Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

We have had an excellent debate, and I do not want to delay the House for very long. It was significant that we heard from many noble Lords who are not the usual suspects in this Committee. I pay tribute to the usual suspects because we have had many more taking an active part in this Committee than we normally do in Bills that come through at any time of day in this House. It is good to hear some new voices, particularly after such a long period of time. I also felt that the debate proved the first law of Lords reform: the more detailed the proposals, the more likely you are to lose support. That was certainly the case with my speech, which had very little support indeed. In fact, it was a great relief when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, stood up and started with the immortal words, ““I agree with Lord Knight of Weymouth””. He then went on to disagree with me, and my noble friend Lady Sherlock did much the same, but occasionally there was a smattering of support for my particularly ingenious solution to Lords reform. I shall not comment on the many excellent speeches—which is a shame because they came from Members of the House who I admire the most, including my sponsor, the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam—but I should like to comment on three matters. First, there was a point when the excellent debate got bogged down by a tetchy discussion when the noble Lord, Lord McNally, came in. We were distracted and discussed the nature of the proceedings of the Bill rather than the amendments. It is a huge shame that the offer of negotiation now from the Opposition is being rejected. The opportunity was offered when we voted the last time on the House resuming. I hope that very soon the offer for serious negotiations will be taken up and that we will not have many more protracted evenings going on into the following day. Secondly, in the second speech of the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, said that, in essence, my amendment was saying ““not yet””. By some remarkable sleight of hand we seem to have a Session that will now last, virtually, until the Olympics. With some kind of Olympian effort, it may be possible for someone with the expertise and brains of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and others who have been dwelling on this subject for some time, to come up with a solution and achieve reform. However, given the comments that we have just heard from the Leader of the House that we could be debating these matters for some years, none of us is too optimistic. Finally, the substance of the amendment concerns the significant linkage between the numbers in your Lordships’ House and in the other place. The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, was right to say that there is an importance in the order of doing things, and I think we are doing things in the wrong order. For example, if in the end this House is wholly or partially elected, that will increase the number of elected representatives in this country and increase the cost of representation—and those are the two reasons given for Part 2 of the Bill. We may need to return to these issues on Report but, for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment 63YA disagreed. Amendment 63YB not moved. Amendment 63YC Moved by