Why we need to elect the Lords - Bryant stumbles into a Labour induced reason

Earlier today it seems that Labour MP Chris Bryant's objection to a fair, egalitarian House of Lords, based on the result of the election result left him standing there in just his underpants. Oops, that's another thing altogether.

However, here is what he said in Questions to the Deputy Prime Minister:

The thing we find most bizarre about all this is that it is a priority for the Government at this time. The coalition agreement states that they will continue to appoint peers to the House of Lords

"with the objective of creating a second chamber that is reflective of the share of the vote secured by the political parties in the last general election."

There are currently 792 unelected peers, after a year of the fastest level of appointment of new peers in the history of this country. To get to the objective set out in the agreement, the Deputy Prime Minister would have to appoint another 269. Are there another 97 Liberal Democrats to make peers in the House of Lords? Should there not be a moratorium? 

Now when the New Labour regime first got elected, with the most sizable majority of ANY Labour Government they promised to reform the Lords and get an elected element to it. In thirteen years, including a second term with the second highest majority of Labour members, the only elected element they managed to secure for the Lords was the remaining hereditary peers. 

What they did do was lead to the inflation of the size current second chamber, which of course was to bring it more into line with the votes of the people in the previous three general elections. The moratorium in appointed more peers would keep a disproportional number of Labour peers to their popularity in the last General Election.

Here is Nick Clegg's response:

Every time the hon. Gentleman asks a question, I find it more and more baffling why anyone should want to hack his phone and listen to his messages. It is quite extraordinary. The point he has just made illustrates why we need to reform the House of Lords. 

So yes for thirteen years the only Lords Reform that Labour brought about was to largely get rid of the hereditary element, down to 92. Ironically if there hadn't been by elections to replace this number with fresh blood there would be only 78 hereditaries remaining. There are 512 creations of Life Peers since 1997 who are still alive, this is more than the 465 (187 of whom are still alive) who were in the House then. 830 Peers now compared to 616 (taking the Life plus 92 Hereditaries, 26 Spiritual and 26 Law Lords as of 1997).

As both Nick said and I agree, the fact that more 'appointments would currently be need to rectify 13 years of Labour creation of peers shows just why we need to Reform the Lords and do it NOW!

Dear Confused Chris Bryant

I read today that Chris Bryant is wading into the issue of Civil Partnerships in religious buildings. However, he seems to be wading in with ignorance and getting caught up in some quick sand.

Now as a Liberal Democrat I believe that no-one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity so let me release the Labour MP from his ignorance induced slavery.

The consultation that has gone out, allows the religious symbols that are embedded in a religious building to remain in place, it does not allow them to be used in the civil partnership ceremony. 3.23 of the consultation paper page 31.

Bryant thinks the use of the 'hymn' Jerusalem would be allowed in a civil partnership in a religious building, read on to section 3.24 (page 32).

• The ban on the use of religious service while a civil partnership is being
  registered will remain in place as removing it was not the intention of this
  provision in section 202 of the Act.
• A religious service, clearly distinct from the civil partnership registration,
  would be able to take place as agreed between the registrar, couple and
  minister of the religious premises.

So there has to be a clear distinction. The minister or religious celebrant cannot take part in the civil partnership registration, nor the registrar in the religious element. See what section 3.25 says:

It is currently possible for couples to have a religious service to celebrate or mark the formation of their civil partnership. What is new under these proposals is the scope to hold the registration itself on the same – religious – premises. We expect that the religious service will take place after the civil partnership registration to celebrate its formation. This will ensure that there is a clear break between the civil and religious elements and will allow the civil partnership registrar the time to establish in advance of the proceedings whether there is any reason why the registration cannot proceed. The exact details of the ceremony will be a matter for the couple to discuss and agree with the civil partnership registrar and minister leading the religious celebration. The service following the registration could be led by the minister of religion, include readings from religious texts, the singing of hymns or other religious chants; in short, all those religious elements that must not take place during the registration itself.

So therefore there will be a separate service in a place of worship after the registration. It can happen in the same building. Now of course there are a group of heterosexual couples who may have a civil marriage and then a religious blessing. These are normally people who are divorced marrying another partner. Their marriage in a place of worship is not banned by civil law, look at Princess Anne getting remarried in Grathie Church near Balmoral as an example, but by canon law as laid out in the Church of England as the prime example.

Where the difference lies is that where a religious group want to allow a religious same-sex marriage with the interlinking of the legal necessities and the religious elements as with all religious marriages that is not possible. That is where the House of Commons can provide enabling legislation to allow that to occur. That is where religious groups that wish to do so can be freed to provide the service that some same sex couples of faith would desire.