Talk:Members of the House of Lords

Party affiliations

Comparing it to House_of_Lords#Current_composition, there are a number of mistakes; UKIP members, for instance. Could someone who knows more about this than I do please correct this? —Nightstallion (?) 15:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Older discussion

I think the Bishop of Chichester should be on this list (that would add up to 26 bishops), but he wasn't on the original source for this list [1]. anyone have any opinions on this? Mintguy 22:14 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

There's definitely a missing bishop here (or rather not here), don't know who it is though as the criterion requires the 21 longest serving bishops not including the Bishops of Durham, London and Winchester and the the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Archbishop of Yorkwho automatically attend). Mintguy 17:59, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The external link which served as the source of this page was updated in October. Is anyone is willing to do a comparison and bring this page up to date, I'm rather too busy/lazy myself. Mintguy

---

what is the policy for deaths? Annotate or delete? We seem to have been doing a bit of both... Anyway, it seems that Lord Blake (20 September) and Lord Perry of Walton (16 July) have died [2] without being updated. --rbrwrˆ

Delete, move to Former members of the House of Lords. Morwen 19:55, Jan 4, 2004 (UTC)

That page would be very large. The House of Lords had about 600 members for a very long time, with them being entirely replaced by death and inheritance about every 30 years. Proteus 11:11 GMT, 14th January 2004

---

Now we are getting lots of articles about hereditary peerages, shouldn't we link to the peers rather than their titles with pipelinking? Morwen 20:22, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)

Yes we should be linking to peers rather than peerages. However as most hereditary peers no longer sit on the HoL, the titles shown for the most part should be unambiguous. Mintguy (T) 21:09, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, so there are only about 100 to fix. I would do it myself but I am too lazy at the moment. ;) Morwen 21:10, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)

I've done the As and most of the Bs, and now I'm bored with it.

I have edited the life peers to follow naming conventions (John Smith, Baron Smith rather than Lord Smith), but some peers might use different names (I recalled Robin Butler instead of Frederick Butler), but I'm not quite an expert on British politics (nowhere near that, actually). I've done all of the A's and B's - perhaps someone could check my work to make sure I didn't screw up anyone's name? ugen64 16:48, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

Lord Biffen (John, not William) and Lord Browne of Madingley (John, not Edmund) are the only two I know of (except Lord Butler of Brockwell) in the As and Bs who don't use their first name. I've changed the links accordingly. (Oh, and Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon is better known as Paddy Ashdown [in fact, his peerage title and real name are virtually unknown].) Proteus (Talk) 17:18, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

I'm going to suggest that we leave dead peers in the recent section for no longer than one year, not sure if we establised policy on that or not. Mackensen 17:56, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. Otherwise it'd be "peers who have died since we started listing dead peers", which isn't terribly professional. :-) Proteus (Talk) 18:58, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Bishops

I think I'm going to move Bishops into a seperate part of the list, since membership of the Lords is in that case an ex officio office - and basically to make it easier to update them. We seem to be missing York, for example, who I'm not sure if he's hazed or whatever yet. Morwen - Talk 21:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, that's done. I've also done a disambiguation and squashed what I think were all the links to titles rather than actual peers. Could do with some more notes :-

• need to note Lords of Appeal who remained in the House but aren't active Law Lords anymore, etc
• need to note elected hereditaries who won by-elections.
• could do with explicitly noting LPA 1958 peers, so that can difference between omission and a life peer. Morwen - Talk 22:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Partly done this. I note this diff removed Lord Steyn, who retired from being a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary. However, he remained in the Lords. Morwen - Talk 12:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[3] is a good resource about Bishops. I note that the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds is next in line. Morwen - Talk 12:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Missing lords

gah, it looks like we may have a bunch of missing lords. Comparing the list here to [4] we are missing a lot of peers. The first bunch are :

• Ballyedmond
• Bhattacharyya
• Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury
• Broers
• Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood
• Cameron of Dillington
• Carswell
• Carter of Coles
• Chapman
• D'Souza
• De Mauley
• Dearing
• Drayson
• Dykes
• Falkner of Margravine
• Garden
• George
• Giddens
• Gould of Brockwood
• Griffiths of Burry Port
• Hale of Richmond
• Hart of Chilton
• Hastings of Scarisbrick
• Haworth
• Henig
• Howard of Rising

Presumably mostly recent life peers. This is going to take quite a bit of work to bring up to date. Morwen - Talk 20:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Looking at this a bit more, yeah, the cutoff point seems to be the peers created after spring 2004, which is basically when the list was made originally. So Triesman (January 2004) is here, but Kalms (June 2004) isn't. Morwen - Talk 21:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

In order of creation, they are:

