Proceeding contribution from Lord Phillips of Sudbury (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Lords on Thursday, 3 November 2005. It occurred during Debate on Parliament and the Public.
Parliament and the Public
My Lords, I can hear the titters, but it is not good enough. We need a system where people feel that they have someone representing them in Parliament. I want to commend Recommendation 18, which refers to citizenship education and the role that we can play in that. Citizenship came on to the curriculum in 2002. I would hate today to pass without saying how sad I am—and I think others may be—that David Blunkett was forced to resign yesterday. He was a fine Minister and is a fine man and the person who more than any other brought citizenship on to the curriculum against great opposition. Everyone now accepts it, but not enough is being done. David Bell, the OFT top man, was lecturing at John Moores University yesterday. He said that in one in five schools, citizenship education is still marginalised. He emphasised how citizenship education can reinvigorate education as a whole, making it exciting and relevant. The noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, asked me to say how sad he was not to be here. He had an unbreakable engagement and wanted me to say:"““Good citizenship needs to be taught and it should not be left to chance. It is difficult to measure success, but with so many now in the field I hope that all of us together can make an impact””." What an impact he made as Speaker and later in this field. I have two suggestions. First, we should abandon titles in this House. I am not suggesting that anyone who has one should lose it, but it is distancing and vaguely ludicrous to call life Peers Lord this and Baroness that. I genuinely think that it is a distancing, unnecessary encumbrance to the very thing that we are trying to do—present ourselves in a modern, democratic, ordinary light. Secondly, I believe that people who do not attend this place with some degree of regularity should lose their place. That could be done quite simply by saying that if you do not attend six times a year, or something like that, you are out. People do not understand how this place can be a serious legislative House if a third or a quarter of Members are very rarely here. We must also make changes in silly things—such as the fact that the people sitting in the Public Gallery are not allowed to make notes of what we are saying, because it is against the rules of the House. That is stupid. It has nothing to do with the modern world. We should treat our visitors with respect. I had 40 of them in on Monday and it took them 20 minutes each to get through the security check. That is not respecting the public—this is their House, not ours. Finally—and perhaps most cheekily, but still seriously—why on earth do we not have an illuminated sign outside St Stephen’s Entrance saying ““Vacancies in the House of Lords””, ““Vacancies in the House of Commons””? Have you ever seen the galleries full in this place? No—and when you ask why, you get a very unsatisfactory answer. There are a lot of things we could do, big and small. Thanks, once more, to the Hansard Society commission.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 675 c349-50
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Accountability Broadcasting Communication Education House of Lords Internet Parliamentary procedure Parliamentary scrutiny Public participation Parliament Media Young people Television Hansard Society
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 22:43:07 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_275276
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_275276
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_275276