I am not arguing that clause 29 is the radical, second-stage reform of the House of Lords—nor, I think, are those on the Government Front Bench. It is a good step forward, because it will remove the possibility of any further Members coming to speak and vote in our legislature on the basis of an hereditary principle. That is a modest but important step forward, whereas the radical reform would be wholesale reform along the lines of one or other of the two options that gained support from this House when we voted on the matter. Let us not confuse the two things. This is not the radical reform, but it is an important democratising step forward; and, sadly, the public will see that the Conservative party is opposed to it.
Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Hugh Bayley
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 26 January 2010.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee of the Whole House (HC) on Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
504 c713-4 Session
2009-10Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 22:58:48 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_614917
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_614917
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_614917