Defence Reform Bill — Clause 49 — Report 12 Weeks In Advance of Consideration of Laws Enabling A Company To Provide Defence Procurement Services — 29 Apr 2014 at 17:30

Oliver Letwin MP, West Dorset voted against requiring a report on the options for carrying out defence procurement to be published twelve weeks prior to the submission to parliament of any proposals for a company to provide defence procurement services to the Ministry of Defence, instead just requiring the report at the same time as the submission.

The majority of MPs voted against requiring a report on the options for carrying out defence procurement to be published twelve weeks prior to the submission to parliament of any proposals for a company to provide defence procurement services to the Ministry of Defence, instead just requiring the report at the same time as the submission.

MPs were considering the Defence Reform Bill[1]

The motion rejected in this vote was:

  • Amendment (a) proposed to Lords amendment 7.

The Amendment (a) concerned stated[2]:

  • Line 6, after ‘(2B)’, insert ‘At least 12 weeks’.

The amendment 7 which was being amended[3] stated:

  • Page 31, line 35, at end insert—
  • “(2A) No statutory instrument containing an order under subsection (1) in respect of Part 1 (with or without provision under subsection (4)) is to be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
  • (2B) Before a draft is laid before Parliament in accordance with subsection (2A),the Secretary of State must—
  • (a) prepare and lay before Parliament a report on the options for carrying out defence procurement, and
  • (b) publish the report.
  • (2C) A report on the options for carrying out defence procurement is a report about—
  • (a) the arrangements of a kind mentioned in section 1 that the Secretary of State proposes to make following the coming into force of that section, and
  • (b) any other options for carrying out defence procurement that the Secretary of State has considered as an alternative to those proposed arrangements.
  • (2D) The report must include—
  • (a) an assessment of the impact of the proposed arrangements and the other options, and
  • (b) any other information the Secretary of State considers appropriate for the purpose of enabling a proper comparison to be made between the proposed arrangements and the other options.
  • (2E) The report must deal with at least one other option under subsection(2C)(b), namely the carrying out of defence procurement by the Secretaryof State in the way it is carried out at the time of the report.(2F) In subsections (2B) to (2E) “defence procurement” has the meaning given by section 1(8).”

The amendment would have required a report on the options for carrying out defence procurement to be published twelve weeks before putting proposals for enabling a company to provide defence procurement services to Parliament for consideration, whereas previously the report was only required "before" the submission of proposals to parliament. Currently part of the MoD, the Defence Equipment and Support (DE&S) organisation provides the procurement services which the Bill enables, subject to secondary legislation, to be provided via a company.

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
Con241 (+2 tell) 0079.9%
DUP0 3037.5%
Green0 10100.0%
Lab0 208 (+2 tell)081.4%
LDem44 0078.6%
PC0 30100.0%
SDLP0 1033.3%
SNP0 4066.7%
Total:285 220079.7%

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