Canada is represented with a population of 35 million and a GDP of $1.77trillion and yet China with a population of 1.34 billion and a GDP five times that of Canada is not.

The European Union is represented as the ‘9th member’ of the G8 and yet Europe already has four powerful voices at the table: Germany, UK, France and Italy and India with a population of 1.24 billion, twice that of the EU, and a GDP greater than Italy and Canada is not represented.

Brazil has a population 50 million greater than Russia and a GDP 20% larger than Russia and yet it has no seat at the table in Loch Erne.

Moreover, whilst the US, UK, Japan and Euro-zone are largely flat-lining and Russia is grinding to a halt, China is growing at 8% and India is growing at 6% so if its ideas to get the global economy moving your after it might be good to have someone around the table who is delivering.

If the G8 really is serious about tacking global problems then it must find space for India, China and Brazil even if that means that Canada and the EU need to make some space.

This is somewhat reassuring in view of the real danger of such weapon systems multiplying all around the world.

UAV’s come in all shapes and sizes. In this country they may invade personal privacy.  Their control and regulation is complicated since four or five separate government departments may be involved.  Big Brother Watch and Privacy International are therelevant NGOs.

There are seats to be had on the subway trains, and they are air conditioned! although the stations themselves are decrepit. But I cannot fathom the bus system.

The streets are clean compared to London, and there are fewer beggars, buskers etc.

Food in the stores and in restaurants seems to be cheaper.

Jewish community buildings appear not to need the round-clock security prevalent in Europe, and the political/media antiIsrael obsession is absent.

The media are concerned with immigration, China, flood barriers and healthcare. Abortion is still a sharply divisive issue. Europe simply does not feature at all, save for the impression that the EU is a decaying institution, and the occasional kindly hope that the gangrene will not spread to the British limb. Surveillance is a big story here too, although the British interest is not mentioned. The point is made that when 9/11 happened, (and likewise the murder of Lee Rigby), the cry went up: did the intelligence authorities not know something about the killers? Why did they not do more to track them? You cannot have it both ways, say the US commentators, that is perfect privacy in an internet age, and also protection against potential terrorists.

Taxis charge about half the London rate, but theatre tickets are twice as much. There are too many ads and nothing worth watching on any of the tv channels.

You will recall that the continuation of any Hereditary Peers was agreed at the last minute by the Labour leadership in 1999, when most hereditaries were sent packing, on the understanding that comprehensive democratic reform would follow in a matter of a few months, making it strictly temporary.  We are still waiting.

Now there are two Private Member’s Bills – one in the offing from Dan Byles MP in the Commons and one already presented by Lady Hayman in the Lords – which could end the by-elections, ceasing once and for all the odd British habit of handing down seats in Parliament alongside country estates.  Don’t hold your breath, though.  I am not sure that either Bill will manage to end the by-elections in this Session.  When my colleague David Steel (Lord Steel of Aikwood to be entirely proper) tried to abolish them, he was thwarted by a hereditary reactionary onslaught.

The principled case for ending hereditary privilege is clear.  But those who ascribe a serious practical advantage to this change – that it would somehow reduce the size of the House, enabling fresh blood to be introduced without yet more over-crowding and excessive cost – are permitting hope to triumph over probability.   The Hereditaries are relatively young (compared with the mainly-retired Lifers), so won’t die off quick enough.  We could have to wait up to 40 years for the Grim Reaper to do the eviction job which Parliament itself is too queasy to undertake.

Difficult though it is to admit for those Life Peers now harrumphing about the size of the House, the only effective way to reduce the membership and cost of the Lords is a proper, comprehensive reform.  The Coalition Government’s 2012 Bill, which gained the support of such a huge majority of all MPs, in all Parties, in July last year, would have done the job – but as we know it was sabotaged by the failure of the Labour leadership to back a sensible timetable agreement.

Meanwhile, the other reason for reformers to permit themselves a wry smile during this next by-election is that Peers will use the Alternative Vote to make an informed choice.  Remember AV?   Apparently it is good enough for the House of Lords – in the view of the Conservative and Labour Parliamentarians who opposed it so violently in 2011 – but not suitable for the public to use when choosing MPs.

And, irony or ironies, had Conservatives not resisted the adoption of AV in that referendum, Conservative leaders might now have a realistic chance of getting the 2^nd preference votes of UKIP supporters in the 2015 General Election, and of surviving in Government!

