Greater London Authority (Referendum) Bill — Referendum — 11 Feb 1998

Lords amendments considered.

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 1, line 8, after ("prescribe,") insert

("but not less than eight weeks after publication of a Bill providing for the establishment of a Greater London Authority and the election of a mayor for Greater London,")

I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

I am disappointed that the Bill has had to return to the House. Let me make one point crystal clear: the amendments carried in another place are wrecking amendments. The Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats have revealed their true colours. They are embarrassed to admit their open opposition to the Government's plans for a new Greater London authority comprising a directly elected mayor and a separately elected assembly, because they know that this measure is hugely popular with the people of London.

Instead, they have done their utmost to wreck the Bill and delay the referendum. Most disreputably, they have depended on the votes of hereditary peers--who have never had to face an election--to carry amendments that threaten to delay or disrupt the Government's plans to restore democratic citywide government to the people of London.

Mr. Peter Brooke (Cities of London and Westminster):

Does the Minister acknowledge that any hereditary peer can stand, and be elected, in a local government election?

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),

That, at this day's sitting, Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Greater London Authority (Referendum) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.-- [Mr. Graham Allen.]

Question agreed to.

Question again proposed, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Under that, it says:


Question put , That the Question be now put:--

The House divided: Ayes 347, Noes 105.

Historical Hansard | Online Hansard |

Public Whip is run as a free not-for-profit free service. If you'd like to support us, please consider switching your electricity and/or gas to Bulb Energy who provide 100% renewable electricity and tend to be 20% cheaper than the 'Big Six'. They'll also pay any exit fees (up to £120) from your old supplier AND give you (and us) a £50 credit for joining up via our Bulb Referral Link.

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
Con0 104 (+2 tell)065.4%
Independent1 00100.0%
Lab307 (+2 tell) 0074.1%
LDem39 0084.8%
UUP0 1010.0%
Total:347 105071.7%

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

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.

PublicWhip v2 codebase is currently under development - you can join the Slack group to find out more or email [email protected]

The Whip on the Web

Help keep PublicWhip alive