European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — Report (6th Day) — 8 May 2018 at 20:45

Moved by Lord Callanan

69A: Schedule 7, page 41, line 41, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b)

69B: Schedule 7, page 42, line 6, leave out “imposes, or otherwise”

Moved by Baroness Goldie

69C: Schedule 7, page 42, line 35, at end insert-“(9A) See paragraph 3A for restrictions on the choice of procedure under sub-paragraph (9).”

Moved by Baroness Goldie

69D: Schedule 7, page 43, line 1, leave out “paragraph 4” and insert “paragraphs 4 to 4C”

Moved by Lord Lisvane

70: Schedule 7, page 44, line 35, leave out from beginning to end of line 20 on page 45 and insert-“Parliamentary committees to sift regulations made under section 7, 8, 9 or 173_(1) This paragraph applies if a Minister of the Crown-(a) proposes to make a statutory instrument, whether under this Act or any other Act of Parliament, to which paragraph 1(3), 6(3), 7(3), or 11 applies or which has the same purpose as an instrument to which those paragraphs apply, and(b) is of the opinion that the instrument should be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament (“the negative procedure”).(2) Before making the instrument, the Minister must lay before both Houses of Parliament a draft of the instrument together with a memorandum setting out the reasons for the Minister’s opinion that the instrument should be subject to the negative procedure.(3) The negative procedure applies unless within the relevant period either House of Parliament requires the affirmative procedure to apply, in which case the affirmative procedure applies.(4) A House of Parliament is taken to have required the affirmative procedure to apply within the relevant period if-(a) a committee of the House charged with reporting on the instrument has recommended, within the period of 10 sitting days beginning with the first sitting day after the day on which the draft instrument was laid before the House, that the affirmative procedure should apply, and(b) that House has not by resolution rejected the recommendation within a period of 5 sitting days beginning with the first sitting day after the day on which the recommendation is made, or(c) irrespective of the committee reporting on the instrument, that House has resolved, within the period of 15 sitting days beginning with the first sitting day after the day on which the draft instrument was laid before the House, that the affirmative procedure should apply to the instrument. (5) For the purposes of this paragraph-(a) where an instrument is subject to the affirmative procedure, it may not be made unless the draft of the instrument laid under sub-paragraph (2) has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament,(b) “sitting day” means, in respect of either House, a day on which that House sits.(6) Nothing in this paragraph prevents a Minister of the Crown from deciding, at any time before a statutory instrument mentioned in subparagraph (1)(a) is made, that another procedure should apply in relation to the instrument.”

Ayes 225, Noes 194.

Debate in Parliament |

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

PartyMajority (Content)Minority (Not-Content)Turnout
Bishop1 03.6%
Con9 180 (+2 tell)69.7%
Crossbench28 (+1 tell) 417.5%
DUP0 375.0%
Independent Liberal Democrat1 0100.0%
Judge0 (+1 tell) 113.3%
Lab99 045.0%
LDem80 175.0%
Non-affiliated4 116.7%
PC1 050.0%
UUP0 2100.0%
Total:223 19248.0%

Rebel Voters - sorted by party

Lords 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 lord who could have voted in this division

Sort by: Name | Party | Vote

NamePartyVote
Baroness Altmann Conaye
Lord Cooper of WindrushConaye
Viscount Hailsham Conaye
Lord Heseltine Conaye
Lord Inglewood Con (front bench)aye
Lord Kirkhope of HarrogateCon (front bench)aye
Lord Northbrook Conaye
The Duke of WellingtonConaye
Baroness Wheatcroft Conaye
Lord Armstrong of IlminsterCrossbench (front bench)no
Baroness Deech Crossbenchno
Lord Eames Crossbench (front bench)no
Lord Hogan-Howe Crossbenchno
Baroness Nicholson of WinterbourneLDemno
Lord Taylor of WarwickNon-affiliatedno

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.

TWe're working on updating the site, but if you'd like to talk to us about the project, please email [email protected]

The Whip on the Web

Help keep PublicWhip alive