The House of Lords Commissioner for Standards has dismissed a complaint against Lord Mandelson over an alleged 2009 stay at Jeffrey Epstein’s home.
The complaint was lodged by Pamela Fitzpatrick, a long-time social justice campaigner, former Harrow councillor, and parliamentary candidate. She argued that Mandelson breached the Lords’ Code of Conduct by failing to declare hospitality he received.
At first, the Commissioner rejected her complaint on procedural grounds, saying the Code required such matters to be raised within six years. But Ms Fitzpatrick challenged the decision.
“The Commissioner was incorrect. I therefore challenged the refusal… The Commissioner for Standards subsequently accepted my interpretation of the code,” she said.
Even so, the Commissioner ruled the case did not meet the threshold for investigation. “The Conduct Committee must be satisfied that there is a strong public interest in the matter being investigated,” he said. “I did not pursue this course as I did not feel it met the relevant threshold under the Code.” He added that no evidence suggested the alleged hospitality related to Mandelson’s work as a peer.
Ms Fitzpatrick condemned the outcome as proof of a “broken system.” “Surely the Commissioner should be doing the investigating, not expecting members of the public to do their job,” she said, calling for a “complete overhaul” of the standards regime.
Her frustration echoes broader concerns over political self-policing. Critics argue that while codes of conduct exist for Lords and MPs, enforcement is narrow, opaque, and largely internal – giving the appearance of accountability while shielding officeholders from scrutiny. Available data supports this argument:
House of Lords (2020–25): 402 complaints received; 54 investigated; 22 referred to the Conduct Committee – just 5.5% of cases.
House of Commons (2020–25): 14,022 allegations and enquiries; 110 upheld; 26 referred to the Standards Committee – only 0.2% of cases.
Campaigners warn that without independent oversight, serious concerns about integrity risk being quietly buried, further eroding public trust in politics.
The complaint was lodged by Pamela Fitzpatrick, a long-time social justice campaigner, former Harrow councillor, and parliamentary candidate. She argued that Mandelson breached the Lords’ Code of Conduct by failing to declare hospitality he received.
At first, the Commissioner rejected her complaint on procedural grounds, saying the Code required such matters to be raised within six years. But Ms Fitzpatrick challenged the decision.
“The Commissioner was incorrect. I therefore challenged the refusal… The Commissioner for Standards subsequently accepted my interpretation of the code,” she said.
Even so, the Commissioner ruled the case did not meet the threshold for investigation. “The Conduct Committee must be satisfied that there is a strong public interest in the matter being investigated,” he said. “I did not pursue this course as I did not feel it met the relevant threshold under the Code.” He added that no evidence suggested the alleged hospitality related to Mandelson’s work as a peer.
Ms Fitzpatrick condemned the outcome as proof of a “broken system.” “Surely the Commissioner should be doing the investigating, not expecting members of the public to do their job,” she said, calling for a “complete overhaul” of the standards regime.
Her frustration echoes broader concerns over political self-policing. Critics argue that while codes of conduct exist for Lords and MPs, enforcement is narrow, opaque, and largely internal – giving the appearance of accountability while shielding officeholders from scrutiny. Available data supports this argument:
House of Lords (2020–25): 402 complaints received; 54 investigated; 22 referred to the Conduct Committee – just 5.5% of cases.
House of Commons (2020–25): 14,022 allegations and enquiries; 110 upheld; 26 referred to the Standards Committee – only 0.2% of cases.
Campaigners warn that without independent oversight, serious concerns about integrity risk being quietly buried, further eroding public trust in politics.
Harrow Monitoring Group 