House of Lords Reform Bill

Debate between Chris Huhne and Nick de Bois

Tuesday 10th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)]

I am grateful for this opportunity to share a few words with the House. I made a simple promise to my electorate in May 2010. I said: “I will always put first my country; second my constituency and third my party and serve you in that way.” There are few other causes than voting against the Bill that serve both my constituents and my country so well. I cannot support the Bill.

When I stood in 2010, I did not realise that it could be the last election when voters would elect a House of Commons in the knowledge that they were, in effect, electing the Government. In 2015, they could very well simply be electing one of two Chambers that will ultimately lead them to gridlock.

I am certainly not prepared to rush legislation on a major constitutional issue. I am pleased the Government have seen sense today and withdrawn their attempt to time limit the debate, but they must heed the House and not attempt to do that at a later stage. This is a constitutional issue, make no mistake about it. I hope the House sends a signal tonight that the Government do not have the authority to proceed on their timetable as opposed to the timetable of this House. That is another reason why I will vote against the Bill tonight.

[Chris Huhne]

When the hon. Gentleman faced the electorate in his constituency at the general election, did he draw attention to the fact that he disagreed with his party’s manifesto on urging a mainly elected second Chamber? That is what the Conservative manifesto said.

[Nick de Bois]

Let me nail the myth that the Liberal Democrats continually present: there was no consistency among the three major parties in the House. We agreed to work for a consensus. If nothing else has been shown in the House today, it has been shown that there is no consensus for electoral reform—I suggest the right hon. Gentleman has not been listening.

I shall not detain the House much longer. My regret is that the debate has been about the composition of a second Chamber and not about its function, outcomes and what we want it to do. I was shocked to find myself agreeing with the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson), who used the analogy of selecting a team before knowing what game is to be played. We have spent time debating whether we should have an elected Chamber, but we have given no thought to its role and the relationship between both Houses and the Executive. Until we answer that question, it is impossible for us to determine the form of any proposals.

I support the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) and draw attention to what he said in 2007. In saying that he could not accept the content of the Bill being debated at that time, he said:

“A democratic upper House would challenge…conventions, and because we would not have had a debate about the proper role of the two Houses and the relationship between Parliament and the Executive, we would not be in a good position to make decisions”.—[Official Report, 7 March 2007; Vol. 457, c. 1587.]

I accept that, as result of the Bill, we have discussed some elements of what we expect from a second Chamber, but we are starting at the wrong end.

Sadly, to the many Opposition Members who declare how concerned they are about the Bill but who are not prepared to vote against it and then work to form a consensus on a Bill that we can all accept, I say, “Shame on you.” This is a lost opportunity for our Parliament, our democracy, our constituents and, above all, our country.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Chris Huhne and Nick de Bois

Thursday 10th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Chris Huhne]

The hon. Lady will know that it is precisely because we are not confident that customers are getting a fair deal that we have, for example, asked the OFT to look at the heating oil market and why procedures are under way to investigate doorstep selling. In all markets we must be ever-vigilant, which is precisely what the Government have been. We have put the consumer’s interests first.

[Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)]

2. What assessment he has made of the likely effects on oil prices and supply of the political situation in Egypt.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

11. What assessment he has made of the likely effects on oil prices and supply of the political situation in Egypt.

[The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Chris Huhne)]

Egypt accounts for 2.1% of the world’s oil production. We do not expect that disruption to Egyptian oil production and oil transiting the Suez canal is likely. The secretary-general of OPEC and the Saudi oil Minister Ali al-Naimi have both stated that, in the event of disruption to the Suez canal, OPEC would increase production to provide market-calming measures. About 5% of overall crude and petroleum products goes through the Suez canal.

[Nick de Bois]

I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. Will he outline what measures his Department may be planning to affect price stability?

[Chris Huhne]

My hon. Friend may be referring to the debate that has been going on about the fuel duty stabiliser, but that of course is the responsibility of the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I understand that work is continuing on that. The key for my Department is to ensure that we speed the transition to a low-carbon economy as quickly as possible. We have to get off the oil price hook, and this episode of oil prices rising above $100 a barrel demonstrates the urgent need to make good progress on that, which is precisely why the Government are, for example, bringing forward subsidies for electric vehicles, pushing within the European Union for tougher standards on energy-efficient vehicles, and why we have the green deal. We want to ensure that our population is not vulnerable to precisely those sorts of shocks. Our policies will be—