Possible expulsions of non-attending peers 2023

[colinp]

It has been announced that the State Opening of a new Session of Parliament will be on 7 November 2023

The present session will be prorogued probably towards the end of this month - the Lords resumes on 16 October after the Party Conferences.  As the current session has lasted more than 6 months  the provisions of s 2 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014 may be triggered in the case of a peer (not on leave of absence or otherwise disqualified/suspended) who has not attended a sitting of the House during the session.  Such a peer ceases to be a member of the House of Lords unless the House votes otherwise.

According to my records peers who may currently be at risk of expulsion for non-attendance are:

Lord Bhatia b 18 March 1932, aged 91.  He was suspended from the Lords in October 2010 for 8 months as part of the parliamentary expenses scandal.  He now sits as a non-affiliated member.  Last voted 6 Sept 2021, last spoke 18 Aug 2021

Lord Carter of Barnes b 12 February 1964, aged 59.  Sits as a non-affiliated member. Last voted 29 June 2009, last spoke 2 Dec 2009.  He was on my “at risk” list in 2022

Lord Christopher b 25 April 1925, the oldest member of the Lords, aged 98.  Sits as a Labour member. Last voted 6 Sept 2019, last spoke 26 Mar 2019

Lord Dixon-Smith b 30 September 1934, aged 89.  Sits as a Conservative member. Last voted 27 Apr 2022, last spoke 3 Nov 2015

Baroness Fritchie b 29 April 1942, aged 81.  Sits as a Crossbencher.  Last voted 24 Oct 2016, last spoke 8 Mar 2007

I should stress these are based on records publicly available.  I have checked the voting and speaking records of each peer on Hansard via the Parliament website and also the members' allowances records which are available until March 2023 which include records of attendance even when a peer has not claimed an allowance.  It is quite possible (though perhaps unlikely for all of them) that those of the above peers who have taken the oath may have attended the House since March but have not voted or spoken.  However I am fairly sure, though I stand to be corrected, that none of the above peers has yet taken the oath to the King and so would not have done so

Perhaps we may expect a flurry of oath-taking and leave of absence-taking from the above in a couple of weeks time

[Henry W]

The previous iteration of this thread: Possible expulsions of non-attending peers 2022

As always Colin, I'm very grateful for your work here.  In 2022 we had no expulsions due to non-attendance.  Of the 9 that were originally considered to be "at risk", 3 took retirement (Moonie, Oxburgh, Young of Graffham [subsequently died]).  One applied for Leave of Absence which was granted, and the remaining 5 were discovered to have attended at least one day after Colin's first list (as he says, we only have members' allowance records up to March).

As I often say for elderly peers, I hope that where there is no prospect of returning to active service, they should retire rather than continue on with leaves of absence and/or attending odd days.

[sven_me...@web.de]

Carter was so little active he should have gone a long time ago. Christopher and Bhatia seem to have not a chance at returning tro real dury at theier age. Dixon-Smith is not much younger. Fritchie was never very active. 

[sven_me...@web.de]

But why are so many leave of absence are even permitted in such cases?

colinp schrieb am Sonntag, 1. Oktober 2023 um 14:42:28 UTC+2:

[Henry W]

I understand that Leave of Absence is always granted when requested.  The practice dates back to 1958 when a significant number of peers would attend only key votes and thus sway outcomes.  The process meant that peers had to give at least one month notice (now 3 months) of their intention to return to the House.

With the "invention" of retirement for the House, I do wonder if the House should be more discerning in granting leaves of absence to help trim it's numbers.  There are some peers on Leave of Absence who may yet return to active service as they are still relatively young pursuing other careers.  I doubt this would happen as it is probably considered unseemly to suggest to a peer that they aren't granted Leave as it is thought they are more likely to die than improve in health.

