Lords division · 12 Jun 2003 · No. 4

Water Bill [HL]

It was moved by the Baroness O’Cathain, in Clause 25, in page 31, line 24, at end to insert: “(4C) Whenever the Secretary of State determines that compensation should not be paid under this section in respect of the variation of a licence on the grounds set out in subsection (4A) above, the holder of the licence may dispute the determination by referring the dispute to the arbitration of a single arbitrator. (4D) When a dispute is referred to arbitration under subsection (4C) above— (a) the arbitrator shall take into account any representations that the Secretary of State, the Environment Agency or the Authority may wish to submit to him; and (b) in making his award the arbitrator may confirm, revoke or vary the whole of the Secretary of State’s determination, or any part of the determination whether the reference relates to that part of the determination or not.”; which being objected to, the question was put thereupon, and the House divided:

At a glance The Not Contents won by a margin of 44 votes. The Government's position was Not Content, and it won.

How the parties voted

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: Lord Cope of Berkeley (Content), Baroness O'Cathain (Content), Lord Grocott (Not Content), The Lord McIntosh of Haringey (Not Content).

Every vote

No members match your search.

Source: the official Lords division record.