Anna Keay: belief

Transcript context

…But they’re not hereditary, are they? They’re replaced. Except that they’re from a pool, all of whom are hereditary. When the House of Lords reform happened in 1997 or thereabouts, it was a compromise. Instead of all the hereditary peers being able to sit in the House of Lords, they said they’ll only be a hundred, and they can nominate among themselves who they are. But it seems to me absurd that there should be a hundred. I mean, they’re all men, apart from anything else. It’s not that they aren’t great people. A lot of them are; they’re wonderful people. But to me, it’s an utterly absurd basis on which to involve somebody in the process of legislation. When it comes to your point about heritage, I think it’s good to have a second chamber. I think there’s a debate to be had about what the basis of that is, in terms of how you would come to have a seat in it. But I believe that a concern for our environment and the buildings and places in which we live and were built by our ancestors is a really universal one, and it doesn’t require you to have a particular social slice of society in the House of Lords to ensure it’s protected. My British YIMBY friends claim to me that the cost of living is too high here, and we need to build at least 2 million new homes, mostly in the south of England. Do you agree, and would that threaten heritage?…

Stored transcript either side of the excerpt. The highlighted words are the published quote; the surrounding text is unedited source, never generated.