International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Bill — New Clause 1 — The Independent Commission for Aid Impact To Evaluate Overseas Development Aid Spending — 5 Dec 2014 at 11:45

Patrick McLoughlin MP, Derbyshire Dales did not vote.

The majority of MPs voted to curtail debate and move straight to a vote on if the Independent Commission for Aid Impact should be given the role of evaluating the impact of overseas development aid spending.

MPs were considering the International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Bill[1]. The Bill provides for a target of at least 0.7% of national income being spent on international aid and includes arrangements for evaluation of that aid spending.

At the time of this vote a motion relating to a proposed new clause was being considered. The clause stated:

  • (1) The Independent Commission for Aid Impact (ICAI) shall have responsibility to carry out independent evaluation of the relevance, impact, value-for-money, efficiency and effectiveness of the [Official Development Assistance] ODA in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
  • (2) The Schedule [The Independent Commission for Aid Impact] makes further provisions about the ICAI.

Clause 5 of the Bill as introduced[2] provided for the establishment of an independent body known as the Independent International Development Office to monitor spending of ODA funds. Following consideration in committee the clause[3] had been amended to state:

  • The Secretary of State must make arrangements for the independent evaluation of the extent to which ODA provided by the United Kingdom represents value for money in relation to the purposes for which it is provided.
  • The Secretary of State must include in each annual report a statement as to how he or she has complied with the duty under subsection

The proposed new clause sought to give The Independent Commission for Aid Impact which was, at the time of the vote, an existing independent public body reporting to Parliament, the role of monitoring and evaluating ODA spending.

This vote was on the motion:

  • That the Question be now put.

In other words that the debate should curtailed and MPs should move straight to a vote on the proposed new clause.

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 (Aye)Minority (No)BothTurnout
Alliance1 00100.0%
Con40 5 (+2 tell)015.5%
Green1 00100.0%
Independent1 0050.0%
Lab76 (+1 tell) 0029.8%
LDem24 (+1 tell) 0044.6%
SNP3 0050.0%
UKIP0 1050.0%
Total:146 6024.8%

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
Christopher ChopeChristchurchCon (front bench)tellno
Philip DaviesShipleyCon (front bench)tellno
Philip HolloboneKetteringCon (front bench)no
David NuttallBury NorthCon (front bench)no
Jacob Rees-MoggNorth East SomersetCon (front bench)no
Malcolm RifkindKensingtonCon (front bench)no
Andrew TyrieChichesterCon (front bench)no

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