Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill — Clause 14 — Annual Report — Details of Actual or Potential Compromised Food Safety, Hygine or Authenticity — 26 Feb 2013 at 15:58
George Osborne MP, Tatton did not vote.
The majority of MPs voted against requiring the Groceries Code Adjudicator to report on cases which have come to their attention of actual, or potential, compromised food safety, hygiene or authenticity in their annual report.
- Amendment 34, page 5, line 31, at end insert—
- ‘(4A) The report must include details of any incidents that have come to the Adjudicator’s attention during the reporting period in which breaches of the Groceries Code or commercial pressure on retailers have led or may have led to actual or potential cases of compromised—
- (a) food safety;
- (b) food hygiene; and
- (c) food authenticity.’.
Had the amendment not been rejected the above text would have been added to Clause 14 of the Bill titled Annual report which set out what the Adjudicator's annual report must contain.
-  Parliament's webpage on the Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill (now an act)
-  Explanatory notes to the Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill
-  Clause 14 of the Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill as at the time of the vote
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||215 (+2 tell)||0||0||71.1%|
|Lab||0||183 (+2 tell)||0||71.7%|