CONTROVERSIAL Conservative peer Michelle Mone has announced that she is to take a leave of absence from the House of Lords. Oh no!
How will we ever cope without her contribution to public service and legislative oversight, which has amounted to a mere four days of attendance over six months?
As of December 2022, she has not spoken in a debate since March 2020 and last voted in April. It's difficult to escape the conclusion that Mone regards her peerage in much the same way that she views her social media accounts – as aids to her self-promotion, albeit with fewer image filters.
If nothing else, this announcement does raise an interesting philosophical question: is it possible to take a leave of absence from a place that you are habitually absent from anyway?
Mone made her first foray into politics during the 2014 Scottish independence referendum campaign during which she was a loud and vocal advocate of a No vote, asserting that if Yes won the referendum she would leave Scotland. This claim garnered her considerable publicity in the anti-independence media, although she had made a similar claim prior to the 2007 Scottish elections which resulted in an SNP minority government.
As we all know, No won the referendum but Mone left Scotland anyway, to a resounding shoulder shrug from a Scottish populace which couldn't care less.
Mone was made a peer by Conservative prime minister David Cameron in 2015 – a move which was widely seen as a reward for her support for the No campaign in the previous year's referendum.
The appointment could have been remembered as one of Cameron's worst decisions, were it not for his disastrous Brexit referendum the following year.
Conservative donors and senior Scottish Tories reacted negatively to the appointment, with Tory donor and care home owner Robert Kilgour calling her appointment a “bit of a puzzle”. Some senior Scottish Conservatives also criticised the appointment, describing Mone as "a public relations creation, a personal brand rather than a serious businesswoman”.
The controversies surrounding Mone certainly did not stop following her taking her seat in the Lords. The most recent, which immediately pre-dated Mone's "leave of absence", concerns her alleged role in the government PPE contract awarded to PPE Medpro, a company led by Anthony Page, a business associate of Mone and her husband Doug Barrowman.
In October 2020, Mone's spokeswoman claimed that the Conservative peer had "no role or involvement in PPE Medpro" and added that Mone's husband "is also not involved in the company PPE Medpro and is not a director or shareholder”.
In November 2021, it emerged that Mone had personally recommended the company to the government through its VIP fast-track lane and that the company was awarded £200 million in government contracts.
WhatsApp messages obtained by The Guardian appeared to show Mone discussing details of the contract. This week, former Health Secretary Matt Hancock revealed that he felt pressured by Mone's "extraordinarily aggressive" lobbying to help a firm win a contract to supply lateral flow tests.
In November this year it emerged that £29 million in payments originating from PPE Medpro had been paid into a secret offshore HSBC trust fund, of which Mone and her adult children were the beneficiaries. The government will not oppose a Labour-sponsored vote next week to force the release of documents relating to the £200m contract with PPE Medpro. Mone strongly denies any wrongdoing and says that she has stepped down from the House of Lords in order "to clear her name of the allegations that have been unjustly levelled against her”.
There is a far wider issue here. The system of life peerages has been used by successive prime ministers as a form of patronage and reward to pals, donors and cronies. Gone is any pretence that peerages are awarded for outstanding contributions to public life.
The Lords has become the fake tans and diet pills of the British constitution, it needs to be abolished immediately.
This piece is an extract from today’s REAL Scottish Politics newsletter, which is emailed out at 7pm every weekday with a round-up of the day's top stories and exclusive analysis from the Wee Ginger Dug.
To receive our full newsletter including this analysis straight to your email inbox, click HERE and click the "+" sign-up symbol for the REAL Scottish Politics
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel