To save the UK’s battered reputation for good governance, the government needs to go big on political reform

This week in politics has been a whirlwind, with events moving so fast it has been hard to keep up. When a story runs for a whole five days, you know it is more than just a storm in a Westminster teacup. Though revelations about Peter Mandelson could run into another week still, it is worth trying to take stock of what has happened so far and what should follow.

Let us start with what we know so far.

Documents released by the US Department of Justice (DOJ) suggest Mr Mandelson used his privileged position within government while secretary of state to benefit the convicted sex offender, Jeffrey Epstein. Both he and his partner, Reinaldo Avila da Silva, received large cash transfers from the disgraced financier, including at least $4,000 to Mr da Silva after Epstein had served jail time for child prostitution.

Papers released by the DOJ also appear to show the then business secretary had used confidential inside knowledge to advise JP Morgan and Epstein on how to lobby the Treasury to reverse a proposed tax on bankers’ bonuses.

After leaving government, Mandelson formed Global Counsel, a lobbying consultancy whose clients have included JP Morgan.

There is a lot going on in these allegations, so it is worth stepping back to unpack them and what can be learnt to avoid similar happening again.

First is the money, at least $75,000 of which the FT reports went to Mr Mandelson personally between May 2003 and June 2004 while he was still a sitting MP. A spokesperson for Mr Mandelson said he had no knowledge of the payments, and questioned the authenticity of the records. Though the veracity of these documents are yet to be tested in a court of law, a reputable and responsible news outlet has considered there is a strong public interest in disclosing them.

When politicians accept substantial gifts, even from a friend, it can at the very least give rise to the perception they are indebted to outside interests, fettering their independence. Indeed, it was similar behaviour that cost Mandelson his first ministerial post, failing to declare a substantial loan from his cabinet colleague, Geoffrey Robinson, during his first stint in government. Receiving $75,000 (£40,400) in 2008 would have been equivalent to two thirds of an MPs’ salary at the time. Senior minister Steve Reed has said it should have been declared on his register of interests, though it was not.

The main counterargument to such claims is that these were private matters between friends that were not relevant to Mr Mandelson’s role as an MP. He could have persuaded himself as much, though the test in parliamentary rules was and still is what a reasonable person might think, which is a lower threshold for registration. The long and short being, if MPs are in doubt about what to record they should err on the side of caution and be as open as possible. Even better, do not solicit or accept the money in the first place.

Second is the advice. From what has been disclosed, it is hard to see how the then business secretary was not giving lobbying counsel to friends and banks, including what former Prime Minister Gordon Brown has described as ‘confidential and market sensitive’ information on government policy. Regardless of his defence that he was not advocating for an individual institution, he should have known it was highly inappropriate to coach JP Morgan and Epstein on how to pressure government. Had Gordon Brown, the then Prime Minister, known about this behaviour he would surely have lost confidence in his colleague. The police are reportedly reviewing whether it could be a criminal matter, which is welcome given the seriousness of the allegations, though this could face significant challenges.

The Met are considering whether Mr Mandelson’s conduct could constitute misconduct in public office. This is a nebulous common law offence, mixing elements of negligence with corruption. The Law Commission published a long and thorough review of the common law crime in 2020, calling for two new statutory offences that would more clearly define the wrongdoing at hand, and be easier to prosecute. The Government has included aspects of the Commission’s recommendations in the Public Office (Accountability) Bill currently before Parliament, but these are not without their own issues, and will not likely apply to any charges brought following the police investigation. Even if the Government’s reforms only apply going forwards, they should be getting the detail right to provide a clear and robust deterrent against anyone else who considers abusing their position of power in the future.

Third is what to do pending any criminal proceedings that may be brought. The Prime Minister had called for Mr Mandelson to be kicked out of the House of Lords and stripped of his peerage. In the end, he jumped before he was pushed. Even then, the seemingly simple act of stripping Mr Mandelson’s peerage is complex – currently the only straightforward way of doing so is proving he was supporting our enemies during the First World War, which seems improbable. In 2024, we called for a series of reforms to the Lords, including a new process for removing titles from disgraced peers. Opposition parties have echoed these calls, with the BBC reporting the government is drafting legislation to do just that.

These are welcome developments showing the Prime Minister recognises the gravity of the situation. But even this is not enough in itself to address haemorrhaging public trust in our politics. Mr Mandelson is a symptom and not the cause of the current rot, and reform must go beyond just removing titles. From the corrupting influence of big money to opaque and inappropriate lobbying, there are a range of issues that have remained unaddressed for decades that are starting to corrode the foundations of our democracy. Before the last election Labour committed to ‘a reset in our public life’. If it wants to make good on this promise it needs to do much, much more, and faster, than we have seen to date.