On Friday, the House was sitting and we had the Report stage of the Steel Bill. Some peers were opposed to some of its provisions (the Opposition did not want to put the Appointments Commission on a statutory basis and some hereditary peers opposed abolishing the by-election provision), so in order to make progress – there were over 300 amendments tabled – an agreement was reached to remove the clauses that encountered opposition and proceed with the rest. As a result, we got through proceedings ahead of time. The principal provisions agreed by the House were those to create a retirement scheme and – most importantly of all – to expel members convicted of serious criminal offences. The Bill will come up for its Third Reading at the beginning of the next month. If we can get it on to the statute book, this will be valuable for the House and its reputation.
Given the nature of the proceedings, there were not many speeches on Friday. The House did, though, enjoy an intervention by Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton when she rose to declare:
“One of the things that I learnt in my youth is the saying, which I am not sure is parliamentary language, “Quit while you’re winning”. I think that we should, and not debate it further. My experience in this House is that often when one of us speaks, intending to calm things down, somebody somewhere gets offended.”
You said that some peers opposed the abolition of hereditary peer by-elections, and that clauses that encountered opposition were removed. Does this mean the bill no longer proposes the abolition of those by-elections?
And what constitutes serious criminal offences by the Lords?
And does this mean that it is now going to be put to bed, as the sentiment in this thread opening suggests there is to be no further debate?
It is apparent that The House dealt with all the easy non-controversial parts of the Bill,
but did not tackle the most difficult, and possibly most important, issues therein needing to be ‘sorted’;
and that gives apposition to the report from a different and “On the Ground” workplace, of an incident resulting from ‘poor communication and preparation’
later spin-doctored to the media as a ‘slight misunderstanding’
between the [Workforce + Task + Leader] in the real-work-front,
as a Team of Chainsaw-Bristling Loggers whho at very early morning had plunged into the darkness of a wild-jungle with the simple Task of felling as many trees as they possibly can in the shortest possible time;
their Leader, having had to climb to a vantage-point on the central and highest peak, in this vast panorama of jungles some of which were already under Non-Logging Protection Legislation, and then having had to find the tallest tree and clamber to its top to get the necessary all-round view,
soon spots the Team having already felled a glaringly visible gap in a major protected and pristine part of the whole jungle area;
so quickly using an electronicly-amplified megaphone the leader shouts repeatedly
“Wrong jungle” “Wrong jungle”
and after a few minutes the noisy racket of the chainsaws stopped, and the leader quickly bellowed again
“Wrong Place !”,
“Wrong – Jungle!”,
“Wrong Place, wrong (bloody) jungle”.
But back came a louder roar
“Shaddup;
we’re making progress;
we’re beating our Timeframe already”.
Nick: Yes. Worth watching on the parliament website, if you get a chance.
I thought all involved proceeded with an admirable sense of, ‘lets put what we can all assent to into action’.
Lord Norton: I’m a little concerned/ puzzled about the ‘small print’ of the criminal offences provsions. If it is about bringing things into line with the Commons, then does that mean an expulsion for the rest of that particular parliament (up to five years)??
It would seem draconian if the explusion was along the lines of, ‘.. and NEVER darken our doorstep again’.
Also, what’s the general feeling abut the automatic application of a permanent leave of absence? Is this to be brought in line with the obligations placed on local councillors to regularly attend meetings, say??
And what constitutes serious criminal offences by the Lords?
It is a record alone in the other place, but probably six months or more is serious; magistrates’ court convictions excluded.
There are things about petty magistrates and convictions which would make a conviction of a peer in those places,even more ridiculous
if it caused exclusion from the Peers chamber
until the record were wiped clean.
That, as with Mr Huhne currently, requires the member to expend more on a Crown court hearing than would be the normal case.
A £1500 costs punishmnet,greater to start off with!
No, its any offence over 1 year. [Note if they get a year, they won’t be kicked out]
So Lord Taylor of Warwick (and Wandsworth) gets a year, and still will keep his seat in the Lords, and the expenses that go with it.
Careful choice of language – over a year – by peers.
Should be far simpler.
1. Convicted – lose your seat
2. All expenses fiddles to be prosecuted
3. All correspondence about fiddles to be publish and not made state secrets.
@LB:
First of all this means they know they are going to have numerous amounts of bent Lords who will be convicted of something or other at any given time. Otherwise, they wouldn’t feel this was a necessary ploy.
