Lord Mandelson's unexpected return to the Government has sparked a debate about how MPs can hold accountable senior ministers who have been parachuted into the House of Lords. The Business Secretary was quizzed for two hours on Tuesday by the select committee of MPs which monitors his department. But an occasional appearance before the committee is no substitute for the cut and thrust of a session of Commons questions every month, which Mandelson would now face if he were still an MP.
The Tories are pointing out that, with a recession looming, the minister responsible for British industry should be held to account regularly. Peter Luff, chairman of the Business Select Committee, is calling for the rules to be changed so that Mandelson can be quizzed at the Commons dispatch box. He is writing to the Commons leader Harriet Harman. "We have to take this forward and find a mechanism to enable him to be directly questioned by all members of the House of Commons," he said.
A good idea in theory. But I doubt that Harman will warm to it in practice. After all, it would allow opposition MPs to question Mandelson about the latest newspaper allegations about his relationship with his super-rich friends like the Russian billionaire Oleg Deripaska. Don't hold your breath.
There is an important bigger issue here in relation to accountability...
Should we allow members of the cabinet to be unelected? Currently a number of cabinet ministers are not MPs and have therefore not been chosen by the electorate. For example:
"Lord" Peter Mandelson
"Lord" Andrew Adonis
"Baroness" Shriti Vadera
And what did any of these three to do earn the "honours" bestowed upon them?
Posted by: GM Freeman | Friday, 24 October 2008 at 02:09 AM
How did Mandelson become a Lord, just look at his track record, as errand boy for Blair.
It's already been mentioned of the neo-con connection, let us not forget the Bilderberg one, the other Lord who was a European Commissioner,
WHO, can we trust?
Posted by: ray smith | Friday, 24 October 2008 at 06:58 AM
The problem with honours is as intractable as woolly manifestos, the whipping system and the self destruction of slippers a month before Christmas. The truth is, MPs are no more likely to forego the possibility of ennoblement as give up the privilege of deciding their own pay structure.
It's a psychological need for these people and the only cure is for the public to view ennoblement as a foolish fetish, as undesirable as smoking and foul language ... and to address those honoured with the same discourtesy as the system, by its very existence, addresses them.
'Your Lordsh*t' might be an appropriate example.
As for Mr Mandelson, the one good thing to be said here is that his very presence in the Lords is the first step in this direction for he is the essense of all that is bad with the system. I simply cannot imagine what Her Majesty is thinking when she lowers the sword of honour ... on second thoughts, I can.
Posted by: Maurice Smith. | Friday, 24 October 2008 at 09:59 AM
Ray Smith above this comment is spot on.
How the hell did Mandelson become a Lord. This man has done nothing of any real benefit to the nation. He not only is a major embarrasment to his own party but he is a very deceptive political figure. It is an afront to the public that this man be awarded a title.
Posted by: John Finningham | Friday, 24 October 2008 at 06:14 PM
Perhaps it is all part of a cunning plot to bring the House of Lords into such disrepute that its disolution is the only recourse. How very dare they!
Posted by: Paul Hattersley | Sunday, 26 October 2008 at 01:50 PM