Two exhibitions are now on display in the Palace of Westminster. There is one in Westminster Hall to mark the 175th anniversary of Dod’s Parliamentary Companion. The Companion is an essential guide to Parliament and (especially) its members: there are a great many well-thumbed copies throughout the Palace. If a member or official cannot quite remember the background of an MP or peer, they reach for Dod’s. The 175th anniversary of the Companion was actually last year, but there was not space in the Hall until now to hold an exhibition. The exhibition covers the history of Parliament from 1832 onwards, showing not only what has happened in Parliament but also other events taking place at the same time. It is well worth a visit. Being in Westminster Hall, it is also now on the main visitor path into the Palace, so all visitors will have a chance to see it.
The other exhibition is in the Royal Gallery, and so on the line of route for organised tours. This marks the 50th anniversary of the passage of the Life Peerages Act (pictured). The Act provided for the introduction of life peerages – though there was already a precedent in the law lords – and enabled women to enter the House. Four women were among the initial batch of twelve life peers. Among the other original life peers were Lord Boothby (the well-known Tory MP Sir Robert Boothby) and Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, who was blind. The consequences of the Act were to transform the House of Lords. As with the Dod’s exhibition, the display is well worth seeing. The Parliamentary Archives have put together some remarkable material.
Sorry to hijack Lord Norton’s post, but do any peers represented here have any particular comment to make on the 42-day pre-charge detention fiasco? Being both a member of the Labour party, Liberty and Amnesty International has left me feeling very disillusioned of late.
It is my (perhaps cynical, but I fear justified) belief that this was done for propaganda purposes (I can’t think of a better turn of phrase) – the Government wanting to be seen as effective, as taking a hard line against terrorism. It would appear the Cabinet latched onto something which, by all accounts, was deemed a popular measure (although I believe public opinion, fickle as it is, will quite rightly move against this measure, if not for the right reasons – i.e. just the governments lack of popularity) and propagated it for the sake of headlines.
Whilst I sympathise, indeed support, a fightback against the common perceptions of, and mistakes made by, the Labour party as late, I am disappointed that civil liberties are so easily traded away for political ends.
On a more academic note, I imagine the coming months will boost (or at least add weight to) the arguments of proponents wishing to keep the House of Lords in its current form – its less partisan, deliberative nature and its limited party discipline predominantly. In fact, this is something Shami Chakrabati has already mentioned earlier this evening.
I do hope that all peers posting here vote on this section of the bill when the time comes – particularly the crossbenchers (I believe there are a number). With regards to a previous post of Baroness Young – this would seem to be one of those ‘bigger issues’ you mentioned a desire to take the time to consider better.
Finally, although I suspect from the recent comments about the masses of post you receive that you will hear plenty from Ms Chakrabati and others, I’d like to urge everyone who reads this to visit http://www.chargeorrelease.com/
James: your response would actually fit better under my post on ‘This Week’!
The issue is one that will be debated in some detail when it comes to the Lords. There will be some distinguished members on the opposition benches – notably Lord Carlile on the Liberal Democrat benches and Baroness Park of Monmouth on the Conservative benches – supporting the Government’s policy. However, I have no doubt that there will be strong principled opposition from all parts of the House. For my part, I am still not clear what the motivation is for the proposal and the Government’s various concessions are such as to make me feel it is becoming even more of a mess. Given that neither the security services nor the police are making a clear united call for such a change, I am not persuaded that there is a case for such a draconian undermining of the principle of civil liberty.
Undoubtedly, but the cynic in me thought they’d be read by fewer people!
James: you have less faith in our readers than I do. My experience is that earlier posts get read regularly. I see from our blog statistics that some very early posts still draw a readership.
Earl Ferrers seems not to be too impressed, he has a question down for 25th June: “to ask the Chairman of Committees what is the cost of the structure in the Royal Gallery for the exhibition about the Life Peerages Act 1958; and what is the purpose of the exhibition.”