Firstly, of course in the UK, we are much luckier than swathes of the world. My daughter and I see a small part of the global challenge from opposite ends of the earth; she is in Chile working for Habitat for Humanity www.nuestroshijosvuelvenacasa.cl , a global housing charity, and I sit on the Board of the housing association and charity, Peabody, in London.

The challenge they are addressing in Chile is housing disabled children who are so ill that they need their own space. Here she is with Simoney, who has just had a bone marrow transplant

In London, the population has been growing for many years, and now to keep up with the expected million more people in the next decade or so, we would need to build 50,000 homes per year instead of the 20,000 we are actually building.

That mismatch between demand and supply creates the tension of who gets housed in the housing that is available. What happens in practice is that the well off can afford housing, and some people in need on the local authority housing lists get access to social housing. Leaving the “squeezed middle” – the waiters, the office cleaners, the PAs, the bank clerks, the web designers, the actors, the academics all struggling to find housing.

There are no easy answers. Government needs to sell off unused land and property for housing development – but typically local residents never want more housing next door to them.

One of the more interesting developments at Peabody, is that the new east/west rail link, Crossrail, provides the opportunity to regenerate Thamesmead. This is an area which has suffered from being a backwater (downstream from the O2), badly connected to the rest of London. Crossrail will have a station at Abbey Wood, making the area more attractive to live in and increasing land values, thus providing the opportunity to invest in the whole area. It all takes a long time, but over a 20 year period I hope the combination of physical intervention and community investment will make a difference, and Thamesmead will be a place people actively want to live in rather than an area many ignore.

1. Like my father-in-law, I spoke and voted for the Bill.  Who am I?

2. The only female ministers of religion to speak in the debate both supported the Bill.  Who were they?

3. As a Lord Spiritual, I announced that, if the House divided, I would abstain.  Who am I?

4. In speaking against the Bill, I declared an interest as honorary president of the Scottish Bible Society.  Who am I?

5. Of women peers who voted, 86% voted against Lord Dear’s amendment.  Who was the only Liberal Democratic female peer to vote for it?

6. Who confused one Browne with another?

The breakdown of the vote shows that a majority in each political grouping in the House supported the Bill.

For the amendment to reject the Bill:

Conservative  66

Crossbench    46

Labour    16

Bishops   9

Other   9

Liberal Democrats  2

Against the amendment:

Labour   160

Conservative  80

Liberal Democrats   73

Crossbench  68

Other  9

I was the last scheduled backbench speaker.  I was on the list as speaker number 91, but three peers withdrew their names and so I was actually the 88th speaker.  (Two other backbench peers spoke after me, in what is known as the ‘gap’, when you can speak briefly if you have not previously signed up to speak.)   My speech, along with the others for Tuesday, can by read here.   To watch the debate,  you can see it here (scroll through to 3.10).  The Bill commences its committee stage in two weeks.

She studied at St. Hugh’s College, Oxford, of which I am an honorary fellow.

Another graduate is Aung San Suu Kyi, who fought for Burmese democracy and visited the Lords earlier this year.

Both stood firm in the face of adversity and both suffered long periods in jail or under house arrest.

For us mere mortals we can only marvel at their stamina, resilience, vision, and I guess, stubornness. But thank you to both of you.

We then got a lively attendance of about 50 people, in a room only designed for 30, with most participants keen to make progress. Only the trades unions seemed especially resistant to change, since they have a real worry that any new law will affect their ability to assist and influence the Labour Party with big cheques.

The seminar discussed the first real attempt to deal with the potential for non-party campaigners seriously to influence the outcome of an election. As things stand, a Russian oligarch – bored with buying football clubs – could try to buy a British political cause instead, and – provided no party names or candidates were referred to – they might be able to circumvent all the limits on expenditure.

In the wake of the most recent lobbying scandals, the Government has woken up to this, and is beginning to put forward its own proposals on non-party campaigning. Number 10, however seems obsessed with the unions: the very people most resistant to change. I am asking Ministers to examine again our draft Bill, which is a more comprehensive package – putting unions and other membership organisations on a level playing field.

Meanwhile, if you’d like to join the discussion, now is the time. Things are developing so fast, we now expect a Government Bill in July. Have a look at www.fundingukdemocracy.org today; you can leave your comments on each clause of the Bill there any time before 30th June, and download a PDF copy.