Peers on leave of absence

[sven_me...@web.de]

https://lordsbusiness.parliament.uk/ItemOfBusiness?itemOfBusinessId=150349&sectionId=40&businessPaperDate=2025-02-03

Lord Mandelson on leave of absence from 31 January 2025.

[sven_me...@web.de]

I take that as an oppotunity to take a better look on all peers on leave.

Lord Barker of Battle: 

Born 1966, took leave on accepting an executive chairmanship position with the En+ Group, likely to return afterward.

Lord Barwell: 

Born 1972, Reason not known to me, Only in his fifties likely to return.

Lord Boyd of Duncansby:

Born 1953, First ineligible, afterswards on leave, unlikely to taske an active part I presume

Baroness Clark of Kilwinning:

Born 1967, took leave when elected to scottish parliament, likely to return afterwards

Lord Collins of Mapesbury:

Born 1941, unlikely to play a part in the future

Lord Davies of Abersoch:

Born 1952, not enough information

Lord Feldmann of Elstree:

Born 1966, not enough information 

Lord Freud:

Born 1950, not enough information

Baroness Fullbrook:

Born 1959, young enough to return

Lord Geidt:

Born 1961, too few information

[sven_me...@web.de]

Lord Hague of Richmond:

Born 1961, not enough information

Lord Llewellyn of Steep:

Born 1965, currently ambassador, likely to play an active part afterwards

Lord Malloch-Brown:

Born 1953, again and again taken leave and hasn't voted for many years but seem to avoiding being excluded

Baroness Mone:

Born 1971, lkely to leave the house when action against her is taken.

Duke of Montrose:

Born 1935,  at nearly 90 very unlikely to return.

Baroness Morgan of Ely:

Born 1967, on leave as first minister

Lord Palumbo of Southwark:

Born 1963 , himself unsure about his future in the Lords.

Baroness Vadera:

Born 1962, on leave for a long time.

Baroness Worthington:

Born 1971, few information.

[sven_me...@web.de]

I would like to hear your thoughts if all should be accepted for leave or should retire? Also additional information would be appreciated.

[sven_me...@web.de]

I would presume that someone here is able to help.

[sven_me...@web.de]

So no help here. 

[David Beamish]

Leave of Absence is governed by Standing Order 21 (see https://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/house-of-lords-publications/rules-and-guides-for-business/the-standing-orders-of-the-house-of-lords-relating-to-public-business/)

That Standing Order begins as follows:

"(1) Members of the House are to attend the sittings of the House or, if they cannot do so for reasons of temporary circumstance, obtain leave of absence, which the House may grant at pleasure.
(2) A member of the House may apply for leave of absence at any time during a session for the remainder of that session.
(3) When applying for leave of absence, a member of the House should state in their written application: (a) either the date by which they expect to return or, if they are unable to specify a date, the circumstances which will allow their return; (b) the reason for their leave of absence; and (c) that they have a reasonable expectation that they will be in a position again to take part in the proceedings of the House."

So those on leave of absence must have said why they expect to be able to return at some point.

Perhaps the most improbable instance among those recently on leave of absence was Lord Christopher, who will be 100 in April (and has been the oldest member since the death of Lord Carrington in 2018). He first took leave of absence in March 2021, and was again on leave of absence last session, presumably on the ground that he was caring for his wife, who died in October 2024 aged 105. This session he has not sought leave of absence and, now that the session is over six months long, he is in danger of exclusion for non-attendance if he does not take the oath of allegiance.

[colinp]

David - I did once try to make a FOI request to see if a letter requesting LOA would be made available but the Clerk of the Parliaments ruled that the information was exempt under s 34 (1) (parliamentary privilege) of the Freedom of Information Act as it would infringe the privileges of the House of Lords. I gather there is no appeal to the Information Commissioner against such a determination

[sven_me...@web.de]

Finally 2 responding but more response would be much apprieciatet.

[rcb1]

I don't see any reason to change Standing Order 21.

[sven_me...@web.de]

It should be taken more seriously. So often peers on leave very unlikely to really return.

[Henry W]

Hi Sven

I'm not sure if you are aware of this, but some of your messages read as though you are entitled to have one of us reply?  Whilst I am interested in these matters, not all are, and even those of us interested cannot always find the time to reply quickly.

Some discussion of this happened before: Possible expulsions of non-attending peers 2023

Thanks for taking the time to compile likely reasons behind the Leave of Absence

I agree that some Leaves of Absence seem very unlikely to end with a return to the House.   One of the problems we have is that we cannot see how scrutinised any application for Leave is under the updated Standing Order 21.  I fear that as long as a Peer states the required circumstances of their return, even if incredibly unlikely, the House will grant their request for Leave.

