Agriculture Bill — New Clause 7 — Coronavirus Emergency Food Plan — 13 May 2020 at 17:15

The majority of MPs voted not to require a the production of a "coronavirus emergency food plan" addressing and assessing matters including hunger, malnutrition and food poverty as well as cost, availability, safety and supply chain resilience.

MPs were considering the Agriculture Bill[1].

The proposed new clause rejected in this vote was titled: Coronavirus emergency food plan and began:

  • (1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of Royal Assent being given to this Act, prepare and lay before Parliament a document (a “coronavirus emergency food plan”) setting out measures to address the impact of coronavirus and coronavirus disease, and action taken in response, upon the supply of food.
  • (2) The coronavirus emergency food plan must assess and address—
  • (a) the matters listed in section 17(2);
  • (b) the following matters—
  • (i) the incidence of hunger, malnutrition and food poverty measured (a) nationally and (b) by local authority area;
  • (ii) the level of demand for emergency food aid and the adequacy of services to meet that demand;
  • (iii) the availability, distribution and affordability of nutritious and healthy food;
  • (iv) the ease of access to nutritious and healthy food across different socio-economic groups and communities;
  • (v) the functioning of the food supply chain, including stock levels of individual food items and any cross-border issues impacting upon the import and export of food; and
  • (vi) the level of any financial assistance provided by a public authority to farmers, growers and the fishing and fish processing sectors as a result of coronavirus or coronavirus disease.
  • (3) The plan may take account of information provided in response to a requirement under section 25 of the Coronavirus Act 2020 (power to require information relating to food supply chains), subject to the restrictions on the use and disclosure of information set out in section 27 of that Act (restrictions on use and disclosure of information).

The rejected new clause went on to define some of the terms used within it.

The rejected new clause was accompanied by the following explanatory statement from its proposer:

Debate in Parliament |

Public Whip is run as a free not-for-profit service. If you'd like to support us, please consider switching your (UK) electricity and/or gas to Octopus Energy or tip us via Ko-Fi.

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
Alliance0 10100.0%
Con352 0096.4%
DUP0 80100.0%
Green0 10100.0%
Lab0 195096.5%
LDem0 110100.0%
PC0 40100.0%
SDLP0 20100.0%
Total:352 222096.6%

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

no rebellions

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.

The Whip on the Web

Help keep PublicWhip alive