Local Government Bill — Clause 11 — Use of Capital Receipts — 17 Sep 2003 at 23:45
Oliver Letwin MP, West Dorset voted in the minority (No).
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
I regret that the Lords have seen fit to pass a further amendment to the clause, one of the key financial clauses in the Bill. I particularly regret that, because this House rightly and properly asserted its privilege in financial matters when it disagreed with the Lords amendment on Monday night. The new amendment would have the same effect. It would prevent the pooling of capital receipts and so would alter the financial arrangements made by this House.
Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment:-
The House divided: Ayes 221, Noes 112.
Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.
What are Boths? An MP can vote both aye and no in the same division. The boths page explains this.
What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.
|Party||Majority (Aye)||Minority (No)||Both||Turnout|
|Con||0||98 (+2 tell)||0||61.3%|
|Lab||218 (+2 tell)||0||0||53.8%|