I forbore to stand to catch your eye earlier, Mrs. Heal, because I wanted to listen to the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) and the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) discuss their amendments and new clauses.
I shall maintain the spirit of consensus that has predominated in this debate, but not because I believe for one moment in the concept of appointed term peers or non-term peers. I am wholly against that concept. As most hon. Members know, I have always argued in favour of an elected second Chamber, but the amendment has some merits in the context—and only in the context—of an unreformed House and how we might limit some of the more deleterious aspects of its form and function at the moment. One thing that I have noticed about those who are elevated to another place is that they tend very quickly to believe that the process by which they were elevated must be extremely wise and sensible given the outcome, which is that they are now a Member of that House. The longer they stay in the House, the more they are convinced of that fact and the less likely they are to change.
The merit of what the hon. Member for Chichester has proposed is that it provides an envelope for that patronage to end. That must be right. It limits, at least to a certain extent, the effect of prime ministerial patronage. I also think that it would have the function of focusing those who were in that House for a limited period on the job that they were there to do. A great number of life peers, particularly those who have been recently created, seem to have only the haziest view of their function as members of a legislature, as evidenced by the fact that they rarely attend. When they do attend, it is usually on a matter that directly affects them rather than because they have any view of their function in a working democracy. The fact is that the work of the other House is carried out by a very limited number of people. All credit to those who shoulder the burden—they do a terrific job—but the fact is that many Members of the other House are rarely seen and rarely contribute.
Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill
Proceeding contribution from
David Heath
(Liberal Democrat)
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 c737-8 Session
2009-10Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 19:37:04 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_614972
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_614972
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_614972