The trouble with overspecifying, as Clause 2 does, is that you require people, before they report, to have considered everything. The first report should be about principles. Perhaps that would be the only report and the convention would never meet again, or perhaps it would, but when it comes to things such as the House of Lords, it should be considering them on the basis of principles that have by that stage, one hopes, been debated across the country, in this place and the other place, and have achieved a degree of consensus. Then it would consider the role of the House of Lords in the union, how can it best discharge that role, and how can it best be composed to do so. If you put on your original shopping list, that before the convention tell us anything it must make sure that it includes proposals to reform the House of Lords, you are making a terrible mistake. You would do much better to stick to the high ground of principle.
Constitutional Convention Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
(Crossbench)
in the House of Lords on Friday, 11 December 2015.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Constitutional Convention Bill [HL].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
767 c1823 Session
2015-16Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2015-12-16 11:46:58 +0000
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2015-12-11/15121154000186
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2015-12-11/15121154000186
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2015-12-11/15121154000186