[S1M-3338.1 (Amendment)] Decision Time — 4 Sep 2002 at 17:05

This looks like the vote on S1M-3338.1

The description in the bulletin on 2002-09-04 is:

*S1M-3338.1 Bruce Crawford: Scottish Water Supplies and Public Health-As an amendment to motion (S1M-3338) in the name of Ross Finnie, leave out from "recognises" to end and insert "believes that it is a fundamental right of Scotland's citizens to have access to a clean and safe water supply to ensure that public health is not compromised; requests the Transport and the Environment Committee to initiate an inquiry into the extent of contamination of water supplies from cryptosporidium, trihalomethanes and lead, or other sources of contamination, and into whether the investment programme currently planned by Scottish water is adequate to ensure these clean and safe supplies and to restore public confidence in the water that people drink and use; further requests the Transport and the Environment Committee to consider whether the current regulatory regime with separate offices for the Water Commissioner and the Water Regulator acts in the best interests of the consumer; believes that legislation concerning the supply of water contaminated by cryptosporidium should be introduced bringing the level of protection afforded to consumers in Scotland to at least the level in England, and has serious reservations about the inept handling of the recent cryptosporidium outbreak in Glasgow by the Minister for Environment and Rural Development and Scottish Water, in particular the failure to fully implement the findings of the report produced by the Outbreak Control Team in November 2001 and to adequately and accurately inform the public about the safety of their water supply."

You can search for this motion (S1M-3338.1) on TheyWorkForYou

Text Introducing Division:

The first question is, that amendment S1M-3338.1, in the name of Bruce Crawford, which seeks to amend motion S1M-3338, in the name of Ross Finnie, on Scottish water supplies and public health, be agreed to. Are we agreed?

No.

There will be a division.

Debate in Parliament | Historical Hansard | Source |

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 Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.

PartyMajority (No)Minority (Aye)AbstentionsTurnout
Con17 0089.5%
Independent0 2066.7%
Lab47 0085.5%
LDem14 0087.5%
SNP0 32097.0%
SSP0 10100.0%
Total:78 35089.0%

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.

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