One of the principal provisions of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014 – a Private Member’s Bill steered through Parliament by Dan Byles MP and Lord Steel of Aikwood – was to enable peers to retire. Since its enactment, a good number have made use of the provision. Several leading figures have retired in recent months, including the redoubtable Baroness Trumpington. Others have included Lord Loyd-Webber, Lord Hattersley and the scientist Lord May of Oxford. Today sees the retirement of long-serving peer and former minister Lord Clinton-Davis.
Since the 2014 Act took effect, a total of 77 peers have retired. Over the course of the past twelve months (10 Jan. 2017 – 10 Jan. 2018) 32 peers have left the House, either by death or retirement. Interestingly, a large majority (23) have been retirements. Only nine peers have died, lower than is usually the case.
The House last month debated and welcomed the report of the Lord Speaker’s Group on the Size of the House (the Burns Committee). There is much to be done to reduce the size of the House, but the 2014 Act has at least made a modest contribution.
Why is the Constitution so inflexibly inaccessible _
to be co-constructively up-dated
and to be immediately brought “face-to-face” with The Real and Survival-Struggling World and especially our Peoples’ and Envireonments Sustain-worthily Working and Lifestyling People ?
Why do we not vote for
What We Need, publicly verbatim media-streamed ?
– instead of for so many “sequestered” and “private” remote “Who” (mostly Lawyers and other PPPs – “privately-professional-profiteers”) ?
Why,
in the same People-Ripping-Off VV (vain-vein)
are Members both called and empowered to self-seekingly act and “behave” as “Private Members” ?
[Pause to seek-out more Peacefully-Revolutionary
and Longest-Terfm Sustainworthy
questions, please } – – –
Baroness Sharples retired on 18/12 at the age of 94 after many years of service to the house. I’m sure she and Baroness Trumpington-the last two woman members to have served in an offical capacity during ww2 will be very much missed.
“One of the principal provisions of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014 – a Private Member’s Bill steered through Parliament by Dan Byles MP and Lord Steel of Aikwood – was to enable peers to retire.”
Peers could always retire by simply declining to attend. This might be a formal process but the practical different seems minimal at best.
It’s time the Lords, when standing to make speeches, declare their interests in the matter they are spouting about, prior to their outpouring.
All Lords who receive some kind of Pension, or, kick back, via their land holdings, etc., Heseltine, and so on, must expose their European links and bribes. To hide their interests from the public on this matter, and not explain clearly that to go on receiving these kickbacks they must be, pro ‘remain’ in this case, is lying by omission to their paying employers. Us.
Too much Lordship treachery toward their fellow funders must be exposed. What is the British public paying for here? How did they wiggle the system to be in that house of benefits for life by sitting on their fat rumps? What criteria do they have to fulfil to be given such seats?
When new peers are given these seats there must be a list of their previous good works and for what it was done and by whom, for how long, in order for public scrutiny, along with any public consent, before any of them can be entitled to such esteem.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2899179/brexit-bashing-lords-receive-500k-in-eu-pensions-a-year-and-arent-allowed-to-criticise-brussels-but-wont-say-so-in-brexit-debate/
We need a proper functioning administration who is prepared, and more importantly, willing, to clear the swamp of its stench. Now would be a good time to do this.
Clean out those who likewise are not happy with our British cultural way of life and without public consent, want to change it.. The public are the funders of that comfy lifestyle they enjoy and as a result they have a duty to express their reasons for feeling as they do when manipulating our regulations. Revealing their discontent and how they plan to rid our country of its history and evolution must be mandatory. Let them express their discontent openly and show how they are making moves to destroy our heritage. Also they must add what they see in EU protectionism and bribery that keeps them onside against the democratic rights and will of the people of this nation.
Now, there is the first step to transparency. Any who are unwilling to be open in these matters must be prepared to give up their red seat immediately. No transition period of any kind. Pass taken off them at once. Clean out desks and free their places up for employers to find the right staff to do the job they are paid so well for.