Noble Lords can deny it all they like. I am just giving my view. I am entitled to my view. I am just saying that that is the way it appears. We do not have the flexibility because of the way in which the coalition was put together. I am not complaining about that. In five days, the parties had very little choice and the numbers did not make any other coalition viable. I have said that before; I do not argue about it. But the reality now is that the position is more locked than it would have been if we had had single-party government. That is the impression that I get. We have to be able to free the situation up. What my noble and learned friend said is the reality.
As for the last few amendments, I have sat through the lot. I have made only two brief interventions—they have not been speeches—but I am wondering why. If we had discussed that last group of amendments in Monday’s style, we would have decoupled them all. I kept saying to myself, ““Why are we not decoupling these? Why are we doing it all sweet and light?””. But it made sense to do that. That is what has happened in the last few hours.
My noble and learned friend has made the point that it is time to take a break; it is time to take a breather. After that, let us continue in the way that we have been in the last few hours, rather than going back to the way we did it on Monday. The choice is there for everybody. In the past 48 hours, the amendments have not been loaded up on the Marshalled List. No one has gone away and shovelled a barrow-load of amendments on. That could easily have happened, but it did not. There is a great deal of material that could be amended, particularly, I think, in Schedules 8 to 10 on the voting system, which we have not dealt with yet; we have dealt only with Schedule 1. That has not been done. I am saying that there ought to be a better way of doing this than the one that we are being driven towards. My noble and learned friend has made a very good suggestion and it would be wise for everybody to accept it.
Division on Lord Falconer of Thoroton’s Motion.
Contents 63; Not-Contents 103.
Motion disagreed.
Amendments 67 to 67B not moved.
Amendment 67C
Moved by
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Rooker
(Labour Independent)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 19 January 2011.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
724 c513-4 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-01-23 07:51:59 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_703975
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_703975
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_703975