Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill — New Clause "21" — Law Commission recommendations "without changes" — 15 May 2006 at 21:45
Iain Wright MP, Hartlepool voted with the majority (No).
Those voting No rejected a change to the new clause that was added into the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill by Division 233. This change would have removed the phrase "with or without changes" from the text, which read:
A Minister of the Crown may by order under this section make any provision which he considers [necessary to implement the] recommendations of any one or more of the United Kingdom Law Commissions, with or without changes.
An alternative amendment which would have substituted those words with:
either without changes or with such changes as are necessary to take into account any development in the law since the time the recommendations were made.
was not called to a vote. This would have been a more interesting amendment, since this made explicit the only reason that the minister provided during the proceedings of the Standing Committee for requiring his ability to change law commission recommendations before implementing them.
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.
|Party||Majority (No)||Minority (Aye)||Both||Turnout|
|Con||0||134 (+1 tell)||0||68.9%|
|Lab||262 (+2 tell)||3||0||75.6%|
|LDem||0||53 (+1 tell)||0||85.7%|
|Lynne Jones||Birmingham, Selly Oak||Lab||aye|
|John McDonnell||Hayes and Harlington||Lab||aye|
|Robert Wareing||Liverpool, West Derby||whilst Lab||aye|