Could you cite where and when this determination was issued? I know that you are attentive to factual accuracy, but this is not something I have heard of before (and I am not entirely uninformed about UK peerage law). Nor have any of the UK governments claimed this, even though they have cited
every other excuse in the book to explain why they oppose sexism but refuse to remove the sexism from noble succession laws.
It was back when the debate surrounding the change in the succession to the Crown was being debated. I've gotten rid of huge sections of my personal library since then, but I do recall arguments that the individual LsPs would need to be amended individually for each peerage (and that no one was discussing the Baronetage). The
House of Lords Library does have some of the debate surrounding the hereditary peerages and the
failure to address them, though. I remember there being additional discussions when the current Marchioness of Bath's second son was born via surrogacy and she was decrying how he wasn't in line to the title because he wasn't born "of the body," but I didn't pay close attention to whether she cited any legal arguments regarding succession to peerage titles or know of a means to see whether her second son truly isn't in line to become Marquess of Bath.
All of the governments - coalition (Conservative and Liberal Democrat), Conservative and Labour - have resisted hereditary peerage reform.
All legislative proposals for reform have been made by backbenchers (Members of Parliament and Lords/Baronesses who do not serve in the government) without government support. There are backbenchers from the Labour, Liberal Democrat, and Conservative parties who have sponsored or supported those proposals.
At least one backbench MP (Harriett Baldwin) who advocated for women's succession rights to hereditary dignities under the previous Conservative government has stated that she will continue to advocate now that the Labour government is in power.
Hereditary peers themselves have brought it up themselves and suggested options for addressing it, too, so it's not like they don't see it as some sort of issue, but it's not something successive governments have wanted to get into the weeds for.
I don't believe anyone has expressed the wish that the UK become Spain. There is nothing inherently Spanish or un-British about proposals to end or alleviate the sexism in peerage inheritance. The UK has already removed the sexism from the laws of succession to real estate, for example, despite the centuries of enshrined male-preference land inheritance.
No, but comparing cultures when they have two completely different legal systems and cultures doesn't do anything. Napoleonic Code and English Common Law have resulted in different inheritance schemes in the countries that employ them for generations.
Without disagreeing with your comment, it is nonetheless true that governments, even when faced with numerous vital and pressing crises (and it seems to be a rare and lucky exception to the rule when a government never has to face vital and pressing crises), do regularly spend valuable legislative time on legislation that does not directly affect most of the general population. To give specific examples would risk leading to off-topic political discussion, so I will leave it at that.
I definitely agree with that, but during the debate surrounding the succession to the Crown act, the following comment was made
"While the holders of hereditary peerages continue to be eligible for membership of the House of Lords, the way in which their titles are inherited, and its effect on the gender balance in Parliament, remain matters of public interest."
Given that this government seeks to remove the hereditary peers altogether, should they succeed in doing so, I expect they will continue to dodge addressing the concern, since it would then no longer be a "matter of public interest."
