The amendments related to allowing employees the right not to be “complicit with an action or circumstance” which went against their beliefs on homosexuality and giving Catholic adoption agencies an exemption from the 2007 Sexual Orientation regulations.

The last Catholic adoption agency in the UK is fighting for the right to bar gay couples at the High Court this week, while the first amendment was concerned mainly with giving registrars the right not to conduct civil partnerships if they feel it is against their religious beliefs.

Baroness Butler-Sloss said “All sorts of minorities need protection, not only the minorities who are in same-sex relationships. . . We should be able to accommodate various religions and various cultural beliefs. We are a broadminded society, and the Equality Bill should recognise that too.”

On the face of it her comments seemed innocuous but it was clear from her supporters’ views that what the Catholic Church members and some others wanted was the right to discriminate against homosexuals in the provision of services in a way that would be unthinkable if  the word ‘black’ were substituted for homosexual. There is nothing to prevent Catholic [adoption] agencies from treating heterosexual couples consistently with their beliefs. All that they are prevented from doing is treating people less favourably because of their sexual orientation.

I thought the amendments reflected a minority ethos in the Chamber and called on the Government to resist them. I do not doubt that that was not the intention of Lady Butler-Sloss, but these amendments were homophobic. Listening to me, my friend Baroness Butler-Sloss heard the word “homophobic” and was clearly upset that I might have being referring to her. I sought her out afterwards to apologise for being intemporate in my wording and causing offence. I should have put my points in a calmer less emotive way…and perhaps I will at Third Reading.

I’ve also been following events on line and was struck by Janice Turner’s recent piece in the Times ‘Just a better class of stink’ at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/janice_turner/article7025683.ece 

advocating an elected upper house rather than the ‘patronage’ one we have now. Clearly she’s forgotten about the House of Lords Appointment Commission and the fact that the Commons is elected but somehow got into an even greater stink than the Lords but never mind, her arguments are worth listening to on the grounds that it is spurious rhetoric that catches the public imagination.

Of course we could apply the same arguments to other walks of life. Brain surgeons for example, why don’t we elect them? They are accountable to a public service the NHS for their work, or most of them are; I’ve always thought it would be fun to have a go at that, the brain is a fairly small object to get to know, surely anyone could do it with a bit of help from one of those pop-up books and a Black and Decker? There must be A Ladybird Book of Neurosurgery for beginners? I don’t mind putting myself forward for election. (On second thoughts the Black and Decker would be best for orthopaedics). And my local postman, why shouldn’t I elect him? We could have a beauty parade of would be postmen who could give a presentation on why they especially fancied being a postie in this village rather than say Thorpe Abbotts down the road.  And we could elect to most other jobs come to that. Why don’t we? Because we want the most gifted, experienced and hard working people who  inspire confidence, will be excellent at their jobs and move the field forward. And that’s the same for a brain surgeon and a postman. If you move from an appointed to an elected system, or even move half way down the route as Senior Police Officer appointments are now ‘elected’, you have to be sure that those on the short list are all fit for purpose. Election systems in some universities for senior appointments are predicated on the assumption that the shortlist will be vetted in advance to ensure all are qualified. The problem in politics that we have few ways of judging the motivation, competence, skills, intellect, political nouse or common sense of the candidates. Most people don’t go to hustings, political meetings or even read much about the candidates. Those little leaflets that come through the door are pretty opaque. We already have a Commons where there are too few really able MPs and no obvious way that’s going to change. I feel an elected upper house will come and I shall probably vote for it; the tide of history is pushing us in that direction; but I do not delude myself it will be a more effective second chamber. Meanwhile we should get on and change what we can now to improve how we function.

 On Wednesday Lady Thornton was also responding to my own debate on Age Discrimination in Mental Health Services, a QSD (Question for Short Debate) of an hour in the Moses Room. I like its intimate environment and warmth for a short debate. I complimented Lady Thornton on her striking Chinese jacket….”Thanks, people keep asking me if they can order a take-away”.

