Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill

Most Members of Parliament, even on the noble Lord’s side, would agree that we break with great difficulty the principle of one Member in one constituency. On the House of Lords, the issue is pretty stark. I was most impressed by the noble Lords elected as hereditary Peers, two of them on the Cross Benches, who seemed to see the sense in what we propose in getting rid of the hereditary by-elections. I know that there are strong views on the other side, but we think strongly that the time has come to end the farce of these elections. Noble Lords may remember a few years ago when we had a vote on our side for a hereditary Peer. There were 11 candidates—surprisingly few by the standards of all those who could have stood. The electorate numbered three. Do I really need to say more about what frankly now looks an absurd system? The other parts of the Bill on the House of Lords seemed to get fairly general support. On whether there should be an ability to retire rather than resign, we are concerned about what the difference would be between the two. I suspect that, if both words were used, a resignation would be looked at in a slightly different light. No doubt we can discuss that issue in another context, too. Noble Lords asked whether the measures in the CRAG Bill are designed to allow—