A Westminster first?
It's not often that a mere radio programme can claim to have introduced a genuine constitutional innovation, but with all the talk of allowing ministers in the House of Lords perhaps to be questioned by MPs in the House of Commons, I am reminded of when we did it three years ago.
It was during the Lebanon war. Parliament was in recess, and many MPs were urging that the House of Commons should be recalled so that they could have an urgent debate. They were turned down, so that's where we stepped in.
We got 20 or so of them together, rented a hall just down the street from the Palace of Westminster, and held our own debate. We asked the Foreign Office to supply a Minister to reply, and they came up with Lord Triesman.
So for the first - and only - time, as far as I am aware, in British parliamentary history, a Minister who sat in the Lords was questioned by MPs. Now it seems, Parliament itself might follow our example.
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~33~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
The upper house composed of societies privileged which has the power of amendment and veto over the lower house will not defer or be questioned or in any other way challenged over the results of its deliberations. The UK is not a democracy. This is only one example demonstrating why. As for a British constitution, it seems to this outside observer to be a rag-tag collection of documents, customs, and other nebulous artifacts held together by spit, scotch tape, bailing wire, chewing gum, cobwebs, and balled up pocket lint. I'm sure there are experts who would disagree but if it actually exists, it is far more like the European Constitution or Lisbon Treaty or whatever other name it goes under this week than like the American Constitution which is written in four short pages of plain language anyone can understand. Yet even with that clearly intentioned brief document, the precise meaning of each word and phrase has been parsed and argued by legal scholars for over 200 years. How does Britain and how will the European Court abjudicate cases based on the vast clumsy documents they call Constitutions?
Complain about this comment
Marcus
I notice that the US constitution isn't immune to convention (or unwritten constitution) either. Only by a convention set by the early presidents, do US Presidents have only two terms - with only a couple rare exceptions. The 22nd Amendment which set a legal limit wasn't active till the early fifties. Eisenhower and Reagan were not keen on the amendment as it made the second term POTUS a weak lame duck President. So convention can be a good thing!
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS