House of Lords data dashboard: Current membership of the House
This page provides interactive data on the current membership of the House of Lords.

This House of Lords Library briefing has been prepared in advance of a debate on the potential conflict between the right of members to speak freely in Parliament and the obligation under the rule of law to obey court orders. The debate is scheduled to take place on 23 May 2019.
Parliamentary Freedom of Speech and the Rule of Law (263 KB , PDF)
On 23 May 2019, the House of Lords is due to debate a motion moved by Lord Brown of Eaton-under Heywood (Crossbench) that “this House takes note of the potential conflict between the right of members to speak freely in Parliament and the obligation under the rule of law to obey court orders”. Lord Brown is a former justice of the Supreme Court.
Freedom of speech is a key element of parliamentary privilege, which is guaranteed by article 9 of the Bill of Rights of 1689. MPs and Members of the House of Lords have legal immunity for what they say or do during proceedings in Parliament. However, both Houses have passed sub judice resolutions which limit the discussion in Parliament of ongoing legal cases. This is intended to maintain an appropriate balance between the respective constitutional roles of Parliament and the courts.
On occasion, parliamentarians have used parliamentary privilege to disclose information in Parliament that was subject to a court order intended to prevent the dissemination of that information. Generally, someone who knowingly breaches the terms of such a court order could run the risk of being found in contempt of court. However, parliamentary privilege means that this does not apply to information disclosed in parliamentary proceedings. This has raised issues where a parliamentarian has revealed a name protected by a court order and it is subsequently repeated in the media, particularly in cases where proceedings were still active. There have been several reviews of whether Parliament should change its own internal rules on the use of parliamentary privilege to breach court orders. To date, the conclusion has been that it would not be necessary unless the frequency of such cases were to increase. Some of these reviews also identified practical difficulties in implementing rules to further restrain freedom of speech in parliamentary proceedings.
The purpose of this briefing is not to go into detail about any specific cases that have occurred. Rather, it explores the underlying principles and sets out the findings of parliamentary committees that have previously examined the subject.
Parliamentary Freedom of Speech and the Rule of Law (263 KB , PDF)
This page provides interactive data on the current membership of the House of Lords.
In the 2021 ‘End-to-end rape review’, the Conservative government pointed to a sharp decrease in rape prosecutions since 2016/17. Issues cited include long delays during the criminal justice process and a lack of specialist support for victims. Labour’s 2024 general election manifesto argued prosecutions were “shamefully low”. It committed to specialist rape and sexual offences teams in every police force and specialist courts to fast-track rape cases.
The government’s House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill would remove the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords and abolish its jurisdiction in hereditary peerage claims. The bill completed its Commons stages unamended and was introduced in the House of Lords in November 2024. The bill’s second reading in the Lords took place on 11 December 2024. This briefing provides an overview of that debate and lists the areas which future amendments could focus on.