Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Marlesford (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Friday, 21 October 2011. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on House of Lords Reform Bill [HL].


House of Lords Reform Bill [HL]

I think of two very simple facts. First, hereditary Peers who are sitting in this House are in no sense discriminated against as a result of Clause 10. Secondly, it is perfectly obvious that the arrangement for by-elections was always intended to be an interim one. The mistake, in a sense, was not to have had it ending at the end of that Parliament or, conceivably, the following Parliament because it was intended to make use of the reservoir of experience which we had, needed and wanted to keep. We have done it extremely successfully. Least there should have been a too rapid decline, there was an arrangement for temporary topping up. In answer to the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, it is so clearly for the reason she gives that the topping-up system is a farce. It is undemocratic, and I suggest that Clause 10 is a means of moving on to democracy, which is the reason why it should stand.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
731 c469 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
House of Lords Disqualification Hereditary peers House of Lords composition Referendums Peers Reform Appointments Commission
Legislation
House of Lords Reform Bill (HL) 2010-12
House of Lords (Amendment) Bill (HL) 2010-12
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk