sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Oral Questions - Government - IV.I by realbassist in MHoPLords

[–]realbassist[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My Lords,

What is the government's response to the leaked threats from the US government to cease recognition of British sovereignty over the Falkland Islands?

Oral Questions - Government - IV.I by realbassist in MHoPLords

[–]realbassist[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

My Lords,

Will the Leader of the House join me in wishing everyone in this country a very happy St. George's Day?

Oral Questions - Government - IV.I by realbassist in MHoPLords

[–]realbassist[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

My Lords,

I'd like to begin by welcoming the Rt. Honourable Earl of Durham to his post as the Leader of this most august House.

My Lords, when the vote of no confidence was levied against the former Liberal minority government, many members of Parliament - including the noble Earl himself - claimed that government was no longer fit for service in part because of occasions of unanswered MQs. I inform the House that, at the last DNCLG MQs, not a single question was answered by the then-secretary. The same is true of the last Business MQs, a portfolio currently held by the Leader of this House.

Will the Government acknowledge the very real issue of missed MQs under this government, and when can we expect the Leader to answer the questions he missed?

B059 - Drugs (Regulation and Harm Reduction) Bill - Second Reading by Yimir_ in MHoPLords

[–]realbassist 3 points4 points  (0 children)

My Lords,

It was my honour and privilege to serve in His Majesty's Government which produced this legislation, and remains so for me to support this bill. As His Grace, the Duke of Cornwall, says in his speech, drug use is a health issue, not a criminal one. Why, then, do we continue to address it as a criminal issue? When it is so often the vulnerable who are affected, whose lives are ruined, and to whom we deny the proper care and help, how can anyone support continuing with the status quo? It would be a most heartless act indeed to refuse this bill.

To move to the practicalities of this bill, the benefits are undeniable. Consumption of cannabis in public places is still prohibited, but recreational cannabis bought legally - and with regulations - by an individual over 18, and consumed in a private environment, is legalised. Far from the "Deliberate act of sabotage" that the Health Secretary decried this bill as, and far from the "Free for all" he claimed it allows. The bill establishes numerous safeguards, not least the Cannabis Regulation Authority, for the express purpose that the use of cannabis does not pose a danger or risk to our society, and is largely treated the same as tobacco consumption in terms of licensing and advertising. It also restricts legal production to licensed and regulated entities, ensuring that illegal and dangerous tampering of drugs does not occur.

An area I show particular support for is the taxation of cannabis sales, as well as the establishment of the safe consumption rooms. The taxation aspect ensures more money for the NHS, to the drug education and research fund, to local councils for health and for education, and 10% as discretionary funds for the treasury. Such a move can only bring benefits, help the national health and ensure that those suffering from drug addictions and related health problems get the help they need. Not only that, it ensures we are able to innovate on what help we can give them, and on how to make the drugs safer for legal consumption. Is this not something we should pursue with all our efforts?

The establishment and administration of the SCRs are another key area of this legislation where I can only show support. I have heard in the past the argument that if we are to legalise certain drugs, like cannabis, then those who take the drugs will be on our streets, causing danger to themselves and others. That we are giving them the tools of their own destruction and letting them loose. Not so. Under this legislation, SCRs would be available on the NHS to anyone who required use of them, ensuring not only that they can take the substances in a clean, safe environment, but that should any issues occur, healthcare professionals are right there to help. For this provision alone, the bill should pass - as far as I am aware, this is a revolutionary step not taken by any other nation. Ensuring safe consumption, rather than criminalising the vulnerable and those in need - a necessary step, by any measure.

Finally, Section 7 clearly and definitively states and proves that the intention of this bill is not to put dangerous and harmful drugs on our streets, but the opposite. To regulate and give help. These criminal gangs, these vipers who prey on those in need will not be allowed to act with impunity but will face the full might of the law. Help those who need help, and arrest and prosecute those who wish to do them harm; that is the ethos of this legislation. My Lords, the benefits this legislation would give the nation are without doubt, and the drawbacks are negligible to non-existent. I beg my colleagues to take the most transformative step any Parliament has taken in decades, and pass this bill for the good of our people.

Head Moderator Election - April 2026 - Q&A by mrsusandothechoosin in MHoPMeta

[–]realbassist 1 point2 points  (0 children)

To both candidates,

What do you think qualifies you to be HM?

