Local Government Bill [HL] — Motion to refer to the Examiners — 8 Jun 2010 at 15:37
The House of Lords agreed that the Local Government Bill ought be assessed by professional staff to determine if it ought be treated as a Government (public) bill or as a "hybrid" bill as it progresses through Parliament.
The text of the motion agreed to was: "That the [Local Government] Bill ought be referred to the examiners."
The Examiners, are the Clerks of Private Bills in both Houses.
A definition of a hybrid bill was given in the debate preceding the division:
"A hybrid bill is defined as 'a public bill which affects a particular private interest in a manner different from the private interests of other persons or bodies of the same category or class'".
As specific councils were named in the bill and treated differently to others; an argument was made that this could result in the bill being considered a hybrid.
The decision of the examiners will affect the bill's future passage through Parliament
The Lords divided Contents 154; Not-Contents 150, with the Contents being in favour of referring the bill to the examiners for an expert opinion as to its status.
Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.
What is Tell? '+1 tell' means that in addition one member of that party was a teller for that division lobby.What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.
|Party||Majority (Content)||Minority (Not-Content)||Turnout|
|Con||0||86 (+1 tell)||46.3%|
|Lab||102 (+2 tell)||0||48.4%|
|LDem||1||48 (+1 tell)||67.6%|
|Viscount Allenby of Megiddo||Crossbench||no|
|Lord Alton of Liverpool||Crossbench||no|
|Lord Hannay of Chiswick||Crossbench (front bench)||no|
|Lord Laming||Crossbench (front bench)||no|
|Viscount Montgomery of Alamein||Crossbench||no|
|Lord Rowe-Beddoe||Crossbench (front bench)||no|
|The Earl of Sandwich||Crossbench (front bench)||no|
|Lord Williamson of Horton||Crossbench||no|