I have never thought that liberalism had anything to do with precipitate, foolish and unresearched activity. I am not in any way suggesting that that is what we have here, but I am saying that there are valid reasons for an essentially rational liberal to make fair and cautious points about where we might be going with this, and to want to be assured that what we are doing will have the consequences that we expect.
There are risks involved, many of which have been voiced in the other place as well as here. To be fair, Ministers have tried to forestall those risks, privately and publicly, and to placate people with their mellifluous tones. I welcome that and I accept it; it is a good thing, as it encourages rational discourse. But, however convinced or unconvinced we might be, what negates all those assurances and soothing words, and what gives the game away and convinces me that this is a semblance, and a rational coating perhaps disguising an unbending ideology—although I hope not—and a visceral dislike of local authorities, is not the words that Ministers have used but the haste with which they have moved.
Academies Bill [Lords]
Proceeding contribution from
John Pugh
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Commons on Monday, 19 July 2010.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Academies Bill [Lords].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
514 c61 Session
2010-12Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 17:45:57 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_656555
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_656555
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_656555