Typically commonplace.
I have no idea how many Peers still sitting in House of Lords have criminal convictions -it may be interesting to find out but I couldn’t find any current info about it, just a Wiki page giving details of Peers who have had a criminal conviction - I don’t know how up to date it is but it goes all the way back through history and I didn’t fancy wading through every name to see which were still alive and still sitting the House
- do you know how many or who they are?
I know legislation was passed within the last decade so that any Sitting Peer is expelled from the House of Lords if they receive a criminal conviction carrying a sentence of a year or more, which should take care of the more serious crimes and they can be expelled for breaking HoL Codes of Conduct but I expect there will be some Peers still sitting who have been convicted of crimes carrying lesser sentences.
1 Like
Not sure if they even keep records, Jeffery Archer is still there, Lord Archer of Weston-Super- Mare. 
They’ve all committed a crime of some sort or they wouldn’t be in there.
1 Like
Information is hard to come by but:
Enquiry Service, House of Lords 20 December 2011
The House of Lords does not collect or record this information in the form requested.
The House holds no record of either:
- convictions for lesser offences, not carrying a custodial sentence;
- convictions that Members of the House may have incurred prior to becoming Members.
Whenever a Member of the House of Lords is given a custodial sentence, which would prevent them from attending the House, the House authorities are notified by the court and the Lord Speaker formally notifies the House. The only relevant information held by the House is a list of such notifications. The notifications themselves are published in the daily Minutes of Proceedings and the sessional House of Lords Journal.
House Of Lords Information Office, House of Lords 11 December 2008
Under the Forfeiture Act 1870 those convicted of treason are disqualified from sitting or voting as a member of the House of Lords. There is no statutory disqualification in relation to any other criminal
offence.
The same seems to apply to the Commons:
Information on how many MPs currently have criminal convictions is not held by the House of Commons. Members are not obliged to provide this information to the House of Commons.
Under the Representation of the People Act 1981, you are disqualified from becoming a member of the House of Commons if you have been found guilty of an offence and sentenced to more than one year in prison, and are currently detained as a result of that offence.
Once you are released from prison, you are not prevented from standing for election as an MP.
Astounding … 
1 Like
This was the list I found of British Politicians who had been convicted of serious crimes - so they could have been either in the Commons or the Lords when they committed their crimes - you would need to click on each name to see if they were a peer still sitting in the House of Lords, though - I recognise a few of the historic names who are long gone now.
Jeffrey Archer is on that list and is still technically eligible to sit in House of Lords because there was no mechanism to expel a member of the Lords back in the day when Jeffrey Archer was convicted in 2001.
It wasn’t possible to stop convicted peers from sitting in the Lords after release from prison until the House of Lords Expulsion and Suspension Act was passed in 2015.
Like most legislation, it wasn’t retrospective, so it didn’t affect Jeffrey Archer.
I don’t think Archer actually attends the Lords or takes any active part in discussions there, though - the Lords voting records show Archer has never cast a Vote in the HoL since he was convicted - his last Vote cast was in 2000.
The ability to remove a peerage title altogether without a specific Act of Parliament has been a long time coming but at last the Govt has started the ball rolling with the Removal of Titles Bill to make it easier to get rid of dodgy peers.
The wording of the new Bill seems to be quite broad, and the decision could be taken by the King himself or following the advice of a Parliamentary Joint Committee, so this goes a lot further than 2015 Lords Expulsion Act - if this Bill passes, maybe a peer wouldn’t need to receive a prison sentence of 1 year+ to get kicked out if an inquiry concluded they had acted wrongly and brought the House into disrepute? - the Bill started in the Commons and is only on its 2nd reading there, so it may get more “conditions and clauses” added into it as it passes through both Houses!
1
Power to remove titles
(1) His Majesty may remove any title.
