Hunting Bill — 16 Dec 2002 at 21:48
George Osborne MP, Tatton voted in the minority (No).
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The purpose of this Bill is to enable Parliament to reach a conclusion on the long-running and contentious issue of hunting with dogs. Some people have congratulated me on achieving the impossible: creating a sort of unity by getting both sides in the debate to express initial opposition to my Bill. I am told that I have demonstrated a special talent.
I beg to move,
That this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Hunting Bill because it seeks to impose unjustifiable restrictions on individual freedom, would increase the suffering of foxes and other animals that will be culled by less humane means, threatens the future of dogs and horses used in hunting and would rob British citizens of their livelihood; because it is intolerant of individuals who should be free to participate in hunting, which is not morally different from all other country sports and should not be singled out for discriminatory treatment; and because the Bill fails to uphold the duty of Parliament to defend the rights and legitimate interests of minorities.
Question put, That the Question be now put:-
The House divided: Ayes 371, Noes 155.
Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.
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.
|Party||Majority (Aye)||Minority (No)||Both||Turnout|
|Con||1||145 (+2 tell)||0||90.8%|
|Lab||322 (+2 tell)||0||0||79.0%|
|Ann Widdecombe||Maidstone and The Weald||Con||aye|
|Mr John Burnett||Torridge and West Devon||LDem||no|
|Norman Lamb||North Norfolk||LDem (front bench)||no|
|John Thurso||Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross||LDem (front bench)||no|
|Sylvia Hermon||North Down||UUP (front bench)||aye|