294 against. Having agreed to make the amendment, the House agreed the amended motion without a vote. The result was the first defeat for the coalition government in the House of Commons. The vote is not binding on the government. However, the
required to bring in the proposed changes. On 31 October 2012 the
House of Lords was due to consider another piece of electoral legislation, the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill for a second day in Committee. Lord Hart of Chilton (Lab)
put forward an amendment which would have required the Boundary Commission to report on its review on 1 October 2018, rather than 1 October 2013.
the House to act precipitately without notice and against the advice of the Clerks. This is not how we should go about our work. These are the reasons why I have changed the business before us today, to enable the House to reflect carefully before it takes a decision either on the admissibility of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hart, or on its merits. I believe that it is a decision made in the best interests of the House.” Disputing the Leader’s
Rt Hon. Nick Clegg, MP
final proposal that emerges from the European Council will have to be agreed by both Houses of Parliament, so this will not be the last time that the issue is debated in the House of Commons.
Electoral Registration and Administration Bill While the Commons was debating the EU Budget, the House of Lords was demonstrating the difference between a self-regulating and a regulated House. A previous report highlighted the controversy around the government’s proposal to reduce the number of parliamentary constituencies from 650 to 600. Although the proposal had
been agreed in principle as part of the Parliamentary Voting and Constituencies Act 2011 it still requires a boundary review by the Electoral Commission and Secondary Legislation to be passed to bring it into effect. Following the government’s decision to withdraw the House of Lords Reform Bill, the Deputy Prime Minister, Rt Hon. Nick Clegg, MP, (Lib Dem) had indicated that his party would not support the secondary legislation
position, the Shadow Leader of the House, Rt Hon. Baroness Royall, said that the committee stage had been pulled from the Order Paper without any consultation with the “usual channels” (the means by which party Whips and sometimes the Crossbenchers discuss business in the House). She argued: “Those are the
Rt Hon. Lord Strathclyde
The effect would have been to postpone any decision on the number of constituencies until long after the next election. Lord Hart had tabled his amendment against the advice of the Public Bill Office, who had argued that the amendment went beyond the scope of the Bill – which was concerned with electoral registration. In the Commons, rulings on such matters are made by the Chair on the advice of the Clerks and are binding on the House. In the Lords, the House is invited to decide whether or not it agrees with the ruling. At the opening of public
business on 31 October the Leader of the House of Lords, Rt Hon. Lord Strathclyde (Con), explained that he had decided not to have committee stage on the Bill on that day. He explained his decision: “By the late tabling of an inadmissible amendment the noble Lord proposed to ask
facts. They show not this self- regulating House determining its order of business, through the operational proxy for a self-regulating House of the usual channels, but the order of business in your Lordships’ House being determined by the Leader of the House. That is not right. That is not how this House conducts its business.” She also noted: “Supporters of the amendment considered that
changes. The amendment’s supporters obtained written advice from Queen’s Counsel to this effect. That advice was provided to the Clerks; they still disagreed.” The Leader of the House
defended his decision, observing that the business was the government’s and it had the right to withdraw it to allow the House to make a decision on the facts of the matter. He was supported in this last respect by the former Speaker of the House of Commons, Rt Hon.
Rt Hon. Lord Martin of Springburn
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
since boundaries are determined by the number of registered voters in an area, registration was highly relevant to boundary
Lord Martin of Springburn, who said: “I understand that it is advice that the officials give and it does not necessarily need to be taken, but it is sound advice that the Clerk gives. I am not taking sides with the Labour Party or the Conservative Party or indeed the Liberal party, but at least with this delay people like me, who have taken an interest in this legislation, can go to the Clerk and make him an even busier man than he is at the moment and get advice, and ask him why he feels that this matter is out of the scope of the business before us. I do not see any harm in a delay. In fact, often it is better to have a delay so that we can come to a reasoned decision.”
Committee stage of the
Bill was taken on Monday 5 November and the House was invited to decide whether to support the Clerk’s advice or allow the amendment to be debated.