I realise that in my earlier post on last week’s debate on the constitution, home affairs and legal issues, I omitted to provide a link to my speech, which dealt with the Government’s approach (or rather lack of one) to constitutional change. Anyone wishing to do so can read it here (at columns 315-17).
I would like to say that the link is added by popular demand. I would like to say that, but I can’t. I’m just assuming….
Thankyou my Lord.
Lord Norton, in your speech you call for a Royal Commission (or equivalent) to assess the Constitution holistically – wouldn’t you be fearful of it creating a whole other bag of horrendously thought out reforms, such as once again suggesting election to the Upper House?
I’m not very popular but I am pretty demanding. It’s possible that by working together we could achieve some balance here.
Adrian Kidney: I was very careful to say that I wanted a commission that could make sense of where we are and not one to tell us where to go. Before we even contemplate any further change, I think we need to stand back and reflect on where we have reached. Otherwise, we will forever be playing a form of constitutional catch-up. If the constitution is looked at holistically, I suspect people may see just how effectively the present House of Lords contributes to a political system marked by what I have elsewhere termed core accountability. We need to be aware of pressures that would fragment that core accountability and render the system less, not more, responsive to the people.