Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill — Clause 14 — Negative Resolution Procedure — 16 May 2006 at 20:45
George Osborne MP, Tatton did not vote.
Those voting No rejected an an amendment to the just amended Clause 14 of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill (seen as Clause 17 of the new Bill) that would have loosened the limitations on the possibility of a Parliamentary veto on an order passed under this Bill. The clause says:
The Minister may make an order [following a]... draft order... [if] Parliament [vetoes it] within the 40-day period, or a committee of either House charged with reporting on the draft order may, at any time after... 30 days [but]... before 40 days... recommends... that... [it be vetoed]... only if it considers that... the draft order does not serve the purpose specified, [or]... [it does not satisfy the preconditions in] Section 3 (proportionality, balance, and consistency with policy objectives).
The amendment, which was voted down in this division, would deleted the italicised words and have given it the freedom to veto an order for any reason it chose.
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 (No)||Minority (Aye)||Both||Turnout|
|Con||0||133 (+2 tell)||0||68.9%|
|Lab||258 (+2 tell)||6||0||75.4%|
|Jeremy Corbyn||Islington North||Lab||aye|
|Mark Fisher||Stoke-on-Trent Central||Lab||aye|
|Lynne Jones||Birmingham, Selly Oak||Lab (minister)||aye|
|John Martin McDonnell||Hayes and Harlington||Lab||aye|
|Alan Simpson||Nottingham South||Lab||aye|
|Robert Wareing||Liverpool, West Derby||whilst Lab||aye|