header-logo header-logo

08 November 2024 / Neil Parpworth
Issue: 8093 / Categories: Features , Constitutional law
printer mail-detail

Calling time on hereditary peers? (Pt 2)

196078
Too fast, too slow, too far, not far enough? Neil Parpworth tracks the progress of the Hereditary Peers Bill
  • The piecemeal nature of the Bill failed to strike a chord with some members across the house.
  • The Bill’s perceived lack of ambition was particularly criticised.
  • An opposition backbench MP (Sir Gavin Williamson) expressed his intention to move amendments to the Government’s Bill in order to make it more in tune with the Government’s own manifesto commitments.

As readers will be aware, the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill was introduced in the House of Commons on 5 September 2024, with the principal aim of making hereditary peers ineligible to continue to sit and vote in the House of Lords (see NLJ, ‘Calling time on hereditary peers’, 11 October 2024, p9). Its target is therefore the 92 excepted hereditary peers who remain active legislators due to a compromise reached to secure the passage of the House of Lords Act 1999. On 15 October 2024, the Bill received a second reading. What follows is a consideration

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

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll