Proceeding contribution from Lord Steinberg (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 13 March 2007. It occurred during Debate on House of Lords: Reform.
House of Lords: Reform
My Lords, no! No! No! This is not a White Paper, it is a bit of straw. This is not a bad Bill, nor a dreadful Bill, but a terrible Bill. It is designed to destroy democracy, cancel history, destroy heritage and remove freedom of choice. What is wrong with patronage? It has held this country together for hundreds of years, and most of us sitting in this House are beneficiaries of patronage in one form or another. I have been in this House for 20 years less than the noble Lord, Lord Moran, but I agree with most of what he said. I know that many noble Lords have heard time and again the comment that if it is not broken, you don’t need to fix it. In my three years in the House, I have been amazed by the length and breadth of knowledge imparted by fellow Peers. I am proud to be a Member of the House of Lords, and I believe that all noble Lords are. In her speech, my noble friend Lady Miller, who is sitting in front of me, typified everything that I feel about the House, and she has been here much longer than me. The noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, who is not in his place, spoke about the established church and the introduction of representatives of other faith groups. As a proud Jew, I am happy that the 24 Bishops of the established church sit in this House, but I would be even more proud if the Chief Rabbi were able to join us and give us the benefit of his wisdom. The greatest brains in industry, the military—the Air Force, the Army and the Navy—and the law, including former Law Lords and Lord Chief Justices, add kudos to the House, and I do not understand why the Government want to destroy something that has stood the test of time for so many years. Many illustrious former politicians who have served their country well have been put into the House of Lords to give it the benefit of their experience. In my few remarks, I want to elaborate on why I believe that we should vote for an unchanged House, and I hope my arguments will fall on sympathetic ears and bear fruit. It appears to me that the Government do not know what they want. If the House will pardon the analogy on the first day of Cheltenham, it sounds like a seven-runner horse race with options. The mere fact that Members have been given seven different options—seven different runners—suggests that the Government do not really know what they want to do, and that is no great surprise to us on these Benches. On page 16 of the White Paper, noble Lords will note that there was a free vote in 2003. It says: "““As the tables below indicate, no clear consensus could be found””." Perhaps that is why we have been presented with so many different options. The House of Lords considers itself to be a revising Chamber that looks carefully at government legislation. Where appropriate, it makes adjustments to the wording of many clauses and, in some cases, actively opposes the wishes of Parliament. Were it not for the House of Lords, we would not have the kind of democracy for which we all wish and hope. Without it some of us might think that we have a benign dictatorship, and with government as it is today, it is no idle thought that in time without a proper representative House of Lords that could happen. Do noble Lords not think that there may be another reason why we are being faced with this so-called reform? Maybe the Government do not like losing occasionally. When I was in the gambling business I didn’t like losing occasionally, but I didn’t try to change the law so that I didn’t lose. Perhaps the Government these past 10 years have not been used to losing and now that they are, they do not like it. However, that is only a thought. Having heard that the House of Commons wants to eliminate us, we must all be concerned that we send the right message to the House of Commons and to the country that ours is a great House that keeps the Government of whatever colour in check whenever necessary. We do not automatically vote against the Government through a fit of pique, but we do where we think the legislation is wrong or incorrectly written. One of the things that impressed me the most is the way the House of Lords carefully deciphers every word in the production of a Bill. How do we, as threatened Members of the House of Lords, resist? I say that we should all vote for a purely appointed House, and that we do not follow the route of all the other options because they will destroy the status quo. I am a great believer in the status quo, democracy and history. I believe that this House will vote showing its wish to preserve democracy and history. I encourage noble Lords to vote with me.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 690 c675-7
- Session
- 2006-07
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Bishops Elections House of Lords House of Commons Hereditary peers House of Lords composition Legislation Electoral systems Powers Public appointments Parliamentary scrutiny Life peers Reform Crossbenchers
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 11:16:01 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_384416
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_384416
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_384416