Government's 10-year Transport Plan — 1 Feb 2006 at 18:49

Nick Herbert MP, Arundel and South Downs voted in the minority (Aye).

I beg to move,

That this House notes that 2006 marks the beginning of the second half of the decade covered by the Government's Ten Year Plan for Transport; further notes that a substantial proportion of the commitments and specific projects outlined in the document Transport 2010: The Ten Year Plan have subsequently been abandoned; further notes that overcrowding on roads and railways is getting worse; and expresses its concern that, at a time when record amounts of money are being spent on transport, so many of the schemes which could ease overcrowding have been dropped or delayed indefinitely by the Government.

I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and add instead thereof:

"acknowledges the importance of providing a clear strategy of sustained long-term investment and forward planning to address decades of under-investment in the transport system; welcomes the further investment and new strategic framework provided by the subsequent Future of Transport White Paper; recognises the achievements since the 10 Year Plan was published, including the highest number of people using the railways since the 1960s and the delivery of major strategic road schemes, with further schemes either under way or due to start before April 2008; acknowledges that one of the main reasons for the continuing pressure on transport networks is that the United Kingdom is enjoying the longest period of sustained economic growth for more than 200 years; and supports the Government's determination to take the decisions which will be required to meet these pressures and put UK transport on a sustainable footing, including tackling the environmental impacts of transport, trialling road-pricing and building on the improvements in rail performance, as well as planning for long-term transport needs."

Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:-

The House divided: Ayes 226, Noes 318.

Debate in Parliament | Source |

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 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.

PartyMajority (No)Minority (Aye)BothTurnout
Con0 168 (+2 tell)086.7%
DUP0 5055.6%
Ind0 1050.0%
Lab317 (+2 tell) 0090.4%
LDem0 49079.0%
PC0 30100.0%
SDLP1 0033.3%
Total:318 226087.3%

Rebel Voters - sorted by party

MPs 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 MP who could have voted in this division

Sort by: Name | Constituency | Party | Vote

NameConstituencyPartyVote
no rebellions

About the Project

The Public Whip is a not-for-profit, open source website created in 2003 by Francis Irving and Julian Todd and now run by Bairwell Ltd.

There are lots of plans afoot, including extensive redevelopment of the site and plans for new functionality. To keep up with what's happening, please check out the blog. We're working on updating all the contact details throughout the site, but if you'd like to talk to us about the project, please email [email protected]

The Whip on the Web

Advertisement - Helping keeping PublicWhip alive