The House of Lords: a point or three of general clarification...

As the Liberal Democrat Voice Lords Correspondent (self-appointed and erratic, admittedly), I spend more time than most studying Hansard and perusing the Parliamentary website. And, married to a Member of the House myself, I tend to take a more tolerant view of its 'foibles', for perhaps obvious reasons.

It must be admitted that the Second Reading of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill has not demonstrated the Lords at its best, but the response of some to the nature and tone of the debate has been equally poor, with some sweeping, and rather insulting, generalisations being sprayed around about those who occupy the red benches. And in reply to them, I would make a few points.

Firstly, the Lords reflects the nature of the people in it. They are, on average, past the age of retirement, i.e. predominantly within the one age bracket likely to be opposed to the proposals, if the polling is to be believed. Just because they're in the Lords doesn't make them any more or less tolerant than the population generally, especially as they're unaccountable. They are a cross-section of opinion, albeit a more balanced one than in the not so distant past.

Secondly, the speakers in the debate do not necessarily represent opinion in the House, as the formal vote will hopefully demonstrate, merely those wishing to express an opinion 'on the record'. If you've been watching the debate live, you'll have noticed that the chamber is hardly full, as some Peers have already heard all the arguments they need to, and have decided how they will vote, or have other Parliamentary business, and will turn up when the votes are taken.

Finally, this is a free vote, and Peers will have been actively lobbied by both sides - I know that Ros has received a lot of e-mail on this subject. Accordingly, individual Peers will vote according to their consciences. They are the very same people who, in recent years, have acted as a restraint on the Executive, particularly on matters of civil liberties, something that many of us have been grateful for. So, setting aside the question of the very legitimacy of an unelected Second Chamber, perhaps some of my colleagues might try to be more restrained in terms of the offensiveness of their language? And if that is too much to ask, could they not direct their unhappiness more accurately against those who are offending them?