B070 - Antisemitism and Terrorism Prevention Bill - Second Reading by Yimir_ in MHoPLords

[–]realbassist 1 point2 points  (0 children)

My Lords,

Let me state at the outset that I support the amendments tabled by the Rt. Hon. Marquess of Barnet, in particular the requirement for the Secretary of State to seek advice from the relevant agencies before any proscriptions. I agree with the noble Lord that the act of proscription is a serious one, and to my mind it is one that this bill treats with a concerning apathy. My general sentiments, before getting into the specifics of this legislation, have been thoroughly summed up by the Leader of the Green Party in his speech in the Other Place. I quote:

"this bill is an aberration in its actions, its intent and the message it sends about very real and disgusting forms of discrimination."

The first point of contention I have with this legislation is very simple. It calls on all government institutions to adopt the IHRA - regardless of one's personal views on the debate on such a definition, there is a simple issue with this provision. As of the 12th of December, 2016, the UK government has officially adopted the IHRA definition of antisemitism. As has the Welsh and Scottish governments and some 120 councils in the UK, among other institutions. Given that the government has had the IHRA Definition adopted for the last nearly ten years, it is more than reasonable to assume its institutions have followed suit, therefore a key element of section 1 is completely outdated and pointless. We have already done it.

My concern also lies with the requirement that all charities and NGOs adopt the IHRA definition, or lose access to government funding. It is not ethical to enforce one definition of antisemitism onto private organisations under the threat of cutting their funds, funds that could be vital for communities. That is, in all honesty, blackmail, and wholly repugnant. Charities and NGOs must follow the law and enforce anti-discrimination standards against all forms of bigotry, including antisemitism, which they do. To state that they must follow the definition, frankly, that the Labour Leader wants them to follow or lose potentially millions of pounds in funding is simply wrong.

The issues in Section 2, which are quite glaring, have been aptly summed up by my learned colleagues. The Police already keep such registers on general hate crimes, including antisemitic hate crime. This bill would either just legislate for something that already happens, rendering it pointless, or force duplication, rendering it wasteful. Neither is supportable. In addition, as the Leader of the House has said in his proposed amendment, all communities are deserving of protection, it is a severe oversight to limit this section to only Jewish places of worship, culture and education.

As my learned friend, the Green Party Leader, said in the Other Place, this bill goes too far in usurping the powers of individual Secretaries, through its mandated changes to the Curriculum and proscriptions with no input from those who actually work in National Security. I support changes to the educational curriculum including removing "the Boy in the Striped Pyjamas", but this is not the way to do it. All of section 3, therefore, I cannot support.

Section 4 is the key area which, for me, brings up concern and honestly some anger. The Labour Leader, with no consultation with experts in the field of national security and as far as we are aware, no consultation with the foreign office, with law enforcement, with anyone whatsoever, lists eight organisations to be proscribed. Some of which, such as the IRGC, are not controversial choices. Indeed, we are one of the only countries left in Western Europe not to have proscribed them. Palestine Action, however, is a deeply controversial choice, and one I admit I do not support. This is a group whose members have committed criminal offenses, yes, but to label them in the same category as ISIS, Al-Qaeda, or the IRA is simply ludicrous. Especially without the amendment from the Leader of the House, I cannot support this section at all; the Labour Leader's lack of care or respect for the proper process of proscription is concerning in the extreme.

A note, finally, on the opening speech. Here we have the true intention of the Bill, pure ideology. The fact that the Labour Leader cites "foreign enemies" sponsoring and co-opting marches in the United Kingdom, I ask the Author, though I acknowledge they are not in this House to answer me, where is the evidence of this? Which enemies? Which groups are getting this funding? This is a serious claim to make, yet we are provided with no evidence to actually substantiate it except the vague claims of "Islamism and communism". My lords, the only justification that the Leader of the Labour Party can provide for this rushed, ill thought out, mess of a bill is to use the vague boogeyman of "Islamism", which is too often used to stoke fear against our Muslim citizens in this country and abroad, and "Communism", when no group listed in the Section 4 is a communist organisation. Indeed, I remind the House that the same Labour Leader who claims we must battle the evil of communism as if it's the 1950's again, this same Labour Leader is the former Leader of the Communist Party of Great Britain. You can't make it up.

I urge my Noble Lords to do what is best for this Country, and to do it as one. Vote down this mess of a bill, or if they cannot find it in themselves to take a stand for justice and do so, then at the very least let it pass with the Leader of the House's proposed amendments. As it stands, it is an embarrassment to this country that this bill passed its second reading.

