Sexual Offences Bill [Lords] — New Clause 4 — Anonymity Of Suspects And Defendants In Certain Cases (No.2) — 3 Nov 2003 at 18:00
Dominic Grieve MP, Beaconsfield voted in the minority (Aye).
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This issue took up a considerable amount of time in Committee, and we need to consider it further before the Bill returns to another place. As the House will be aware, the Bill came from the Lords with an amendment, made against the Government's wishes, that would have ensured anonymity for those alleged to have committed rape and other offences right up to conviction and throughout the trial process. That was debated in Committee, where the Government argued forcefully that such a blanket prohibition on reporting might interfere with the interests of justice after charge and during the trial process, and that victims might not come forward if, while the police were attempting to identify other potential victims, they did not know that somebody had been charged with an offence. I fully accept the Government's second argument that anonymity went against the general principle that the trial process should take place in public, with the public being made aware of the identity of the person on trial.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:-
The House divided: Ayes 158, Noes 276.
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 (No)||Minority (Aye)||Both||Turnout|
|Con||0||118 (+2 tell)||0||73.6%|
|Lab||276 (+2 tell)||0||0||68.1%|