approved by the elected House of Commons. Efforts to reform the Lords have been slow, with the chamber resisting attempts to remove hereditary peers and implement stricter oversight of new appointments.

Why it matters

The House of Lords, with over 850 members-for-life who hold titles like "Lord" and "Lady", is seen by many as an outdated and undemocratic institution that needs significant reform. The fallout from the Epstein files has renewed scrutiny of the chamber's ability to police its own members and highlighted concerns about the opaque process for appointing new peers, which is often used to reward political allies and donors.

The details

Former U.K. ambassador Peter Mandelson was forced to resign from the House of Lords due to his friendship with the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. This episode has emboldened critics who say the unelected upper chamber is antiquated, undemocratic and too slow to punish bad behavior by its members. While the Lords can amend and send back legislation passed by the elected House of Commons, critics argue they have sometimes overstepped by blocking bills, as with a current bill to legalize assisted dying. Until recently, the Lords lacked the ability to expel members for ethical breaches or crimes, though the rules have since changed to allow for expulsion.

  • In 1999, the Labour government of then-Prime Minister Tony Blair evicted most of the more than 750 hereditary peers from the House of Lords, though 92 were allowed to remain temporarily.
  • In December 2026, the House of Lords set up a committee to look at introducing a retirement age of 80 and tightening up the participation requirement.

The players

Peter Mandelson

A former U.K. ambassador to Washington who was forced to resign as a member of the House of Lords due to his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein.

Keir Starmer

The current Labour Prime Minister who has introduced legislation to oust the remaining hereditary peers from the House of Lords, calling them an indefensible relic of the past.

Charles Hay, the 16th Earl of Kinnoull

The leader of the group of cross-bench, or non-party affiliated, peers in the House of Lords, who argues that hereditary peers actually work harder than average peers.

Jenny Jones

A Green Party member of the House of Lords who wants to abolish the chamber and replace it with an elected upper house called a Senate.

Meg Russell

A politics professor who heads the Constitution Unit at University College London and says the House of Lords reform is a slow process.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“Hereditary peers actually work harder than average peers. It means that you chuck out a lot of people who are actually being effective.”

— Charles Hay, the 16th Earl of Kinnoull

“We should call it the Senate or something and stop this ridiculous class-based nomenclature. I'd be happy to be called senator and not lady.”

— Jenny Jones, Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb

“Lords reform is glacial. Things are talked about for decades before they happen.”

— Meg Russell, politics professor and head of the Constitution Unit at University College London

What’s next

The judge in the case will decide on Tuesday whether or not to allow Walker Reed Quinn out on bail.

The takeaway

This case highlights growing concerns in the community about repeat offenders released on bail, raising questions about bail reform, public safety on SF streets, and if any special laws to govern autonomous vehicles in residential and commercial areas.