Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Lord Rooker and Lord Skelmersdale
Monday 14th February 2011

(13 years, 10 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Portrait Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, I thought I heard my noble friend be told by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, that not voting would count as a no vote in the referendum. This worries me deeply. With my noble friend’s amendment, Parliament will be able to decide, however many people vote for or against AV. That is my understanding. By not voting, people will not contribute to a no vote barring AV being adopted. It is merely a question of whether it becomes automatically binding on Parliament or whether it becomes something that Parliament can judge. I was deeply worried by the description of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler—

Lord Skelmersdale Portrait The Deputy Speaker (Lord Skelmersdale)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, the House should remind itself that we are at Third Reading. The amendment has not yet been moved. There will be an opportunity for any noble Lord to address questions to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, when he decides what to do with his amendment in due course. May I take it that this amendment has been moved?

Lord Rooker Portrait Lord Rooker
- Hansard - -

I was about to say, “I so move”.

Lord Skelmersdale Portrait The Deputy Speaker
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Unfortunately, there is a printing mistake in paragraph (a), which should at the end read,

“as defined in section 2”,

not just, “as defined in 2”.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Lord Rooker and Lord Skelmersdale
Monday 7th February 2011

(13 years, 10 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rooker Portrait Lord Rooker
- Hansard - -

I am happy not to move the amendment.

Lord Skelmersdale Portrait The Deputy Speaker (Lord Skelmersdale)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, either an amendment is moved or it is not. If it is not moved, the phrase is “not moved”. If words have been spoken—as they have been by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker—the amendment has been moved. That is why I called it.

Lord Rooker Portrait Lord Rooker
- Hansard - -

In that case, I will move it, but obviously I will not press it. I fully accept that this must be brought into order, which cannot be done by inserting “may” in place of “must”. That is what the noble and learned Lord said. The evidence of that related to another issue, which was to do with the date. This may need a couple of hundred words from parliamentary counsel. I fully accept that while the two amendments are linked—I was questioned about this at the time; they should have been linked—this is not the solution. It does not solve the problem for the Government or parliamentary counsel. At some point, this has to be tidied up. I fully accept that Amendment 10B will not do this.

Lord Skelmersdale Portrait The Deputy Speaker
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Amendment re-moved:

“Page 6, line 19, leave out ‘must’ and insert ‘may’”.