header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
10 January 2025 / Neil Parpworth
Issue: 8099 / Categories: Features , Constitutional law
printer mail-detail

Calling time on hereditary peers? (Pt 3)

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
202617
A ‘timid pipsqueak’ of a Bill, or the first step towards greater reform? Neil Parpworth charts the journey of the Hereditary Peers Bill through the House of Commons
  • The House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill passed its third reading in the House of Commons on 12 November 2024.
  • Several new clauses were tabled by opposition MPs, including the exclusion of bishops and archbishops, a mandatory retirement age of 80, and a minimum participation requirement.
  • Although the government maintained its commitment to wider reforms to the House of Lords, opposition MPs expressed scepticism that further Bills will be brought forward during the lifetime of the present Parliament.

The House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill, which was introduced on 5 September 2024 and received a second reading on 15 October 2024, passed its remaining stages in the House of Commons on 12 November 2024. As readers will recall, the Bill’s purpose is to break the link between the UK’s legislature and the aristocracy (see ‘Calling time on hereditary

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll