London Local Authorities and Transport for London (No. 2) Bill — Clause 9 — Penalty Charges — Skips on London Highways — 11 Sep 2013 at 19:26
The majority of MPs voted to enable penalty charges to be imposed where an owner of a skip placed on a London highway "does not secure that" various requirements for permissions, marking and lighting are adhered to rather than "does not take any reasonable steps to secure that" the requirements are complied with.
MPs were considering the London Local Authorities and Transport for London (No. 2) Bill. The amendment rejected in this vote was:
- Amendment 14, Clause 9, page 8, line 18 after ‘not’, insert ‘take any reasonable steps to’.
The element of the clause which the rejected amendment sought to change stated:
- (3) A penalty charge is payable to a relevant highway authority for the purposes of the said section 61 if—
- (a) a builder's skip is deposited on a highway without a permission granted under section 139 of the 1980 Act (control of builders' skips);
- (b) a builder's skip has been deposited on a highway in accordance with a permission granted under the said section 139 but the owner of the skip does not secure that—
- (i) the skip is properly lighted during the hours of darkness;
- (ii) the skip is marked or lighted in accordance with regulations made under the said section 139 requiring builders' skips to be so marked or lighted;
- (iii) the skip is clearly and indelibly marked with the owner's name and with his telephone number or address;
- (iv) the skip is removed as soon as practicable after it has been filled;
- (v) each of the conditions subject to which the permission was granted is complied with;
The rejected amendment would have changed:
- the owner of the skip does not secure that—
- the owner of the skip does not take any reasonable steps to secure that—
The clause relates to skips on the highway in London.
-  Parliament's webpage on the London Local Authorities and Transport for London (No. 2) Bill
-  Clause 9 of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London (No. 2) Bill as at the time of the vote
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||96 (+2 tell)||8 (+2 tell)||0||35.4%|
|Peter Bone||Wellingborough||Con (front bench)||aye|
|Christopher Chope||Christchurch||Con (front bench)||tellaye|
|Philip Davies||Shipley||Con (front bench)||aye|
|Richard Drax||South Dorset||Con (front bench)||aye|
|Philip Hollobone||Kettering||Con (front bench)||aye|
|Julian Lewis||New Forest East||Con (front bench)||aye|
|Nigel Mills||Amber Valley||Con (front bench)||tellaye|
|David Nuttall||Bury North||Con (front bench)||aye|
|Jacob Rees-Mogg||North East Somerset||Con (front bench)||aye|
|Andrew Turner||Isle of Wight||Con (front bench)||aye|