Pensions Bill — Removal of compulsion to take annuities — 16 Nov 2004 at 17:00
David Ruffley MP, Bury St Edmunds voted in the minority (Teller for the Noes).
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
I obviously know all the amendments off by heart, but I had briefly forgotten the significance of Lords amendment No. 359, although it is of considerable interest to the House. Mr. Speaker has brought it to the attention of the House that the amendment involves the question of Commons privilege. It relates to financial matters where it is the role of the Lords to agree not to initiate or to amend.
Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment:-
The House divided: Ayes 292, Noes 203.
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||136 (+2 tell)||0||84.7%|
|Lab||291 (+2 tell)||4||0||73.0%|
|Bill Etherington||Sunderland North||Lab||no|
|Frank Field||Birkenhead||Lab (minister)||no|
|Mark Fisher||Stoke-on-Trent Central||Lab (minister)||no|
|Kate Hoey||Vauxhall||Lab (minister)||no|