 That was followed by another QSD from Lord Warner proposing an Inquiry into the business of Assisted Dying. Another shot over the bows but this time over half the speakers were in support, so we are gradually creeping up. I was somewhat taken aback by Lord Alton of Liverpool and Lord Elystan-Morgan both quoting novelist Martin Amis’s recent rant against old people suggesting there should be euthanasia booths at street corners where old people can end their lives with “a martini and a medal” as if it was serious.  Have they no sense of humour? It reminded me of Jonathan Swift’s searing 1729 pamphlet on the Irish tendency to breed lots of children. His ‘Modest Proposal’ was “that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled …”  Swift of course was one of the great benefactors of his generation in Ireland and cared desperately about the Irish poor. And he knew how to shock people out of their complacency. Martin Amis is merely doing a similar job.

Lord Butler

Lord Bach

I was the only woman to speak in Lord Tyler’s debate on constitutional renewal last Thursday, and characteristically perhaps for a woman I looked at the domestic governance arrangements inside the House which I observe do not serve well the business of the House. The House is unable to respond swiftly and effectively to crises as we saw during the expenses debacle. We do not adhere to the fundamental principles of good corporate governance; these are clear leadership, overt lines of accountability, fit-for-purpose processes and clear mechanisms for proper engagement by Members. Unless we get our own House in order, we will never be able to assert the important role of Parliament in relation to the Executive, play our proper complementary role to the Commons or become a modern, proactive second chamber, whether or not we change the membership and whether it is elected or not. Members need to develop a sense of ownership of the House in relation to its administration and the way that we determine the business. I fully understand that the Government are entitled to get their business through this place in a timely manner.

Before coming here, I had naively believed that the government Executive and Parliament were two separate things and that the House of Lords would have governance and accountability systems in place that would be explicit, written and connect me as a back-bencher with the business of the House. I was given the Grey Book, which is supposed to tell us about the house administration systems but in fact leaves out one vital component, the “Usual Channels”. The Usual Channels are in fact the chief whips of the three main political parties who of course are there to do their political leaders’ bidding. All important committees of the house whether serving the administration or business are dominated by this group, which has no formal powers but is all powerful. Even the desk that I am allowed to sit at in parliament is determined by the Usual Channels. The Usual Channels are the lead weight that keeps the moribund body of self-governance from floating to the surface for some air.

The role of the Management Board as the executive implementation of House Committee strategy and policy is clear. We are served by a talented administrative  Management Board of clerks and directors of services who, to give them their due, have been in the vanguard of developing the annual plan, the strategic planning round, the risk register and so on, and who are improving daily the ways in which they serve us. It is we who let them down by our old fashioned procedures.

We should perhaps reassess the potential for the Lord Speaker to play a real leadership role in parliamentary business, both inside and outside the Chamber. It is of pre-eminent importance that we should prise the administration and business of this House from out of the control of government and politically negotiated deals to allow the House of Lords to exercise its proper functions.

In his reply to my points and many other peers’ points about the business ararngements in the house, the Minister Lord Bach said that a review “ is a matter for the House authorities-I mention to the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, that they are not quite the same as the usual channels”.

I rarely have the temerity to interrupt a minister in his response speech but Lord Butler of Brockwell leapt up “Will the Minister explain to a rookie what the difference is between the House authorities and the usual channels?” Lord Bach smiled “As I said that, I realised that I had probably made a mistake that the noble Lord might well come back at me about. No, I cannot explain the difference. I am sure that, with his experience, he will understand that there probably are some subtle differences, but they are well beyond me.”

And if the former cabinet secretary calls himself a ‘rookie’ in his understanding of the House of Lords, what hope for little old me?