[colinp]

The leave of absence rules were tightened up earlier this year.  Here is the relevant extract from the Procedure Committee 4th report which was approved by the Lords on 17 July 2023:

Fourth Report Contents

---

Introduction

1.At our meetings on 27 January and 9 March this year, we agreed to make a number of recommendations to the House for changes to the Standing Orders and the Companion to the Standing Orders. At that time new editions of both of these publications were imminent and the Committee decided to present all the changes to the House when those new editions were ready. The work on the new editions was however paused when the Coronavirus pandemic started and the procedures underpinning the virtual and hybrid proceedings became the focus.

2.The Committee has recently agreed changes to the procedures regarding Legislative Consent Motions and we have decided to wrap up all the outstanding changes in this one report. New editions of the Standing Orders and the Companion to the Standing Orders will be presented in due course.

Leave of absence

3.At our meeting on 9 March, we considered a paper from the Government Chief Whip about the process of taking leave of absence from the House and agreed to recommend changes to avoid any ambiguity in the use of the leave of absence procedure. These changes will apply to members who are already on leave of absence.

4.We recommend that:

(a)When writing to the Clerk of the Parliaments to request leave of absence, members should be required to:

(i)Specify a date by which they expect to return to the House1; and

(ii)Specify a reason for asking to take leave of absence.

(b)In order to provide a safeguard against members using leave of absence as an alternative to retirement from the House, members should be required to renew their leave of absence at the start of each new session, rather than at the start of a new Parliament.

5.To give effect to these changes, we recommend the following changes to Standing Order 22:

[new text in bold, deleted text struck through]

22 Leave of absence [16 June 1958]

(1) Lords 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 Lord may apply for leave of absence at any time during a Parliament session for the remainder of that session Parliament.

(3) When applying for leave of absence a member of the House Lord should state in their his written application the date that they expect to return, the reason for their leave of absence and that they have he has a reasonable expectation that they he will be in a position again to take part in the proceedings of the House.

(4) The provisions of paragraph (3) do not apply to the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain.

(5) On the issue of writs for the calling of a new At the end of a session of Parliament, the Clerk of the Parliaments shall in writing ask every member of the House Lord who was on leave of absence at the end of the preceding session Parliament whether they wish he wishes to resign under the House of Lords Reform Act 2014 or, if they expect he expects to attend again in the future, apply for leave of absence for the new Parliament.

(6) A member of the House Lord who has been granted leave of absence should not attend the sittings of the House until the period for which the leave was granted has expired or the leave has sooner ended, unless it be to take the Oath of Allegiance. 

(7) If a member of the House Lord, having been granted leave of absence, wishes to attend during the period for which the leave was granted, they he should give notice to the House accordingly at least three months before the day on which they wish he wishes to attend; and at the end of the period specified in the notice, or sooner if the House so direct, the leave shall end.

(8) In applying the provisions of this Standing Order the Clerk of the Parliaments may seek the advice of the Leave of Absence Sub-Committee of the Procedure and Privileges Committee.

6.Additionally, we recommend the following changes to the Companion:

1.37 Members of the House are to attend the sittings of the House. If they cannot attend, because of temporary circumstance, they should obtain leave of absence.2 At any time during a Parliament session, a member of the House may obtain leave of absence for the rest of the Parliament session by applying in writing to the Clerk of the Parliaments, specifying both a reason for asking to take leave of absence and a date by which they expect to return to the House. 

1.38 A member who has no reasonable expectation of returning as an active member at some point in the future should retire under the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. The House will not grant leave of absence to a member whose application has not stated that they have a reasonable expectation that they will return as an active member at some point.3 

1.39 Before the beginning of every Parliament session, the Clerk of the Parliaments writes to those members who were on leave of absence at the end of the preceding Parliament session to ask whether they wish to renew that leave of absence for the new Parliament session. The Clerk of the Parliaments draws the attention of such members to section 2 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014.4  

[colinp]

actually will need to check this further as I think the report approved on 17 July was the 6th report rather than the 4th report but I think it is clear that it is not so easy now to apply for leave of absence rather than retiring.

