The House of Lords has variously addressed how to enhance communicating with the people, enabling people to know what the House is doing and providing the means for those interested in the business of the House to make their views known. Recently, as regular readers will know, the issue was addressed in the report of the Information Committee, Are the Lords listening? Creating connections between public and Parliament. At times, the House has been at the forefront of parliamentary developments in this field. In some areas, though, as with proposals for e-petitioning, we could learn from the Commons.
This week’s quiz covers communications between the House and people outside. As usual, the first two readers to supply the correct answers will be the winners.
1. Television coverage of the House of Lords began four years before that of the House of Commons. In what year did that permanent coverage of the House of Lords begin?
2. Mary Morgan was the first holder of which post in the House of Lords, the first of its kind in Parliament?
3. The House of Lords was the first House to allow an outside body to use the chamber for a debate. What was the first organisation to use the chamber in this way?
1) 2010 – 20 – 4 = 1986.
2) Public Information Officer
3) The ‘Youth Parliament’ in 2008 I think it was.
1. 1986 is when the authorisation for televising the Lords was extended indefinitely. I assume this is the date you’re looking for. Failing that, the TV coverage actually started in January 1985 for six months but authorisation to extend the experiment was granted in July of that year before the permanent coverage in 1986.
2. She’s the Director of Public Information now, but the wording of your question implies there was a preceding job.
3. The UK Youth Parliament used the Lords chamber in 2008.
I’m a bit pushed for time today – I think 2 and 3 are probably wrong but that’s the best I can do so far.
1) 1983
2) House of Lords Information Officer
3) UK Youth Parliament
1. 1985
2. Director of Public Information
3. the English Speaking Union for their Inter-nation Mace Final on May 12, 2007
Well, are the “lords” listening or not – then listen to this:
In consideration of the latest report on the swindling and theft by appointed “Lords” – “Lord” Paul, “Baroness” Uddin and “Lord” Bhatia, – a congregation of immigrant thieves – people are absolutely furious about this. It is the responsibility of the Parliament and all its departments to adhere to the wishes of the British people. You don’t run your own show over there, but are obligated to serve the citizens of this nation. And do you listen to the voice coming from the people?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/8068821/Expenses-scandal-three-face-suspension-from-House-of-Lords.html#dsq-content
Apart from the ludicrous fact that immigrants suddenly are allowed to possess seats of power in this country, which is not only a serious safety breech and concern but absolutely ludicrous, what is equally outrageous with this issue, are that these thieves will only face a few months of suspension! Again and again the British people have spoken and their feedback is clear that these three should be removed completely from the House of Lords, and be stripped of their citizenship and asked to leave this country.
Furthermore, when the government has allowed Sharia courts to exist in Britain, they should put their actions where their mouth is: according to Sharia “Baroness” Uddin should have her right hand cut off. There is no “if” and “buts” about this but that is the law in Islamic courts. This is the standard punishment for thieves. Either the Parliament should consider to remove all Sharia courts in this country, which doesn’t belong here anyways, or see through it that Uddin is sent to Saudi Arabia and has her right hand cut off as deserveful of the thief she is. Enough of this superimposed “multiculturalism” on all of us! We have never wanted it and this country is undergoing cultural genocide of the worse kind. Even more shameful so, that any immigrants can infiltrate into decision making! Just appalling. We have an example of people here, who come from the most criminalized nations in the world – and they are given seats in the House of Lords???? Just recently even Angela Merkel admitted multiculturalism has completely failed in Germany, and only brought down everything from standards to work quality and ethics in the country. For some reason, we are taken hostage by politics that completely oppose the opinion of the majority.
People are so upset about this (just read the feedback from the article) and clearly the time has come where we need to establish legal action against our politicians for allowing this folly to take place and committing treason to their own country.
We are waiting to see a proper punishment for the thievery “Lord” Paul, “Baroness” Uddin and “Lord” Bhatia has committed, and changes of policies that only allow born citizens to obtain a position in the Parliament, House of Lords etc.
AJ: Your comments rather imply that there is a difference between reaction in the public and reaction in the Lords to the allegations made against certain peers. We get as annoyed as anyone outside the House at any abuses of the system, perhaps more so as we all suffer if any one peer lets the House down. I don’t understand your comments about ‘immigrants’. As far as I am aware, Lord Taylor of Blackburn and Lord Truscott – the first two peers to be suspended since the 17th Century – are not immigrants to this country, and I don’t know if the peers that are the subject of current investigation are either. One of the most distinguished members of the House in recent years, Lord Dahrendorf, was formerly a German citizen. British nationals and members of the Commonwealth are eligible for membership, as in the Commons. As for the current investigation, the Privileges sub-committee appears to have done a thorough job, as one might expect from a high-powered body chaired by Baroness Manningham-Buller (the former head of the security service), and including Lord Irvine of Lairg, a former Lord Chancellor and formidable lawyer.
I find AJ’s comments rather offensive. He seems to imply that no-one who has origins in what he calls “the most criminalized nations in the world” should ever be entitled to sit either House as they are all automatically criminals. If consider this a racist remark, and also totally stupid as it overlooks the fact that there are many ethnic minority politicians (whether or not they are immigrants) who make valuable contributions to both Houses, and have never committed an offence in their lives. It also overlooks the fact that the four politicians who are facing criminal proceedings in court over their expenses, David Chaytor, Elliot Morley, Jim Devine and Lord Hanningfield, are all white males of, presumably, British ancestry going back several generations.
Just one winner this week. Both Chris K and Dave H were correct in their first two answers. The television cameras commenced filming in 1985 (there was a much earlier experiment) and then extended and made permanent in 1986, so I would accept either date, and Mary Morgan was the first Director of Public Information. However, as Stephen Paterson notes, the first use of the chamber was by the English Speaking Union for their Mace competition in 2007. The chamber has then subsequently been used, as Chris K and Dave H note, by the UK Youth Parliament, and more recently for debate as part or the Shine initiative. Hence, Stephen Paterson is this week’s winner, with Chris K and Dave H receiving commendations, not least for the speed of their responses.