Sign in
☰
People MPsHouse of LordsGovernmentOppositionPartiesCommittees Votes Commons votesLords votesVotes by issueTopicsStats & rankingsParliament in numbers Legislation BillsEarly day motionsPetitions Elections Election resultsConstituenciesWho is my MP? Scotland OverviewMSPsScottish GovernmentVotesBillsMotionsCommitteesConstituencies & regionsElections Search Sign in

Lords division · 8 May 2003 · No. 2

Courts Bill [HL]

It was moved by the Lord Phillips of Sudbury, as an amendment to the new Schedule (Constitution and procedure of courts boards), in line 8, to leave out “one member who is a lay justice who is” and insert “two members who are lay justices who are”; which being objected to, the question was put thereupon, and the House divided:

The Contents have it

Majority 10

Contents: 95 Not Contents: 85

At a glance The Contents won by a margin of 10 votes. The Government's position was Not Content, and it lost.

How the parties voted

Contents

Conservative 59
Liberal Democrat 19
Crossbench 12
Non-affiliated 3
Green Party 1
Bishops 1

Not Contents

Labour 77
Non-affiliated 5
Crossbench 3

The party breakdowns are our own analysis of the official voting records (recorded votes only; they do not describe the formal whip). How we work this out.

Peers attend divisions ad hoc, so there is no did-not-vote list. Tellers are counted in the Content and Not Content totals, unlike in the Commons.

Tellers: Baroness Seccombe (Content), Lord Phillips of Sudbury (Content), Lord Grocott (Not Content), The Lord McIntosh of Haringey (Not Content).

Every vote

Contents (93)

Not Contents (83)

Tellers (4)

Source: the official Lords division record.