[colinp]

Got the right report now - this is the link to the Procedure and Privileges Committee 6th Report -  Procedure and Privileges Committee publishes Sixth Report - Committees - UK Parliament

This is the extract from the Report which actually only makes a minor change to the leave of absence provisions:

Leave of absence: return date

1.Members can obtain leave of absence if they are unable to attend the House because of ‘temporary circumstance’ (SO 21(1)). In so doing, they should “state in their written application both their reason for seeking leave of absence and the date by which they expect to return” (SO 21(3)). These rules are explained in more detail in paragraphs 1.37–1.42 of the Companion.

2.The requirement for a member upon application to specify a date by which they expect to return to the House has caused some difficulty, as members do not always know at the point of application when they will be in a position to resume active membership. This might include, for example, cases where a member is seeking leave of absence for medical treatment, to care for a family member, or to take up a diplomatic or other role of uncertain duration.

3.We recommend that members applying for leave of absence should in future either give the date by which they expect to return or, if they are unable to specify a date, explain the circumstances which will allow their return. We seek the House’s agreement to amendments to the Standing Orders and to the Companion to give effect to this recommendation. The changes are set out in Appendix 1.

and this is the amended standing order:

Amendment of Standing Order 21

21 Leave of absence [16 June 1958]

(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.”

Amendments to the Companion

Leave of absence

1.37 Members of the House are to attend the sittings of the House. If they cannot attend, because of temporary circumstance, they should obtain leave of absence. At any time during a session, a member of the House may obtain leave of absence for the rest of the session by applying in writing to the Clerk of the Parliaments, specifying both a reason for asking to take leave of absence and either a date by which they expect to return to the House or, if they are unable to specify a date, the circumstances which will allow their return.

[David Beamish]

The 4th report introducing the more substantial change was from Session 2019–21 and was agreed to on 22 October 2020.

[sven_me...@web.de]

I presume Jeffrey Archer still attends his few times a year. 

[sven_me...@web.de]

What about Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, one of the oldest who hasn't voted or spoken there for some time?

colinp schrieb am Sonntag, 1. Oktober 2023 um 14:42:28 UTC+2:

[sven_me...@web.de]

And the ridicicolous games begin...Lord Ribeiro retired, Lord Stevenson retired and Baroness Fritchie on leave of absence.

colinp schrieb am Sonntag, 1. Oktober 2023 um 14:42:28 UTC+2:

[colinp]

As Sven has intimated Baroness Fritchie has been granted leave of absence for the remainder of the Session (ie the next few days) - House of Lords minutes of proceedings 16 October 2023 - the House of Lords Members list states the leave of absence was from 15 October

[Henry W]

At 81, and with such low levels of involvement in recent years, one has to question whether or not the "tightening up" of Leave of Absence Rules was really enough.  I suspect that it remains the case that as long as the peer gives all the required reasons / dates / etc under the new rules then the Leave will be granted even if realistically the possibility of return to activity is quite minimal and that there is still no desire on the part of the House to interrogate the reasons behind long periods of inactivity and so not grant a Leave of Absence that is otherwise properly requested.

[rcb1]

I wonder if others agree with me that the rules should remain flexible.  Perhaps more flexible than they are at the moment.  The requirement to attend at least once a year is a modern one, which has little historic basis.  It is generally accepted that the House of Lords has more members than it needs and, in that context,. it seems wrong to me to discourage members, especially elderly ones, from speaking once every few years on an issue on which they happen to be have rare experience.  I really don't see the merit of that part of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014.  I'd be particularly interested in the perspective of Sir David Beamish, whose immense expertise and wisdom we are fortunate to benefit from here, on this issue.

[David Beamish]

How can I resist Richard's flattering reference to me?!

It is understandable that, with the size of the House of Lords a matter of controversy, there should be a general wish to encourage peers who are no longer able to play an active part to retire, now that there is a means of doing so. (Apart from a brief window of opportunity provided by the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, retirement has been possible only since 2014.) There is nothimg to prevent members "from speaking once every few years on an issue on which they happen to be have rare experience", but they do have to appear at least once per session. That seems reasonable to me - it might be thought presumptuous to expect the House to listen when one has something to say but otherwise never to come along to maintain one's feel for the institution.

