Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill

I feel like an innocent abroad, straying into a debate on constitutional reform, but I have done so because there are some interesting questions up for discussion this afternoon. I was truly surprised as the Conservative argument unfolded. If I were trying to be generous, I would say that they were making the case that the best should be the enemy of the good—that because there was not wholesale reform, they would stand in the way of a small but important step in the right direction. I have had conversations with constituents at public meetings who have berated me for the Labour party not seeing through the process of Lords reform. There is surprise among a number of members of the public in a well educated constituency such as mine—I see the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) nodding—that there are still people in our legislature who draw the basis for their representation from the hereditary principle. However, Conservative Front Benchers are not arguing for the ideal. It is clear from the range of contributions made by Conservative Members that they do not think that wholesale reform is ideal. They are extremely divided on the matter. There is opposition from Conservative Members, in this House and the other place, to serious democratic reform, which a majority of Members of this House wish to see. The largest majority of Members wish to see a wholly elected second Chamber, and there is a majority—albeit not quite so large—for a largely elected Chamber, so the view of this House is very clear, as is the public's. When people look at this debate and see which way the Conservative party voted, bang in a puff of smoke will go the pretence that it is a modernising democratic party. They will see the Conservative party supporting hereditary privilege, because that is what it is doing today.