Any elderly peer with no reasonable prospect of sitting regularly in the future should do the "right thing" and retire.  Its unfortunate that so many were expelled by the sudden general election in July 2024.  Whilst they should have left the House, I would have preferred it had been some years earlier, by retirement at the end of their active service.

You mentioned the Duke of Montrose: https://members.parliament.uk/member/1922/contributions

His last speech before taking Leave of Absence reads more like a valediction:

[...]

My family and my health are now telling me that it is time to take a break. At the end of this Session I will take a leave of absence. My interest has been particularly on the constitution and devolution. It has been a privilege to have served this House for 28 years so far. It has meant that my family has been involved in both the constitution and devolution in this country since accompanying King William the Lion of Scotland on his return from exile 900 years ago.

In this building, when I walk between Central Lobby and the Members’ Lobby there is a painting of the scene of the execution of the First Marquess of Montrose, my direct ancestor, for commanding an army that sought to restore the monarchy represented by Charles II. Montrose was sentenced to be hung, drawn and quartered. The night before he wrote a short poem, which begins:

“Let them bestow on every airt a limb,

Then open all my veins that I may swim

To thee, my Maker, in that crimson lake”,

and finishes defiantly, with the lines:

“I’m hopeful thou’lt recover once my dust,

And confident thou’lt raise me with the just”.

In my view he was justified.

The theme that runs through all the subsequent generations was the ancient feudal responsibility that the Minister referred to in his introduction. In the early days it meant, “Do your duty to God and the King”. My family’s motto must date from that time, and it contains the instruction, “Do not forget”. In case I am not granted the opportunity to join noble Lords again, I will say that my hope is that your Lordships always remember what is expressed in the Norman French motto, “Ne Oublie”.

I don't deny him the right to a valediction, or indeed the right to be thanked by his fellow peers. In fact, I encourage both those things as whether I agree with him or not, I'm sure he has done hard work in the House. But it should be a genuine end, not trying to leave the door ajar at 90 years old.  Clearly though, enough was given in the Request for Leave that it was granted.

[Henry W]

Hansard of 23 October 2025: Procedure and Privileges: Fourth Report

Changes to the Standing Orders regarding Leave of Absence has been proposed, and I think put into place by the above motion.  The following is a summary from the Senior Deputy Speaker.  Emphasis is mine

The Senior Deputy Speaker  (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)

[...]. The origin of the first proposal was a letter from the Convenor of the Cross Benches, asking that the committee review the leave of absence scheme to address a feeling that the spirit of the scheme has not always been observed.

The committee recognised that leave of absence is a valuable option that gives noble Lords flexibility where temporary circumstances mean that it is difficult for them to participate in the House. The committee agreed that strengthening Member oversight through increasing the role of the Sub-Committee on Leave of Absence would help to ensure that the scheme operates effectively. I chair the Sub-Committee on Leave of Absence; the other Members are the three Chief Whips and the convenor.

The report sets out three changes. The first is that the Clerk of the Parliaments will inform the sub-committee of requests for leave of absence and leave a window of five working days before granting it. The second change is that the sub-committee will meet once a Session has run for six months to consider Members on leave of absence and write to those whom we feel should be encouraged either to return to active participation or to retire. These two changes are matters of committee practice; we report them to the House for information.

The third change would give the sub-committee the power to grant or withhold leave of absence to Members who have been on leave of absence for an extended period. This is a substantive change requiring amendment of the Standing Orders. This proposal aims to uphold the spirit of the scheme, reinforcing the principle that leave of absence is a response to temporary circumstances. Only Members who have been on leave for an extended period—which in practice would normally be for more than two consecutive Sessions—would be subject to this new procedure.

Of the 21 Members currently on leave of absence, 15 have been on leave for more than two consecutive Sessions. If the House agrees, the sub-committee will meet to consider whether to grant leave of absence to those Members should they reapply at the start of the next Session. We anticipate that most Members will be pre-cleared at this meeting. In a small number of cases where we consider that further extension of a Member’s leave of absence may be contrary to the spirit of the scheme, we will engage further with the Member concerned. Any formal decision to withdraw leave of absence would be taken only at the start of the next Session, once the Member had reapplied, and only with the unanimous agreement of the sub-committee.

[sven_me...@web.de]

Sounds like a big step in the right direction.

[Henry W]

A positive step I agree, though perhaps not a big step.

A member not currently on Leave can apply for Leave of Absence, and it appears this would be granted, though perhaps the subcommittee will attempt to persuade members to retire if they feel the spirit of the scheme is not being observed.

And of course it does not prevent peers maintaining the minimum activity requirements by attending the House once per session. This would be a matter for Parliament as a whole to legislate to change.