Member

However, can we please not repeat arguments that we have heard ad nauseam, including the idea that it is a breathtakingly revolutionary and new proposal that perhaps the hereditary principle was not the right basis on which to be in the House of Lords? The noble Lords, Lord True and Lord Forsyth, went through the arguments that, somehow or other, there were more important things to do. The former’s amendment—which I will speak to, in case I get in trouble with my Leader—states, quite simply, that the purpose of this Bill is to end the link between hereditary Peers and membership of the House of Lords. I agree with him that that is the purpose of the Bill; that is why it is called the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill. I ask him, not necessarily now but at some stage, to reply to the following question: if that is the sole purpose, does he agree with me about amendments that go down all sorts of alleyways and byways? Can someone explain to me what the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill has to do with the rights or otherwise of Bishops to sit in the House of Lords? It seems that almost any amendment to this Bill is possible and will no doubt be debated at length. Many of them are worthy amendments—although I shall vote against them all, in case there should be any doubt—but they do not come under the title of the Bill. I am staggered that we are able to debate this in the way that we are.