(9 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberAmendment proposed, “Page 1, line 2, leave out the second “the” and insert “a”.
(10 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberThe record shows that my critics are completely wrong, as my noble friends rightly agree. All the records show that none of my speeches is more than 10 minutes, and neither is this one. I beg to move.
I remind your Lordships that if Amendment 50 is agreed, I cannot call Amendment 50A by reason of pre-emption.
(10 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberI remind your Lordships that, if the amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments 2 to 7 by reason of pre-emption.
As some commentators have noted, I have tabled one or two amendments, and one or two are included in the first grouping. However, I say first of all that, like the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, I intend to be brief. This Bill is a disgrace; it is not fit for purpose. A senior official of the Law Society of Scotland told me that he had never seen such a badly drafted Bill. It has been hastily got together, and it shows. For example, it has none of the schedules necessary for such a major constitutional Bill. That is why it is only three pages long. We have been accused of having tabled lots of amendments for what is only a three-page Bill, but a normal constitutional Bill would have schedules outlining how the referendum would be conducted and the rules of the referendum. None of that is included in this Bill. It is a government Bill trying to patch over divisions in the Tory party and trying to outflank the UK Independence Party—which deserves to be outflanked, by the way.
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberThe Question is that Clause 18 stand part of the Bill. As many as are of that opinion will say Content.