My Lords, I support the question put by the noble Lords, Lord Tomlinson and Lord Lipsey. Why are the principles of the Bill, but not its timing, right? More than seven years is quite a long time, and another seven years are in prospect. The Government have a justified reputation for amending legislation by new Bills with much greater frequency than once every eight years. Indeed, it remains somewhat odd that the merits of the Bill were not spotted in 1999. When I left the House in 1999, I did not expect to be able to return in 2005. I would have been disappointed but unsurprised.
Two suggestions have been made in this debate which should be possible for a combination of the statutory commission, with its criteria and code, and the self-regulating skill of Parliament to resolve. They are the questions of appointment not being honorary but demanding due diligence and of the hereditary peerage and its children, male and female, being put to no disadvantage but being left in equal competition with all. Those are, no doubt, matters for consideration in Committee on this welcome Bill.
Self-regulation and a careful study of the terms of appointment would enable a voluntary redundancy procedure to evolve. I am with Edmund Burke, who advised that if you see a sensible and timely measure, you should not hesitate but should pass it into law.
House of Lords Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Viscount Eccles
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Friday, 20 July 2007.
It occurred during Debate on bills on House of Lords Bill [HL].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
694 c525 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 12:13:51 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_412995
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_412995
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_412995