Debates between Harriett Baldwin and Geoffrey Clifton-Brown during the 2010-2015 Parliament

House of Lords Reform Bill

Debate between Harriett Baldwin and Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
Monday 9th July 2012

(12 years, 5 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Harriett Baldwin Portrait Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
- Hansard - -

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears). I found that I could agree with much of her speech—although certainly not all of it. That is also my view of this Bill: it is not a perfect Bill, but neither do I think the House of Lords is perfect. That is why I am more than happy to vote for the Bill on Second Reading, but I would not be prepared to support it in its current form on Third Reading.

I have mulled over the idea of a Committee of the whole House having 10 days to amend the Bill. Given all the other important work this Government also have to do, that may well be enough time for us to find consensus. Indeed, I am hearing a lot of agreement on some points. I think there is consensus that we must reduce the size of the second Chamber, for instance.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown Portrait Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My hon. Friend has obviously read the timetable motion as carefully as I have. Does she realise that it gives only two hours for Third Reading? As any votes will eat into that time, there may well not be a Third Reading vote on a Bill that is of such great constitutional importance.

Harriett Baldwin Portrait Harriett Baldwin
- Hansard - -

We could oppose Third Reading, therefore, if we felt we had not achieved consensus in this House.

There is also consensus in this House that anyone who has been convicted of a serious crime should be kicked out. The cost of the second Chamber must be reduced, too. I am not convinced on this point; I will need quite a lot of convincing in respect of the Deputy Prime Minister’s earlier assertion that this proposal would be cost-neutral.