• Lady Hale of Richmond
• Lord Carswell
• Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood
• Lord Kalms
• Lord Drayson
• Lady Falkner of Margravine
• Lord Tunnicliffe
• Lord Bhattacharyya
• Lord Garden
• Lord Howard of Rising
• Lord Hart of Chilton
• Lord Leitch
• Lord Gould of Brookwood
• Lady Henig
• Lord Carter of Coles
• Lord Snape
• Lady Morris of Bolton
• Lord Truscott
• Lady Wall of New Barnet
• Lady Prosser
• Lady Morgan of Drefelin
• Lord Laidlaw
• Lord Rosser
• Lady Neuberger
• Lord Roberts of Llandudno
• Lord Giddens
• Lord Rana
• Lady Murphy
• Lord Maxton
• Lord Ballyedmond
• Lord McKenzie of Luton
• Lord Dykes
• Lord Broers
• Lady Young of Hornsey
• Lord Vallance of Tummel
• Lord Steinberg
• Lady Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury
• Lady Chapman
• Lady McDonagh
• Lord Young of Norwood Green
• Lady Royall of Blaisdon
• Lord Rowlands
• Lord Haworth
• Lord Cameron of Dillington
• Lord George
• Lord Griffiths of Burry Port
• Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
• Lady D'Souza
• Lord Alliance
• Lord Patten of Barnes
• Lord Kinnock
• Lord Hope of Thornes
• Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington
• Lord Adonis
• Lord Ramsbotham
• Lady Fritchie
• Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope
• Lady Taylor of Bolton
• Lady Morris of Yardley
• Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan
• Lord Howarth of Newport
• Lord Tyler
• Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
• Lord Foster of Bishop Auckland
• Lord Hamilton of Epsom
• Lord Chidgey
• Lord Jones of Cheltenham
• Lord Bilston
• Lady Shephard of Northwold
• Lady Clark of Calton
• Lord Moonie
• Lord Smith of Finsbury
• Lady Tonge
• Lady Bottomley of Nettlestone
• Lord Mawhinney
• Lord Cunningham of Felling
• Lord Lyell of Markyate
• Lord Anderson of Swansea
• Lady Adams of Craigielea
• Lord Soley
• Lady Corston
• Lord Goodlad
• Lord Rees of Ludlow
• Lord Turner of Ecchinswell
• Lord Mance
• Lady Deech
• Lady Valentine
• Lord Turnbull
• Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick

Proteus (Talk) 12:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Tbh I think probably that this article should pause for a while as it looks like we will have all hereditaries and most life peers removed in the upcoming Q's Speech. So perhaps we might be wiser to devote our efforts to things that don't appear likely to change so soon.Alci12 10:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Alan Johnston, Lord Johnston

Why isn't he included in the article?84.134.92.179 (talk) 20:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Lord Johnston acquired his title through being a Senator of the College of Justice and not through a peerage. As he wasn't a peer he was not eligible for membership of the House of Lords. Road Wizard (talk) 20:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

William Buchan, 3rd Baron Tweedsmuir

What about him?84.134.100.168 (talk) 12:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Baron Tweedsmuir was a hereditary peer. There are several hundred hereditary peers, but only 92 are allowed to sit in the House of Lords at any one time (due to the changes brought about by the House of Lords Act 1999). As he wasn't one of the 92 hereditary members elected to sit in the Lords he is not recorded in this article. See List of hereditary peers elected to sit in the House of Lords under the House of Lords Act 1999. Road Wizard (talk) 15:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Lord Tombs

Why was he deleted from the "leave of absence"- list ?84.134.89.247 (talk) 14:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Because he is no longer on a leave of absence. See List of Peers Granted Leave of Absence and House of Lords: alphabetical list of Members. His entry in the article has been moved to the T-Z section. Road Wizard (talk) 14:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Royal Members

What's the reason Royal members are not included on this list? The House of Lords Act 1999 refers to:

members of the Royal Family with the right to sit and vote in the House (the Prince of Wales 2 , the Duke of Edinburgh, the Duke of York, the Duke of :Gloucester, the Duke of Kent and the Earl of Wessex); —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.38.184 (talk) 23:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The Act is a little confusing (for those of us not used to reading Acts of Law, anyway!) The "Exclusion" that applies to Members of the Royal Family is Exclusion from the House of Lords, not exclusion from being excluded! The people listed in that section were actually all offered life peerages, but none of the royals accepted. Therefore they are not members of the House. A number of "first holders" did accept life peerages, the only remaining one being the Earl of Snowdon (a sort-of royal). Viscount Cranbourne, as the only holder of a writ of acceleration at the time, also accepted a life peerage. JRawle (Talk) 00:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

JRawle is correct. See the House of Lords Act 1999 article for a full explanation and supporting references. Road Wizard (talk) 10:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I had thought Cranborne was given a life peerage as a former cabinet minister rather than due to the writ of acceleration. john k (talk) 03:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Complete?

