I completely understand what the right hon. and learned Gentleman is saying, but he is an extremely distinguished lawyer and he knows that the devil is always in the detail. The whole point about clause 29 is that we have a system that is risible, to use the Secretary of State's term. We cannot expect the dignity of the House not to be impaired when we have a system that involves more candidates than electors. I do not want to revisit the previous debate, but that was clearly not envisaged. The two situations are categorically different, and we cannot simply apply the badge, "The best is the enemy of the good." That simply does not fly, although I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for allowing me to make that clear.
I think we all share the same objectives, broadly; it is a question of how we get there. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Member for Chichester will consider withdrawing his amendment. I understand why he has made his proposals, but will he devote his considerable intellectual energies and creativity to getting the wholesale reform of the House of Lords that we all want to see when we introduce the draft measures on that very shortly?
Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Wills
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 26 January 2010.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee of the Whole House (HC) on Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
504 c743 Session
2009-10Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 19:36:55 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_614987
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_614987
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_614987