The fact that I didn’t manage to blog last week is a fair indication that it got a little busy.  The Lords was busy enough, but as a 45 year old I still have a fair chunk of mortgage to pay off so I was also earning money.  For example, whilst last Friday was a sitting day with the excellent defence debate, the previous Friday was not so I did a day’s work in London for a technology company.

The fine art of juggling became a little extreme this week when I stayed to vote at just before midnight on Tuesday, after speaking in the mammoth Public Bodies Bill debate.  I had a speaking commitment the next morning at 9.10am in Manchester, so it was an early start on the 6.36 from Euston.  I finished off my speech on the train and even printed it there and then, to the bemusement of fellow standard class passengers, on my little mobile printer.  But the speech went well and I had some lovely comments afterwards and was back in the Lords by three for questions.

This week promises another mammoth debate when the House considers the Parliamentary Constituencies and Voting Bill tomorrow.  The speaking list is very long and I suspect that the tone of the debate will again be largely hostile to the Bill.  As with the Public Bodies Bill the Lords’ Constitution Committee has published a damning report and it feels like there is widespread concern on all sides, and again more about the “how” of what the Government is doing than the “what”.

Personally I am in favour of a change to the voting system to the Commons and I can’t argue with the occasional review of boundaries. Reducing the number of MPs is also OK as long as there is a matching reduction in the number of ministers, so that the Executive doesn’t become too dominant.  But to do so without appeal, in a hurry, and whilst exempting two constituencies from the new rules but not other equally deserving cases is not right.  And I also feel that this should be done along side a clear road map from the Government on wider Parliamentary reform.

We will also get a bill on fixed term Parliaments.  Why is that not in this bill?  If it is OK to have two bills why not three so we can separate voting systems from constituency boundary debates.

And how does this relate to reforming the Lords?  Why are we reducing the number of MPs to save money and at the same time adding to the number of Lords, whilst discussing how we might persuade some to retire?  If the Commons goes to AV how would the Lords be elected?

Too many questions.  Yet again I just wish the Government would slow down and not try to ram everything through in a hurry.  Then they might find things a little easier.