That this House resolves that the promoters of the City of Westminster Bill [HL] which was originally introduced in this House last session on 22 January 2009 should have leave to proceed with the bill in the current session in accordance with the provisions of Private Business Standing Order 150B (Revival of bills).

My Lords, I apologise for intervening at this stage and not giving prior notification to the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees, but I am not sure where I raise this question and it seems that this may be the appropriate point. In the light of the increasing criticism into which the House has come of late and our seeming inability to stay ahead of the curve and keep abreast of the changes that are needed for this House, could he say which committee will be looking at the Wright report, which was published yesterday in the other place, setting out a more democratic approach to dealing with business in the Commons and whether we can undertake a similar review in this House? If we can, which committee would do it, and if we cannot, why not?

I am not quite certain what the noble Lord means. This is a Revival Motion for the City of Westminster Bill. Revival Motions have not been debated or divided on for the past 30 years, so the noble Lord has some distinction in raising this matter today. As to the question he raises, if the noble Lord is interested in the report from the House of Commons, which I have looked at, it will be a matter for the Procedure Committee. I commend the Motion.

I apologise to the Chairman and the House. I jumped the gun. My question is appropriate to the next matter.

We are now moving on to the Transport for London (Supplemental Toll Provisions) Bill, which is another Revival Motion. Again, these Motions have not been debated for the past 30 years until just now.