Estates of Deceased Persons (Forfeiture Rule and Law of Succession) Bill

Debate between Lord Hamilton of Epsom and Lord Brittan of Spennithorne

Wednesday 15th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Brittan of Spennithorne]

My Lords, I support the amendment. I start by saying that I am an unashamed opponent of referenda and always have been. It is not therefore surprising that anything that limits the operation of referenda inherently attracts me, as the amendment does. It is entirely reasonable that this piece of legislation, if it is to be passed, should be regarded as being wholly exceptional—which it is constitutionally—because it extends the range of obligatory referenda on a massive scale and fundamentally alters the balance of the constitution in that important respect. The Bill should be regarded, if it has to be passed, as a provisional experiment. I would regard it as a rather dangerous experiment that is subversive of the normal principles of parliamentary government.

If it is to be regarded as a dangerous experiment that political exigencies require—although I do not share that view—it is perfectly reasonable that one should mitigate its consequences by providing within the Bill for a rapid and effective procedure for terminating the mischief as soon as possible. It is for that reason that I support the amendment.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

My noble friend says that he is fundamentally against referenda. Does that mean he is against the referendum that confirmed our membership of the European Union? Should there also be no referendum if we were to join the single currency?

[Lord Brittan of Spennithorne]

I am fundamentally against referenda. I would not have favoured the holding of that referendum, but that does not in any way mean that I do not accept its result, especially as it was one that I politically favoured.