Leave of absence was introduced in the late 1950s to restrict the opportunities for so-called "backwoodsmen" among the hereditary peers to attend only rarely when they wished to try to vote down progressive legislation, thus harming the reputation of the House. That is no longer an issue but the leave of absence scheme has been retained for other purposes, and I do not consider it unreasonable to expect a peer who (say) has been unwell and thus unable to attend the House to seek leave of absence so as to avoid the application of section 2 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014, if there is a reasonable expectation of being able to return to active membership.

[rcb1]

Thank you, Sir David.  That makes utter sense.  I shall crawl back into my box!

[eslad...@gmail.com]

But it is unreasonable for Peers to be allowed to take leave of absence for long periods because they want to go and work in New York, for example.  Leave of Absence should be restricted to medical reasons with a clear end point, not merely old age, and when the Peer is serving the UK abroad or is serving in some other public capacity of interest to the UK, ie: being Secretary General of NATO.

[Henry W]

From Hansard of 19 October:

Lord Elder made the solemn affirmation and Lord Carter of Barnes took the oath.

I assume that will be sufficient activity to prevent his removal at the end of this session.

On the point about the historical house and modern expectations of attendance - the House of Lords exists as a legislative body for a modern society and needs to be seen in that context if it is to continue as an institution in our constitution.  I am all in favour of nods to tradition, but the British constitution has always organically evolved to meet the times we find ourselves in.

[rcb1]

Yes, I agree with Henry about evolution - and the House of Lords has managed that process better than most institutions.  AS LONG AS there is an easy route for peers to miss a particular session of parliament without being expelled, the current arrangement does seem to make sense.  I suspect we all broadly agree that House of Lords has a serious and important job to do and should not in the modern era be seen as a kind of particularly elite club:  but nor should its members feel forced to attend for the sake of appearances.  It probably has a wider breadth of expertise than the Commons these days. That expertise on, eg, rural affairs, business, the law, defence and science should be safeguarded for the health of the nation.

[sven_me...@web.de]

I'm shaking my head reading that.

[sven_me...@web.de]

So Lord Elder was overlooked?

Henry W schrieb am Freitag, 20. Oktober 2023 um 00:25:08 UTC+2:

[Henry W]

I don't think so, though Colin is the expert here.

It appears that Lord Elder voted in July 2022, and this session began in May 2022, so his votes in July were qualifying activity.  Each peer has to reswear their oath to the new Sovereign, and so presumably he has been inactive since at least Sept 2022, but that would not have caused him to be excluded at the end of this session

[sven_me...@web.de]

When we look on those on leave of absence Baroness Campbell of Loughborough ever had a bad attendance, similiar Lord Browne of Madingly. Hanningfield thought about retiring at 80 but didn't do so. Lord Irvine is 83 and Phillips is 85.

[sven_me...@web.de]

The following still have interantional positions: Barker of Battle, Vadera, Scotland of Asthal, King of Bow

[colinp]

Lord Christopher has been granted Leave of Absence from 23 October to the end of the present Session - HoL Minutes of proceedings 23/10/2023

[sven_me...@web.de]

Not xplainabl

[sven_me...@web.de]

So only Bhatia and Dixon-Smith are in danger anymore.

[sven_me...@web.de]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/sep/17/eleven-peers-have-not-sat-in-lords-for-at-least-a-year-after-failing-to-take-oath-to-king

[colinp]

Both Lord Bhatia and Lord Dixon-Smith are now shown on the Lords Find a member page as having left the House on 7 November due to non-attendance although there was no announcement yesterday - maybe today

Incidentally one of the options on the Find a Member page is now Current and former members which includes hereditary peers who left the House in 1999

[sven_me...@web.de]

and one more Lord Judge has died

[Henry W]

From Hansard of 8 November 2023

The Lord Speaker  (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, I have to notify the House that the noble Lords, Lord Bhatia and Lord Dixon-Smith, yesterday ceased to be Members of the House under Section 2 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014 by virtue of not attending any proceedings of the House during the parliamentary Session 2022-23. On behalf of the House, I thank the noble Lords for their much-valued service to the House.

