The LDV Collective have asked me to add the monthly Deputy Prime Minister’s Questions to my radar screen. When these sessions started they seemed rather manufactured and unnecessary. However, they have evolved into an important part of the Commons’ calendar, covering a wide range of key issues. They are of interest especially for those of us in the Liberal Democrats who are interested in hearing what Nick Clegg has to say in his official capacity, under scrutiny from MPs, in a mercifully Flashman-free environment.

But this will never be like Prime Minister’s Question Time. The chamber is only about a quarter full, for starters. But perhaps that is no bad thing. Perhaps this session allows a little more mature reflection on the pivotal policies of the coalition government. But I shouldn’t speak too soon.

This week’s session covered, it helpfully tells us on the DPM’s official website, these twelve topics:

• House of Lords Reform
• the Parliamentary voting system
• the AV referendum
• The Monarchy
• Lobbying
• the Scottish electorial Commission
• the National Health Service
• Wales
• Social mobility
• the Mental Health Act
• Alarm clock Britain
• and the Digital Economy Act.

That list rather puts a helpful spin on things. In fact, the leitmotif throughout the session was the Voting reform/Seats reduction bill. We came back to it again and again like a dog with amnesia returning to its doings.

House of Lords Reform – it’s going through a committee before it goes through another committee. Nick Clegg was asked about this subject by Julian Lewis (Con) who is evidently not a fan, sarcastically calling it a “brilliant plan”. It’ll double the number of MPs and throw out lots of skilled people (that assumes that they don’t stand for election and that there is no “grandfathering” – of which more later). The answer to all the objections raised, as always, is, for better and worse, “Look at the US Senate”. And that is more or less what Nick said:

My own view, as someone who has always supported greater democracy in the other place and greater accountability to the British people, is that the legitimacy of the other place would be enhanced. There are plenty of other bicameral democracies around the world that have two elected Chambers of different size with different mandates, elected even by different systems, which work extremely well in striking the right balance between effectiveness and legitimacy.

Punch and Judy soon entered the fray in response to some party-preening from David Winnick (Lab)when Nick referred to “the dinosaurs in the Labour party in the House of Lords who are blocking people’s ability to have a say on the electoral system that they want.”

Duncan Hames (LibDem) then popped up to say that Lloyd George knew his grandfather. Well it was worth a try. In fact he mentioned a parliament of which Lloyd George was a member and “grandfathering”.

For those who are as baffled as me as to what “grandfathering” is. Look it up and you find it can be a caterpillar or woodlouse. Or Terry Gilbert explains it here in the context of Lords’ reform. It means leaving current peers in place.

Nick Clegg said something about “staging”. That wasn’t really a clear answer to Duncan Hames’s question, except it seemed like he was saying that current peers would remain for a while.

As Duncan implied, the “temporary provisions” of the 1911 Parliament Act have been somewhat non-temporary.

This Second Chamber reform all seems a bit foggy if you ask me.

We then got onto condemning Labour in the House of Lords for delaying the bill on voting reform and seat reduction. It seemed to me that Clegg had to be prompted by a Tory (Paul Uppal) to endorse the reduction of seats proposal. But he was fulsome when he came to it.

Chris Bryant (Lab) then tried to wind up Nick Clegg about splitting the bill. Oh how Labour would love that. Nick Clegg then got a bit logically inconsistent, defending the combined bill by saying: “It is the choice of the coalition Government to say that we want to reform politics not in a piecemeal fashion, but in a meaningful way.” Oh, come off it Cleggie, British Constitutional change has always been Piecemeal with a capital “P” and nothing the coalition is doing is fullmeal, if that’s the opposite [Wholemeal, maybe? Ed]. Less piecemeal than before, perhaps.

We then got onto the Act of Settlement. Thank the Lord for that! Phew! And suddenly someone called Mark Harper was answering the questions. How weird was that? After a second detour onto the Register of Lobbyists we were back to Clegg. And, unfortunately, back to the combined bill and a tiresome point from Diana Johnson (Lab) about the LibDems “abandoning” 35% of their manifesto. Never mind the 65% that’s being enacted as a minor partner in government. “Split the Bill” – shouted Chris Bryant. Oh go and boil your head you tiresome tyke, Bryant! Which is, in terms, what the Speaker told him also. It then all got a bit repetitive about splitting the bill or saving money by not splitting it.

Thank goodness for Hattie Harperson, who took us onto the NHS reforms. Second thoughts, perhaps not – even less safe territory. Harman said that the reforms have no mandate. Clegg said they sort of do. Huh? I’m still getting over the surprise.

Nick Clegg said that the government will soon come forward with proposals to repeal 141 of the Mental Health Act which means MPs in receipt of long-term mental health care forfeits their seat. That’s a result.

Proposals will also soon follow for MP recall, Clegg said.

There should soon be an announcement about sections 3 to 18 of the Digital Economy Act 2010, Nick Clegg said in answer to Dr Julian Huppert (LibDem).

Is it me? Or should Nick Clegg’s middle name be “Mañana”?