Water Bill — 8 Sep 2003 at 21:50
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Government are committed to sustainable development. In "Directing the Flow", published nearly a year ago, we set out our strategic vision for the future direction of water policy and firmly established the place of water among our broader sustainability objectives. The high level of importance that the Government attach to water sustainability is shown throughout the Bill.
I beg to move, To leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
"this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Water Bill <[i>Lords] because it fails to provide the strategic framework to meet the challenges posed by the European Water Framework Directive and to ensure the long-term provision of safe, clean water across England and Wales; does not make adequate provision for water resources in areas such as the south east of England where new housing is planned; undermines current customer structures; and fails to make proper provision for water conservation and flood prevention."
Question put, That the amendment be made:-
The House divided: Ayes 136, Noes 356.
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.
|Party||Majority (No)||Minority (Aye)||Both||Turnout|
|Con||0||126 (+2 tell)||0||78.5%|
|Independent Ulster Unionist||0||1||0||33.3%|
|Lab||318 (+2 tell)||0||0||78.2%|