---

House of Lords Reform Bill [HL]

My Lords, I apologise in advance as I may be a little longer on this amendment than I have been on others. That is because the amendment refers to referendums. I believe that a change in the constitution, such as this Bill proposes, should be the subject of a referendum. We are getting more and more used to referendums as part of our political landscape. The Local Government Act 2000 provided for the holding of referendums to enable electors of individual local authorities to express their preferences for the type of executive arrangements within their council. The 2001 Regional Assemblies (Preparation) Bill also allowed for the holding of referendums. The House is currently considering the Localism Bill, which has a huge number of Liberal Democrat amendments—I can see my noble friend Lord Steel nodding, whether in sadness or pleasure I am not certain. Under Schedule 6 to the two tomes of that Bill one sees a huge amount about ““Council tax referendums: further amendments””. A referendum was also agreed in Section 6—headed, ““Decisions requiring approval by Act and by referendum””—of the European Union Act 2011, which my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford took through. Earlier this year there was also, of course, the referendum on the alternative vote system, with the quite remarkable and wonderful result that it was not agreed. We are getting increasingly used to referendums. This is a constitutional Bill of some importance. The most important bit is the one we have agreed which will break the 1999 agreement on the succession of hereditary Peers until a further reform of the House of Lords takes place. If this Bill is important enough to break that agreement then it is important enough to prompt a referendum. Amendment 138 states: "““Her Majesty must by Order in Council, on the advice of the Prime Minister, cause a referendum to be held””." We then move on to the schedule and the consequential amendments. The schedule comes after Clause 19 and sets out the details of the referendum. I have to admit that I have copied this from the referendum amendment put forward for the Scotland Bill, which is also before your Lordships’ House. But I have proposed amendments to my amendment to take into account the fact that we would have a Joint Committee. We have not yet discussed the Joint Committee. The purpose of bringing it in—which I had hoped we would discuss earlier today—is that the Government proposing doing so in their draft reform Bill, which is in front of the Joint Committee of both Houses. We are caught up in a mess as a result of the rearrangement this morning because the amendments to my amendment concern something that we have not yet discussed. In view of what my noble friend Lord Shutt said, perhaps it would be wise for me not to move the amendments to my amendment until we have discussed the Joint Committee. However, I think that this is a cack-handed way of trying to discuss legislation. It is impossible to do it rationally. I shall take noble Lords quickly through the schedule. There is, of course, the ““Entitlement to vote””, which I hope does not cause any problems. We then deal with the conduct of the referendum and the ““Referendum question and statement””. That is an important part of the schedule because the Order in Council, "““must specify the question to be included””." We then come to the date of the referendum, and following that the ““Referendum period””, which must be determined by the Order in Council. We then have ““Combination of polls””, the encouragement of voting and the ““Provision of information to voters””. It is important that one provides the correct information. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Steel probably knows more about referendums than I do, but my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth is probably the man to check that I have all of this right and to his satisfaction. The schedule goes on to deal with ““Referendum material”” and ““Funding and accounts””. It deals with legal challenges to the referendum because they could well take place, followed by the ““Supplementary”” and ““Interpretation”” provisions. That in brief is the schedule before us. The principle of this is that there should be a referendum when it comes to constitutional reform. I beg to move.