Noble Lords
Oh!

The Lord Speaker
That is what it says here.

[Henry W]

I am somewhat interested in how some of the more elderly excepted hereditary peers are contributing to the House.  I compiled a list of all hereditary peers born before 1950 and looked up their most recent speaking & voting activity (see below - ordered by YoB).

- All, except one, have voted in 2023.  The exception last voted 2021.

- Most have spoken in the House in 2023.  2 last spoke in 2022. 4 last spoke 2020.

- The voting exception is Lord Willoughby de Broke (he spoke in 2021) - I have listed him as Conservative as he sits in a seat to be elected by the Conservative hereditarys, but he (and some others) no longer have the original party designation of their seat.  He sat for UKIP for some time, but is now Non-Affiliated. Colin is better placed to know I suspect, but presumably he has avoided expulsion by attending the House without participating.  I am unaware of the reasons behind his general inactivity.

- Overall I was heartened that the hereditary contingent are overall quite active despite, in some cases, quite advanced age.  Whilst I did not compile the information, several have active committee assignments.

Viscount Bridgeman [C] (born 1930) - spoke Nov 2023. voted Oct 2023.

Viscount Eccles [Whole House C] (born 1931) - spoke Jan 2023. voted Oct 2023.
Duke of Montrose [C] (born 1935) - spoke Oct 2023. voted Oct 2023.
Lord Geddes [Whole House C] (born 1937) - spoke Oct 2023. voted Oct 2023.
Earl of Arran [C] (born 1938) - spoke Nov 2023. voted Oct 2023.
Lord Willoughby de Broke [C] (born 1938) - spoke 2020. voted 2021.
Lord Hacking [Whole House Lab] (born 1938) - spoke Nov 2023. voted Oct 2023.
Lord Crathorne [C] (born 1939) - spoke 2020. voted Oct 2023.
Lord Greenway ([XB] born 1941) - spoke May 2023. voted Oct 2023.
Lord Trefgarne [C] (born 1941) - spoke Sept 2023. voted Oct 2023.
Earl of Sandwich [XB] (born 1943) - spoke Oct 2023. voted Sept 2023.
Earl of Liverpool [C] (born 1944) - spoke 2022. voted Oct 2023.
Lord Glenarthur [C] (born 1944) - spoke May 2023. voted Sept 2023.
Viscount Craigavon [XB] (born 1944) - spoke 2022. voted Oct 2023.
Duke of Wellington [C] (born 1945) - spoke Oct 2023. voted Oct 2023.
Earl of Cork & Orrery [XB] (born 1945) - spoke 2020. voted Oct 2023.
Viscount Hanworth [Whole House Lab] (born 1946) - spoke Sept 2023. voted Oct 2023.
Earl Peel [C] (born 1947) - spoke 2020 (seems only to speak to give messages from Royal Family members - he was Lord Chamberlain until 2021). voted July 2023.
Lord Aberdare [XB] (born 1947) - spoke Nov 2023. voted Oct 2023.
Lord Mountevans [XB] (born 1948) - spoke Sept 2023. voted Oct 2023.
Earl of Caithness [C] (born 1948) - spoke Sept 2023. voted Oct 2023.
Earl of Erroll [XB] (born 1948) - spoke Oct 2023. voted Sept 2023.
Lord Carrington [XB] (born 1948) - LGC.  spoke Nov 2023. voted Oct 2023.
Earl of Dundee [C] (born 1949) - spoke Oct 2023. voted Oct 2023.
Viscount Waverley [XB] (born 1949) - spoke Oct 2023. voted Sept 2023.
Lord Sandhurst [C] (born 1949) - spoke Nov 2023. voted Oct 2023.
Lord Strathcarron [C] (born 1949) - spoke June 2023. voted Oct 2023.