Lebedev and Botham Share Identically Low Attendance in House of Lords
Newly revealed records from the House of Lords show that peers Evgeny Lebedev and Ian Botham have recorded the lowest attendance rates in the upper chamber, each managing to attend just 1.12% of sessions over the past four years. The figures, obtained by the Guardian, highlight how both men have barely met the minimum requirements to retain their seats as life peers.
Minimal Participation Over Four-Year Period
According to the official Lords records, Lebedev and Botham – both appointed by former Prime Minister Boris Johnson – attended only seven of the 625 sessions that took place between the beginning of 2022 and the end of 2025. This represents an identical attendance rate of 1.12% for both peers, placing them at the bottom of the participation scale.
Under established House of Lords rules, peers must attend at least one sitting during each year-long parliamentary session to maintain their seat. Both Lebedev and Botham have managed to meet this minimal threshold in recent years, though their overall participation remains exceptionally low.
Individual Attendance Patterns Revealed
Lebedev, the newspaper proprietor and son of a Russian billionaire who was granted a life peerage by Johnson in 2019, attended just once in 2022, followed by two appearances in each of 2023, 2024, and 2025. His formal title is Baron Lebedev of Hampton and Siberia, and he sits as a cross-bench peer.
One small consolation for Lebedev is that his current attendance rate represents a slight improvement over his previous record. From November 2019 through the end of 2022, he attended sessions at a rate of 1.25%, managing to make four of a possible 318 appearances.
Botham, the former cricketing legend who was made Baron Botham of Ravensworth in North Yorkshire in September 2020, showed a similar pattern of minimal attendance. He appeared twice in 2022, once in 2023, and twice again in both 2024 and 2025.
Beyond Simple Attendance Figures
The attendance records do not account for work on Lords committees, which can consume significant time for some peers. However, neither Lebedev nor Botham has ever served on any Lords committee during their tenure.
Lebedev has shown some recent increase in activity beyond mere attendance. After not voting at all during his first six years in the Lords, he has cast votes twice already this year. Similarly, one of his six total speeches in the chamber occurred this month.
Botham has not spoken in the Lords since November 2020 and has not submitted any written questions since November 2024. He has voted 21 times in total, but not since July 2021.
Context of Lords Operations and Size
The way the House of Lords functions differs significantly from the House of Commons. Many peers maintain careers outside Parliament or possess specialized expertise, meaning they typically contribute only occasionally to chamber proceedings.
Peers have the option to take formal leave of absence from the Lords or retire completely without losing their titles. While some older members attend very irregularly, none appear to have maintained such consistently low attendance as Lebedev and Botham over an extended period.
The Lords currently comprises 868 members, with 842 considered active participants. This makes it the largest legislative chamber in the world apart from China's National People's Congress.
Broader Reform Context
A recently passed bill will remove the final 92 hereditary peers from the Lords, but broader efforts to reduce the chamber's size have achieved limited success. Retirements have been offset by a high rate of new appointments by successive prime ministers.
Current Prime Minister Keir Starmer has thus far created 96 peers. Boris Johnson appointed 87 peers during his tenure and faced criticism for perceived nepotism in several appointments, including that of Lebedev. Among Johnson's other peerage creations was his own brother, Jo Johnson.
The identical attendance records of Lebedev and Botham highlight ongoing questions about peer participation and the effectiveness of the current system for ensuring active contribution from appointed members of the upper house.