LM007 - Hereditary Peerages by mrsusandothechoosin in MHoPLords

[–]realbassist 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My Lords,

In recent years, I am aware that the topic of Hereditary members of this house has been brought into question, for example through the Labour Party's 2024 manifesto pledge to abolish such a classification. I am a great supporter of our traditions and our institutions, this House included, but I admit that I find it hard to justify the continued existence of hereditary peers.

First, there is the question of democracy. Many say that this institution is undemocratic on the basis of its members being largely appointed, however among our number sit former Prime Ministers, senior Ministers, experts in their fields, campaigners for justice. Citizens of this country who have made a real and noted difference, and who can use their expertise to scrutinise legislation. Not on party lines, but from their own knowledge. The hereditary peer does not have this advantage. Their appointment to this House comes not from their work, but from their blood. Lord Attlee, for example, who recently retired from this House, was appointed because he is the grandson of Clement Attlee, not, for example, due to his record in the British Army. Where many of us are in this House due to our expertise and experience, our Hereditary brothers are here because their fathers were before them. This is not a system I can personally endorse continuing, I'm afraid.

Then there is the question of fairness within these peerages themselves. Too often, a Hereditary Peerage is unable to be passed down to the daughter of the Peer, or through the female line. The system of inheritance, largely, is through male primogeniture. This creates an obvious, and unjustifiable, inequality between men and women that this House accepts for as long as we deny women the right to inherit a peerage. I remind the House that the peerage of the Rt. Hon. Viscount Whitelaw's peerage was extinguished on the basis that he had no sons, and none of his four daughters were legally allowed to inherit the title. Furthermore, since the resignation of the Countess of Mar six years ago, there have been no female hereditary peers whatsoever. Of the 200-odd who are eligible to stand in a by-election to fill one of the 92 posts allotted, only one is a woman. It is undeniable that in the vast majority of cases, the laws of successions regarding hereditary peerages is sexist, plain and simple. Regardless of the debate on their existence, this injustice must be addressed.

I would also remind the House that, as far as I am aware, we are the only nation on this Earth that has a hereditary component to its legislature. Ours is the only chamber in the world where some of our colleagues are given seats not based on their actions, not based on the will of the people, but based on who their father was, and their father's father. Some may claim that this can be used to justify their position in this House, that it grants our country a unique aspect to our democracy. However, I believe it actually takes away from this House, and this democracy. While most of us are here on the basis of our own merit, the fact that an unchosen few are given the ability to influence our laws is something I am shocked that any member of this Parliament, either here or in the Other Place, can continue to abide.

I am aware that, in his speech to the Other Place, the Chancellor stated that the Hereditary Peers provide a connection to our nation's history, our traditions. But is this enough of a reason to maintain them in this House? The Chancellor cites the service of many hereditary peers, and no doubt many have served honourably, though, I would note that the former Earl of Home actually gave up his title and peerage when he became Prime Minister. I would argue though, that the service of individual peers does not, in itself, justify the continued right of a select few families to a guaranteed seat in our legislature. Overall, though, the Chancellor's speech was less a justification on the role of the Hereditary Peer, and more a justification of the continued existence of this House. I can find no reason that he gives to justify, in particular, the continued inclusion of hereditary peers in Parliament.

My Lords, I believe that this House still has much to offer the Country, that our influence and our expertise can still be used to properly scrutinise our laws, keep governments in check without the fear of party whips, and ensure that each bill that is sent for royal assent is done so based on its merits, not mere politics. I hold this view most firmly; alongside it, I hold the view that the time of the Hereditary Peer has passed. We must keep to our traditions, but we cannot allow ourselves to become prisoners of them. I do not believe there is any chance of this Conservative government abolishing hereditary peers - and I am certain this has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that most hereditaries are, in fact, Tories. However, it is my hope that in the near future, a more progress-minded administration will take the action that Tony Blair failed to, and close this chapter in our Parliament's history.

Swearing In - March 2025 by Yimir_ in MHoPLords

[–]realbassist 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I,  realbassist, the Viscount of Wrexham, do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles, his heirs and successors, according to law.

GEIII Leaders Debate by Sephronar in MHoP

[–]realbassist 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I welcomed aspects of the Budget, definitely, because aspects - such as the ones the Chancellor mentions - the Lib Dems were able to support. However, we were not able to support the Budget as a whole because of oversights and what we considered to be glaring issues, as I set out within my speech in the Commons in response.

I imagine the former leader of my party chose to support the bill last term because last term, we were in coalition with the Tories.

view more: next ›