Perhaps noble Lords may take this as a sign to take their tea break—at this time of night, they might require something a bit stronger—as Amendment 58ZA is really a probing amendment. The amendment seeks to probe what to me is a puzzle.
If the Boundary Commission makes proposals for a change to the draft order in council, would it not be right to say that the Minister ““must””, rather than ““may””, accept the Boundary Commission’s proposals? In all our efforts on the Bill, one of the great things that we are trying to protect is the independence of the Boundary Commission. However, the Bill is drafted in a way that suggests that Ministers would have the discretion—the word used is ““may””—on whether to accept the Boundary Commission’s recommended modifications. I suspect that the word ““may”” is used by accident, but if its use is deliberate it is disgraceful.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Lipsey
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 12 January 2011.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
723 c1512-3 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 14:26:01 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_699973
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_699973
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_699973