Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

My Lords, I am certainly not prepared to be part of any filibuster, and there has been no filibuster; there has been a discussion of important amendments. Through the long watches of the night, I have exercised considerable self-restraint because there has scarcely been a debate in which I would not have wished to participate. The debates have shed a great deal of light upon the development of this legislation and the necessity for change. The answer to the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney, is quite straightforward; we are concerned about the principles behind this legislation and we have real objections to them. He will recall that, when we introduced principled legislation on the abolition—as we put it at that time—of the hereditary peerage, we engaged in compromise that was not accepted by all noble Lords on Labour Benches, but did so because we recognised that a constitutional issue has to have some consensus. Progress that is rammed through against the principled opposition of a major party in the land is not the way to achieve constitutional reform. That is what we have demonstrated in this debate—exactly that principled position. I say to the noble Lords opposite that they should recognise our anxieties. They should recognise that the very act of coalition has transformed this House. It has transformed it in the nature of the Benches; it has transformed the nature of our deliberations. Everyone knows of the enormous pressure on Question Time. It is very difficult for a self-regulated House. We are all having problems coping. What is that a reflection of? It is a reflection of the fact that there is now one opposition party, plus the influential contribution of those on the Cross Benches, but there is a majority party on the other side that is presenting its position. That is bound to sharpen the exchanges, and, particularly as we bring in more and more talented people, it is inevitable that the competition to express a point of view is getting more intense. As a consequence, we are seeing our procedures coming under increasing strain. None of this is the work of the Opposition. Not only are the Government not apologising or in any way showing restraint about this mad dash to get additional Members on to their side into the House—and by Heavens we have seen the reason for it in the long watches of the night. What is the hurry? It is because they have always been worried about this highly controversial legislation on which we have a very strong case for criticism and on which they should effect some compromise about how it is tackled, not least by giving sufficient time for debate of this major constitutional issue, which relates to the relationship between the two Houses. Of course, the Government are ignoring all those representations. I said that there are consequences from all this. I am grateful to my noble friend for his amendment, which has triggered this debate, and to my noble friend Lord Grocott, the former Chief Whip, for his position. He and I agree on a great deal in these matters, but we are actually divided on a fundamental issue. My noble friend from time to time seems to present arguments that this House and the constitution are a nice equipoise, the old Burkean concept, whereas I am an out-and-out reformer. I have always been one; I am an embattled minority in this House and never particularly enjoyed that position. Nevertheless, that is what I am. I am probably an embattled minority in my own party. I certainly am in respect of the whole House. I emphasise that, because we are in this situation today, we should recognise the gains that have been made in the House over the past decade or so. There is no doubt that the House has enhanced its reputation or that those who join us recognise the value of our debates and deliberations. There is increasing awareness outside of the work that the House does. None of us can go before schools on the Speaker’s programme to talk to schools without being aware of the fact that young members of the community know some of the value of the work that we do. We must not exaggerate that, but we must protect what we have. My anxiety is that the Government are proving to have a degree of ruthlessness in their objectives that is completely counter to the way in which one should handle a Bill of this great significance. The Government know that we recognise that there is a time and date for the Bill; we recognise that the Bill—or part of the Bill—has to be delivered in a certain time. We have offered that, and we have offered discussions on that. It is the other part of the Bill, which contains fundamental constitutional issues, that we expect to deliberate at length.