International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Bill — New Clause 1 — The Independent Commission for Aid Impact To Evaluate Overseas Development Aid Spending — 5 Dec 2014 at 11:45
The majority of MPs voted against the Independent Commission for Aid Impact being given the role of evaluating the impact of overseas development aid spending and instead requiring the Secretary of State to make arrangements for the evaluation.
MPs were considering the International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Bill[1]. The Bill provides for a target of at least 0.7% of national income being spent on international aid and includes arrangements for evaluation of that aid spending.
The motion rejected in this vote was:
- That the clause be read a Second time
The rejected clause in question stated:
- (1) The Independent Commission for Aid Impact (ICAI) shall have responsibility to carry out independent evaluation of the relevance, impact, value-for-money, efficiency and effectiveness of the [Official Development Assistance] ODA in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
- (2) The Schedule [The Independent Commission for Aid Impact] makes further provisions about the ICAI.
Clause 5 of the Bill as introduced[2] provided for the establishment of an independent body known as the Independent International Development Office to monitor spending of ODA funds. Following consideration in committee the clause[3] had been amended to state:
- The Secretary of State must make arrangements for the independent evaluation of the extent to which ODA provided by the United Kingdom represents value for money in relation to the purposes for which it is provided.
- The Secretary of State must include in each annual report a statement as to how he or she has complied with the duty under subsection
The proposed new clause sought to give The Independent Commission for Aid Impact which was, at the time of the vote, an existing independent public body reporting to Parliament, the role of monitoring and evaluating ODA spending.
==
- [1] Parliament's webpage on the MPs were considering the International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Bill
- [2] Clause 5 of the International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Bill as introduced
- [3] Clause 5 of the International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Bill following consideration and amendment in committee
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.
| Party | Majority (No) | Minority (Aye) | Both | Turnout |
| Alliance | 1 | 0 | 0 | 100.0% |
| Con | 38 (+1 tell) | 5 (+2 tell) | 0 | 15.2% |
| Green | 1 | 0 | 0 | 100.0% |
| Independent | 1 | 0 | 0 | 50.0% |
| Lab | 80 | 0 | 0 | 31.0% |
| LDem | 24 (+1 tell) | 0 | 0 | 44.6% |
| SNP | 3 | 0 | 0 | 50.0% |
| UKIP | 0 | 1 | 0 | 50.0% |
| Total: | 148 | 6 | 0 | 25.1% |
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
| Name | Constituency | Party | Vote |
| Christopher Chope | Christchurch | Con (front bench) | tellaye |
| Philip Davies | Shipley | Con (front bench) | tellaye |
| Philip Hollobone | Kettering | Con (front bench) | aye |
| David Nuttall | Bury North | Con (front bench) | aye |
| Jacob Rees-Mogg | North East Somerset | Con (front bench) | aye |
| Malcolm Rifkind | Kensington | Con (front bench) | aye |
| Andrew Tyrie | Chichester | Con (front bench) | aye |