Lords division · 4 Jul 2000 · No. 2

Government Resources and Accounts Bill

It was moved by the Lord McIntosh of Haringey, in Clause 9, page 6, line 11, at end to insert: (“( ) For the purpose of subsection (4)(a) and (b) the Treasury shall in particular— 4 (a) have regard to any relevant guidance issued by the Accounting Standards Board Limited or any other body prescribed for the purposes of section 256 of the Companies Act 1985 (accounting standards), and 7 (b) ensure that the accounts include, subject to paragraph (a), a statement of financial performance, a statement of financial position and a cash flow statement.”); then it was moved by the Lord Higgins as an amendment to the above amendment, in line 4, to leave out (“have regard to”) and insert (“accept”); which being objected to, the question was put thereupon, and the House divided:

The Not Contents have it

Majority 71

Contents: 94 Not Contents: 165

At a glance The Not Contents won by a margin of 71 votes. The Government's position was Not Content, and it won.

How the parties voted

Contents

Conservative 83
Crossbench 10
Non-affiliated 1

Not Contents

Labour 122
Liberal Democrat 22
Non-affiliated 11
Crossbench 7
Independent Socialist 1
Green Party 1
Independent Labour 1

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 Burnham (Content), Lord Henley (Content), Lord Carter (Not Content), The Lord McIntosh of Haringey (Not Content).

Every vote

Contents (92)

Not Contents (163)

Tellers (4)

Source: the official Lords division record.