Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill (Money) (No. 3)

Let me finish then. My last point is again addressed to the Liberal Democrats. In the past, they have had a majority in this House. Did they come forward with proportional representation then? Were they keen on making everybody happy with equal votes? Did they give the nascent Labour party the opportunity to have a proper reflection of the number of votes it won? No, they did not. While they had power under the first-past-the-post system, not a word of such a reform passed any of their lips. This question only comes up in the House when a party thinks that it can get something out of it, and if anybody thinks that that is reform, rather than change, they should think again. I say to the Lord Chancellor, a man whom I respect and honour—he always knows that that probably means that the next sentence is not going to be as polite—that he cannot help to regain the trust of the people in Parliament by proposing a change that every independent commentator has said is entirely for cynical, party political reasons. No one believes him. No one outside the House thinks that it would have been brought forward had the Prime Minister not thought it was good for him and his party. It would not have been brought forward if the Prime Minister held high views of his responsibility towards Parliament and the people, instead of some of the lowest views of any Prime Minister in our history.