Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill — Allowing Greater Variation from Mean Number of Electors in MP Constituency in Exceptional Circumstances — 16 Feb 2011 at 14:08
The majority of members of the House of Lords voted to allow geographical considerations or local ties to justify greater variation from the mean number of electors in a parliamentary constituency.
In this vote the members of the House of Lords were insisting on their amendment despite elected MPs in the House of Commons disagreeing with it.
The House of Lords was considering the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill[1]. The amendment rejected in this vote was:
- Amendment B1
- As an amendment to Motion B, leave out from "House" to end and insert "do insist on its Amendments 16 and 19".
Motion B stated:
- That this House do not insist on its Amendments 16 and 19 to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reasons 16A and 19A:
- Because the amendments would produce too much variation in the electorate of constituencies and would result in a system that was unduly difficult to operate.
Amendment 16 stated[2]:
- Page 9, line 23, after “4(2),” insert “5A,”
"5A" is a reference to the new "Exceptional circumstances" clause referred to below:
Amendment 19 stated[2]:
- Page 10, line 22, at end insert—
- "Exceptional circumstances
- 5A If, but only if, a Boundary Commission is satisfied that-
- (a) it is necessary to do so in order to achieve a viable constituency, and
- (b) such necessity arises from special geographical considerations or local ties, as defined in rule 5(1)(a) or (d) above, of an exceptionally compelling nature, the Boundary Commission may decide that the electorate of the constituency shall be-
- (c) no less than 92.5% of the United Kingdom electoral quota; and
- (d) no more than 107.5% of that quota."
This would have had the effect of allowing geographical considerations or local ties to justify greater variation from the mean number of electors in a parliamentary constituency.
==
Party Summary
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 (Not-Content) | Minority (Content) | Turnout |
| Con | 152 (+1 tell) | 0 | 68.9% |
| Crossbench | 16 | 48 (+2 tell) | 34.9% |
| DUP | 0 | 2 | 50.0% |
| Independent Labour | 0 | 1 | 100.0% |
| Lab | 0 | 179 | 72.5% |
| LDem | 67 (+1 tell) | 1 | 70.4% |
| PC | 0 | 1 | 100.0% |
| UUP | 1 | 1 | 50.0% |
| Total: | 236 | 233 | 61.7% |
Rebel Voters - sorted by party
Lords for which their vote in this division differed from the majority vote of their party. You can see all votes in this division, or every eligible lord who could have voted in this division
| Name | Party | Vote |
| Lord Alton of Liverpool | Crossbench | no |
| Lord Bew | Crossbench | no |
| Lord Bichard | Crossbench (front bench) | no |
| Lord Condon | Crossbench | no |
| Baroness Deech | Crossbench (front bench) | no |
| The Earl of Erroll | Crossbench (front bench) | no |
| Lord Fellowes | Crossbench (front bench) | no |
| Baroness Greengross | Crossbench | no |
| Lord Jay of Ewelme | Crossbench | no |
| Lord Lloyd of Berwick | Crossbench (front bench) | no |
| Baroness Manningham-Buller | Crossbench (front bench) | no |
| Lord Neill of Bladen | Crossbench | no |
| Lord Powell of Bayswater | Crossbench (front bench) | no |
| Lord Scott of Foscote | Crossbench (front bench) | no |
| Lord Tombs | Crossbench (front bench) | no |
| Lord Wright of Richmond | Crossbench | no |
| Viscount Falkland | LDem | aye |