Now why do they feel that way as there are so many of them? We are busting at the seams from the bloat. Surely to be rid of the excess would be a good move. A nice natural culling.
And secondly, the expenses scandal is why they have arrested so many journalists for outing them. What they are looking to bring in is the same lark as the French rapist was hiding under before he was caught in Manhatten pawing chambermaids. In office, but press must reamain silent so the voter will continue to elect him. On top of that the PC brigade are keeping an eye on how many ‘they’ are losing over the fiddles from the public purse.
One year prison sentence these days is a major crime. You get out after a murder conviction in two two’s. So, as I wrote above, what constitutes a peers crime that makes him/her not fit for office? Anybody care to speculate?
The lot who are running us now, are close to paralyzing the entire system by tying down our right to know, Gulliver style. More and more tiny threads that make it impossible to get up from off the floor.
I now understand why the French felt they had have a revolution.
And the way things are going, we will soon be run by the equivalent of the mafia. For that is the way the hereditaries will tell us, ‘you see, you must have a large portion of us, as without us, you cannot look after yourselves now can you?’ Too bent.
I tell you this is such a game, it has nothing on ‘Jim’ll fix it.’
Can you give details of all the clauses which were struck out of the bill?
Glad the by-elections are staying. Surely those who support a ‘democratic’ house are pleased too?
Indeed. I’m all in favour of an elected upper house – provided only holders of hereditary peerages are allowed to stand!
Good one Nick. My point was partly serious.
It is absurd for supporters of a ‘democratic’ House to propose ending the only elected element of the House without first ending appointments.
And of course it flies in the face of the deal in 1999 that, roughly paraphrased, ’90 (92) exempted hereditary peers can remain…pending further reform of membership of the House’.
Chris K: Well, it’s not hugely democratic, but … (as I’ve said many time before), the life peers really have to stop decrying the hereditary element in the house (which does no harm to the house’s reputation now, whatsoever – wherever do they get that idea?) – at least until they themselves show a willingness to subject themselves to a similar mode of election.
Googling ‘ “Steel Bill” amendments ‘ threw up links to the Iron and Steel Bill, 1949. Notably, The Tribune and New Statesman archives beat parliament.uk into Google’s third place.
An outfit going by the name of hansard.millbanksystems.com took fifth place. Who is Robert Brook?
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.
Hereditary peers have a little organization that looks after their main game. Which is ruling the country even when they are dimwits or simply outright madmen. This enables them to keep their pockets well and truly filled. And the ladies in harem mode, to satisfy the other half of their sweaty desires.
http://www.hereditarypeers.com/MAIN.HTM
What we need is a similar organization of poor and down and outs in Paliament, unelected and via birth. And a good representative core in the Lords that are also unelected with privileges from birth. Which must, likewise, include their bastards, dimwits and outright idiot offspring. Making sure the bastards are proven without doubt, by very strong DNA evidence of their blood connection.
More of the same on this would go down well with the public I’m sure. As this would rid us all of PC elitists. Which is presently the main aim of both Houses.
What we don’t need is people who can speak seriously with a common sense outloook. Or, those with genuine expertise, unlike the appointed, or should I say annointed, we presently suffer.
That way we can be sure we continue with our downward spiral unheeded and at an incredibly unstoppable rate. So that we can all join the famine crowd to keep the ‘charities’ suitably active.
Perhaps something along the lines of Chartism. Only specificly for those who do not or cannot ‘work.’ You see heriditary peers are not a working. They are only suited to govern, rule or oversee.
Look how ‘Monarchy’ does it. They wait for the minions to produce their ideas, carry them out, and fill Crown money bags. Down and out simpletoms would be just as productive under those auspices, wouldn’t they?
I mean, I would brush my teeth on a regular three wimes a day basis if I had a flunky who prepared the bathroom, struggled out to the shops for the paste, set it all up and squeezed that infernal tube to make sure the right amount got into the mouth.
What Ho!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=u-BAUG97gZo&NR=1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chartism
(Lord Norton: Please note latest post on ‘Stirring Up Apathy?’ thread)
Lurking close behind your “Quit while you’re
winning”
would be American comedian Burns’s bit of brinkmanship repartee, when asked in front of a worldwide audience of millions about his employment-record.
The stout little man paused, puffed once on his longer-than-Churchill’s cigar, and straight-answered
“I was never fired –
I always quit”.