The majority of the security measures seem utterly ludicrous for the majority of flights and the chances of the ordinary passenger being a bomber are so small as to be not worth worrying about in statistical terms. No doubt we will continue to have suicide bombers but is it worth the costs in human terms to take steps to stop them other than through the intelligence services and targeted measures? It might be much better for our own peace of mind to do nothing very much on most flights except for the airline to have a much better picture of who is travelling.  Bolting the door after the stable door has bolted, like universal restricting of carry-on fluids after an attempt or the random X-raying of high heels after a failed shoe bomber is more or less incomprehensible to me.  Now we are probably going to have total body scanners to detect what we’ve got in our underwear. I’ve got nothing against being scanned personally, and the exposure that these machines subject individuals to seems minimal compared with medical investigations but it won’t it simply add to the many hours wasted at airports and add further to the illusion that machines can exclude the determined fanatic? The problem with blanket security is that it creates an unnecessary unreasonable fear in those subject to it and therefore makes the impact of a terrorist attack even more attractive to those that perpetrate them.

I know that many profoundly disagree with me about this and many feel safer as a result of these measures and I wish we had some real facts and figures to help us make up our minds. While agreeing that security profiling is a better approach I can see that applying it in a practical way on a world-wide basis may be difficult.

About three times a year I drive to the Continent through Eurotunnel. There are no general individual security restrictions of any kind either going or returning but there are targeted searches of individuals traveling alone and others where the staff assess there is a risk, plus security analysis of the cars themselves. There are no individual measure on cross-channel ferries either. Is the risk of flying from Stansted to Pisa greater? Almost certainly not.

When I traveled with El Al to Jerusalem a few years ago I was subjected to several searching interviews at the airport on checking in; there was a degree of chaos but they were looking for specific risk characteristics and that seemed to me to be more focused on real risk. I’ll be interested to hear what others think.

The report highlights that there are significant gaps in the understanding of how nanomaterials impact on the human body, and that it is not currently possible to predict what risks specific nanomaterials may present. There is only a limited amount of research looking at the toxicological impact of nanomaterials, and just one research team working on the impact of nanomaterials on the gut in the United Kingdom. The Committee calls on the Research Councils to establish more proactive forms of funding to encourage research bids which address the severe shortfalls in research required for the effective risk assessment of nanomaterials in food. It urges the Government to ensure that research is commissioned which focuses specifically on the behaviour of nanomaterials within the body and particularly the gut. The Research Councils however are under greater budget pressures than they have been for years, I suspect we will probably have to rely on industry to do most of it.

The Senate Health Bill is quite substantially modified from President Obama’s original universal coverage bill; it omits the notion of a public insurance system to cover those who do not have any cover at all and fall outside Medicaid and Medicare but nevertheless it is a triumph of last minute deals and some unseemly ‘incentives’ but will provide cover for another 30 million people out of the 47 million who at present fall out of the system. It’s expected that the final vote on Christmas Eve will ratify the current shape of the Bill.

Opposed on grounds of costs by Republicans, opposed by many doctors on the grounds that obligatory insurance schemes curtail freedom of clinical practice (and hence their potential remuneration) and the insurers themselves, it is the best that can be achieved at the moment, and a step that it is unlikely any future government can undo. If Obama does nothing else this will be an important legacy. Now they have to find ways to curtail health care spending, just like other western democracies.

I was surprised to see that the Senate vote was at 1.00 a.m. What is it about politicians that they like to legislate at unseemly hours of the night? Having endured the Equality Bill marathon to 11.00 p.m. last week, I think it’s time to start a campaign for parliament working ordinary hours. Nothing we do is so urgent that a decision needs to be made when many of us are too tired to stay awake.   As a junior doctor I knew that when I worked long hours and through the night it really was because people’s lives depended on me being there. I find the whipped up false deadlines of political life rather absurd, a reflection of the egotism that makes politicians feel self-important. Staying up all night to staff A&E or an ambulance can be good; staying up all night to vote on fox hunting is simply balmy.