(2) Where His Majesty has exercised the power under subsection (1)—
(a) if the person from whom a title has been removed is a peer, their
name must be struck out of the Roll of Peerage, and all rights of such 5 a peer to receive a writ of summons and to sit in the House of Lords
or to take part in the election of representative peers shall cease and determine;
(b) all privileges and all rights to any dignity or title, whether in respect
of a peerage or under any Royal Warrant or Letters Patent, shall cease 10 and determine.
(3) His Majesty may exercise the power in subsection (1)—
(a) on his own initiative, or
(b) following a recommendation made by a joint committee of Parliament.
(4) In this Act, “titles” means— 15
(a) any hereditary peerage in the peerage of England, Scotland, Great
Britain, the United Kingdom or Ireland;
(b) any baronetcy or other hereditary title within England, Scotland, Great Britain, the United Kingdom or Ireland.
Just to bear in mind, some of the info that search engines bring up on this topic relate to Freedom of Information Requests and articles written before the legislation changed (e.g. the articles in the post referring back to 2008 and 2011) so one would need to check for any later legislation before relying on historic info.
The Act granted the House of Lords the power to amend their Standing Orders to allow for peers to be expelled for breaching the House of Lords code of conduct. Any peer ejected in this manner would still be entitled to keep their title. The Act was cited by Lord Speaker Baroness D’Souza as evidence for the House of Lords reforming.
It was speculated that the power would first be used after Lord Sewel was filmed allegedly taking cocaine, however Lord Sewel resigned in July 2015 before the investigation could take place.
The first peer recommended for expulsion by the Lords Conduct Committee was Lord Ahmed (1) in November 2020, who subsequently resigned from the Lords as well.
(1) He faced expulsion from the House of Lords in 2020 on account of sexually exploiting a woman who had approached him in 2017 in his capacity as a member of the House, and resigned from the House after a recommendation of its Conduct Committee that he be expelled, but before it was implemented. However, he continued to be a life peer, although not a member of the House.
The first … and only … 
Surely not … 
1 Like
Why is there a house of Lords , for what purpose . They must all receive huge expenses payments and indulge in wonderful food all provided by us tax payers .
What are these people doing there , for what purpose other than to Lord it over us and pass their lordships and ladyships onto decendants , oh , and their kingdoms
1 Like
https://www.parliament.uk/business/lords/work-of-the-house-of-lords/what-the-lords-does/
The House of Lords is the second chamber of the UK Parliament. It is independent from, and complements the work of, the elected House of Commons. The Lords shares the task of making and shaping laws and checking and challenging the work of the government.
The Lords has three main roles:
Members of the House of Lords are sometimes referred to as peers. Most members are Life Peers although 92 (out of 776 sitting members) sit by virtue of hereditary title. Life Peers are appointed by the monarch on the advice of the Prime Minister to serve for their life; the title is not transferable.
1 Like
That is our biggest problem, and must change, before voting is abolished. Might not happen in our lifetime but have a gut feeling it could be the final nail to dictatorship.
Despite only spending 49 days in office, it has been reported that Liz Truss is planning to nominate at least four new members to the House of Lords as part of her resignation honours.
The rumoured list is said to include the ex-NOtoAV Campaign Director, Matthew Elliot, as well as long-term aide Ruth Porter, donor Jon Moynihan, and boss of the Institute of Economic Affairs Mark Littlewood.
Why should a Prime Minister be able to pack the already bloated Lords with their political cronies – all of whom will have a lifetime appointment to make our laws?
We want to hear your views on this, and our broader campaign to achieve electoral reform.
Do you think Prime Minsters should be able to make resignation honours lists?
(click an answer below)
No, the Lords is already full of political cronies and donors →
Yes, appointments like these will add expertise to the chamber →
Championed by our members and supporters, we work in parliament, in the press and online – making the case, and backing it up – for how we can fix Westminster’s broken system. We’ve made progress in Scotland and Wales but there is still a long way to go in Westminster. You can help us get there.
Thanks for sharing your views.
To achieve our vision of a democracy fit for the 21st century, we need as many of us as possible to raise our voices.
Best wishes,
Electoral Reform Society team