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[1]. 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.


Debate in Parliament | 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 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 (No)Minority (Aye)BothTurnout
Con96 (+2 tell) 8 (+2 tell)035.4%
DUP1 0012.5%
Lab23 008.9%
LDem19 0033.9%
Total:139 8024.1%

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

Peter BoneWellingboroughCon (front bench)aye
Christopher ChopeChristchurchCon (front bench)tellaye
Philip DaviesShipleyCon (front bench)aye
Richard DraxSouth DorsetCon (front bench)aye
Philip HolloboneKetteringCon (front bench)aye
Julian LewisNew Forest EastCon (front bench)aye
Nigel MillsAmber ValleyCon (front bench)tellaye
David NuttallBury NorthCon (front bench)aye
Jacob Rees-MoggNorth East SomersetCon (front bench)aye
Andrew TurnerIsle of WightCon (front bench)aye

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