House of Lords Reform Bill Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate
Department: Leader of the House

House of Lords Reform Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts
Tuesday 10th July 2012

(12 years, 4 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
None Portrait Several hon. Members
- Hansard -

rose

Nigel Evans Portrait Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
- Hansard - -

Order. The time limit is reduced to five minutes.

--- Later in debate ---
Conor Burns Portrait Conor Burns
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My hon. Friend is making some incredibly powerful points—

Nigel Evans Portrait Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
- Hansard - -

Order. Please would the hon. Gentleman face the House? We cannot hear him.

Conor Burns Portrait Conor Burns
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker.

My hon. Friend is making some incredibly powerful points, not least on the centrality of the possibility of an elected Chamber challenging the supremacy of this Chamber.

--- Later in debate ---
Mark Lazarowicz Portrait Mark Lazarowicz
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Indeed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) said, given that the Bill might end up in exactly the same format going through under the Parliament Act procedures, it is vital that we get it right first time while it is here. It would be ironic if a measure that is designed to improve scrutiny ended up restricting scrutiny here in this Chamber.

The programme motion has been taken away, but that does not necessarily mean that the Bill will not go through this place, although it will certainly take longer to do so. If it does not go through, that will not be because of actions on the part of Labour Members, as some Liberal Democrat Members have suggested; it will be because the Conservative side of the coalition has pulled the rug from under its Lib Dem partners, and the Lib Dems will have to draw their own conclusions about the future of the coalition.

I want to say a few words in support of the call for a referendum. I have not always been as enthusiastic as some colleagues about the case for referendums on almost any constitutional change, but it is now broadly accepted that any major constitutional change should be submitted for endorsement to those it affects. Having seen referendums approved for much less significant changes than this one, I cannot see any argument against a referendum ultimately being agreed to as part of a final requirement of endorsement by the people.

I suspect that the real argument as to why the Government—certainly the Liberal Democrats—are against a referendum is that they fear, particularly after the experience of the AV referendum, that they would lose it. I draw a different conclusion from that experience from that which some Liberal Democrats seem to have reached. I supported AV and campaigned for it. However, in the case of the AV referendum, hardly anyone who campaigned for AV really believed that it was the ideal solution, and they did not give it any enthusiastic support. That is the danger that will face the Government if and when this matter comes to a referendum. [Interruption.]

Nigel Evans Portrait Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
- Hansard - -

Order. There is too much background noise—please keep it to a minimum.

Mark Lazarowicz Portrait Mark Lazarowicz
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

The Bill is in danger of being a measure that does not have the kind of popular support that would be required. The answer to that problem is not to do away with the idea of a referendum but to improve it to make it more radical and democratic. We should make those changes during the course of the Bill’s passage through this House, and I will certainly support that.