Is this list complete?84.134.117.197 (talk) 14:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Why not compare it to the official list here? [5] JRawle (Talk) 15:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

And what about this name? Is that nonsense? Lord Cadbury Richard Bass 84.134.117.197 (talk) 14:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

That is nonsense! I've deleted it. It was added by vandal 76.203.233.103 in this edit in May: [6] Lord Richard is correctly listed in the table already. JRawle (Talk) 15:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. 84.134.115.70 (talk) 08:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thomas John Ashton, 3rd Baron Ashton of Hyde

I can't find him in the list. Was he excluded in 1999?84.134.115.70 (talk) 08:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

If a hereditary peer like Thomas John Ashton, 3rd Baron Ashton of Hyde is not recorded in the List of hereditary peers elected to sit in the House of Lords under the House of Lords Act 1999 then they will have lost their membership at that time. Road Wizard (talk) 18:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Ian Cundy

Cundy has died.Max Mux (talk) 10:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

suspended?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2009/may/14/cash-for-amendments-peers

Max Mux (talk) 08:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

leave of absence?

What does this mean? john k (talk) 03:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Since 1958 [7] the Standing Order of the House of Lords requires its members to attend any of its meetings, however those prevented for any reason may request a leave of absence, granted by the Lord Speaker for a certain period or the remainder of a parliament. Generally the causes are disease or age-related infirmity. (see also [8] and [9]) ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 15:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

So did the hundreds of hereditary peers with little to no no interest in the business of the House of Lords before 1999 all show up unless they were suffering from disease or age-related infirmity? john k (talk) 19:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

When I said that health and age were the general causes, this of course meant not that these were the only reasons (for example [10]) - but do you want me to go through all hansards since then to examine all? I hope not :-) Instead I have found, I believe, the original procedure [11], what should expand my previous explantation a little bit more. Note that at several times amendments were implemented. By the way, if I remember right, at one time even sanctions against absentees (without granted leave) were considered. ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 22:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Neither this article nor House of Lords explains the term, although both use it. It seems to me that some explanation of the nature of a "leave of absence" from the House of Lords ought to be included in both articles. Also - is it accurate to say that, in spite of this rule, there are no actual sanctions against absentees? john k (talk) 05:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it would be sensible to add an explantation to both articles and will do so in the next days. Regarding actual sanctions, I'm not aware of any. May I finally add that you John has always striked me as very familiar with peerage relates details and that I wonder whether your original question was perhaps only thought as reminder to explain the term ? ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 22:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I know a fair bit about the peerage, but largely historically, and not so much recent history. I was genuinely unclear on what a leave of absence was, especially as my understanding was that attendance in the House of Lords was always quite poor. So, no, it wasn't just a rhetorical device. I didn't know what a leave of absence from the House of Lords was and I was genuinely curious about it. john k (talk) 05:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my assumption came over as a offence, but I have been really surprised that the question was put just by you. :-) I have now added a little bit about leave on absence to both articles, so perhaps you might wish take to take a look, correct me, expand me or do whatever is appropriate. Best wishes ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 10:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

David Urquhart

Resolved

I would like to point out that due to a bad hyperlink, the article suggests that the current Lord Bishop of Birmingham is a man who has been dead for 133 years. I know that the correct page is linked at the top of that page, but at first glance it can be very confusing. I would change it myself, but a lack of technical knowledge prevents me from doing so.--82.16.110.13 (talk) 13:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Fixed. Kittybrewster ☎ 13:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Lord Bishop of Durham

Resolved

Just checking. Is he senior to London? --Kittybrewster ☎ 13:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

No, the order is Canterbury, York, London, Durham, Winchester, and then the others by seniority. Proteus (Talk) 13:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Parties

One thing i've noticed here is that some parties, that according to the main House of Lords article sit in, are missing from this list. For example last time I checked Baron Bannside was leader of the Democratic Unionist Party and The Ulster Unionists according to the main article have 4 representitives in the house so is this an error or is there some reason why members of some political parties don't have their party in this list? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Images

An IP editor wants to add images to this page for every single member for whom an image is available. This list is already large and loads somewhat slowly on older machines (c. 2005). Adding hundreds of images makes this page load so slowly that it effectively restricts me, and people like me, from viewing it. Editing becomes so slow that I would never be able to edit here again. As the one who tends to update the leaves of absence and one who helps with deaths and new members, such a result would not only be bad for editors on old machines, but also for the article. The only response to this in the edit summaries has been that IP disagrees. I'm not even sure what that is supposed to mean. That IP's experience isn't slowed down? Does IP think I am lying? I have added pictures to other lists around the project, and more to the point have never given IP a reason to do other than assume good faith. In any event, I cannot be the only person using a configuration on which hundreds upon hundreds of images drastically slows page load.

I have suggested the alternative of dividing the "Lords Temporal" section into four or five sub-articles with no response. I personally don't think the value of the images is enough to justify dividing the article, but it is a better alternative than having several hundred images. -Rrius (talk) 03:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)