header-logo header-logo

Calling time on hereditary peers? (Pt 5)

16 May 2025 / Neil Parpworth
Issue: 8116 / Categories: Features , Constitutional law
printer mail-detail
218608
A waste of time or due process? Neil Parpworth reports on the Lords debating the Lords
  • The House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill has completed its committee stage, involving extensive debates on more than 100 amendments.
  • Proposals included a mandatory retirement age and attendance requirements for peers, but the government maintained that the Bill wasn’t the right vehicle for those changes.
  • After 22.5 hours of parliamentary time, the Bill reported without amendments.

The House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill has now completed its committee stage in the House of Lords. Behind this bald statement lies the fact that it was not an entirely smooth process, despite the Bill seeking to give effect to a manifesto commitment made by the government, and regardless of it having achieved substantial majorities at each stage of its progress in the House of Commons.

Of course, as several peers pointed out, even where a government has a mandate to introduce legislation, the second chamber still has a role to play in scrutinising

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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll