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 · 22 Jun 2000 · No. 3

Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill

It was moved by the Lord Graham of Edmonton, after Clause 37 to insert the new Clause (Increase of basic retirement pension); which being objected to, the question was put thereupon, and the House divided:

The Not Contents have it

Majority 78

Contents: 6 Not Contents: 84

At a glance The Not Contents won by a margin of 78 votes. The Government's position was Not Content, and it won.

How the parties voted

Contents

Labour 5
Conservative 1

Not Contents

Labour 70
Non-affiliated 8
Crossbench 6

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 Faulkner of Worcester (Content), Lord Graham of Edmonton (Content), Lord Carter (Not Content), The Lord McIntosh of Haringey (Not Content).

Every vote

Contents (4)

Not Contents (82)

Tellers (4)

Source: the official Lords division record.