The full text of my speech is also below: The supporters of this Bill would have the country believe that those who are opposed to it are opponents of democracy itself. Today I stand to refute this ugly caricature. No-one in this House is more committed to British democracy than I. My family immigrated to Britain from an Iraq where democracy was only spoken of behind closed doors, late at night, amongst trusted friends. Compared to the brutal realities of Saddam’s rule, democracy was an abstract dream. Yet here in Britain there was a Constitutional order which made democracy real, concrete, embedded in the very fabric of our national life. Here was a judiciary - unelected, I grant you - which interpreted the Law in the interests of the public, and not of the ruling party. Here was a Queen - again, unelected - whose impregnable position as Head of State made sure that no politician could ever wield supreme power. And here also was the oldest and greatest of all Parliaments: An elected House of Commons to embody the will of the people. And an appointed House of Lords to stand as a check against the tyranny of the majority. This is the Constitution I believe in. And this is the Constitution I will defend. This is not, as my hon. Friend the Minister for Political and Constitutional Reform has said, some ‘silly game’. If recent events in the Arab world have shown us anything, it’s that democracy is not just about holding elections. It’s also about building institutions which ensure the whole of society is represented, regardless of who’s in power. The question we should ask ourselves today is will British society be better represented by 360 more career politicians accountable to no-one but their party? I am not complacent about the state of our democracy. I know that Parliament currently faces a crisis of legitimacy in the eyes of the country. But the cause of that crisis is not the Other Place. No. It’s that deeply damaging sense that politicians here, in this House, are out of touch. That the interests of their party come before those of their country. That they care more about securing a party political legacy... ...than growth capital for our businesses, or good local schools for our children. The public want to see a Parliament that legislates well, in the national interest. They want to see MPs who are on their side, and who are up the job. They do not want to see - and they certainly do not want to pay for - more politicians and more party patronage. We’ve conducted new scientific polling which shows that 60% of the public are opposed to spending more money on politicians and elections. Yet this is what the public are being offered. If we’re trying to fix Parliament then we need to give it the tools to legislate better. Let us strengthen the role of Select Committees. Let us give more time to backbench business. But let us not solve the problem of a broken legislature by making it harder to legislate. Let us not inflame the deep mistrust of party politics by bringing in a system which hands more power over to the party machine. I am a loyal critic of the Other Place. The White Paper says that it performs its role of scrutiny and revision with ‘distinction’, and yet I know there is much that could be improved. Reduce the number of peers, abolish Prime Ministerial patronage, remove the final hereditary peers... Increase the professional expertise which already makes such a great contribution to the quality of Parliamentary debate I have argued - and will continue to argue - for all this, and more. But subverting the primacy of the Commons is not the answer to reform. The Government knows that it would be impossible to write the conventions governing the relationship between Lords and Commons into law. As a result the only protection against a legislative gridlock between the two Houses would be the good faith of the new Senators. We’d have to require 360 career politicians to promise not to use their new democratic mandate to oppose the will of the Commons. And if one day in the future this House were legislating on military action, or an emergency Budget... ...situations where time is of the essence. We would run the risk of costly delay as our new Senators discovered the power and publicity that this mandate conferred. They could block, and filibuster and delay in full confidence. Of course we could always use the 1911 Parliament Act to ram a Bill through this House of Senators. But that hardly seems to signify a new era of democratic accountability to me. Indeed, how ironic that the supporters of a Bill to reform our democracy are refusing to take their argument to the country. Apparently we’re willing to hold a referendum on whether to have an elected mayor in Coventry, but not on the biggest constitutional change in a hundred years. The claim that the choice was put to the public at the General Election does not hold up either. Where was the choice when all the main parties were offering it in their manifestos? The polling overwhelmingly shows that an elected Lords is not a priority. Does it stretch belief that voting intentions may have been dictated largely by what our parties were promising to do on the economy and public services, not constitutional reform? A referendum would ensure that the public have all the facts before making their choice known. In the same polling I quoted earlier even Lib Dem support for these proposals fell to just 29% once the costs of elections were factored in. I know that many of my colleagues will have been urged to express their concerns at the Bill's third reading. However those suggesting that approach are being disingenuous at best. Unless a referendum clause is added now, there is no guarantee that it will be added later, and with a combination of the Parliament Act being used and the members opposite stating they will support the Bill at second and third reading there is little chance that a backbench amendment would be successful. The only way the views of Hon. Members will be heard and debated properly is if we vote against the programme motion and, in the absence of a referendum clause, vote against the second reading today. Anything else is merely a protest vote, not one that will make a difference.