Licensing Act 2003 — 25 Jan 2005 at 15:46

Ms Hazel Blears MP, Salford voted with the majority (No).

Those voting No rejected the words of the motion for debate, which read:

"That this House calls for a delay in the implementation of the Licensing Act 2003 in the light of concerns expressed by doctors, senior police officers and members of the judiciary that the Act will lead to increased health and policing problems; is concerned about the increase in violent crimes since 1998, half of which are attributed to alcohol misuse; recognises that drunken revellers are turning town and city centres into no-go areas, thus putting an increasing burden on health and police resources, and predicts that the implementation of the Act will exacerbate these problems; is further concerned about increased alcohol consumption and believes that extended opening hours will have an adverse serious effect on health of the nation; and regrets that the Government has fundamentally failed to deal with the problem of binge drinking before proceeding with the implementation of the Licensing Act 2003."

A new motion was then put in place, which read:

"This House considers that failure to implement the Licensing Act 2003 without delay would deny the local community increased powers of intervention and improved democratic accountability with regard to licensing, deny the police the expanded powers that are vital to their efforts to tackle alcohol-related crime and would prevent licensing authorities from receiving income from licensing fees needed to recover on-going expenditure in preparing for the new regime; believes that any delay in the implementation of the Act would undermine the prevention of crime and disorder and public nuisance, damage public safety and hinder the protection of children from harm; further believes that the Act will complement the delivery of the Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy for England which aims to reduce excessive drinking and the harms that causes; and, furthermore, commends the proposals for Alcohol Disorder Zones and the extension of fixed penalty notices and other measures set out in 'Drinking Responsibly', the consultation paper published jointly by the Home Office, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on 21st January 2005."

Debate in Parliament | Historical Hansard | Source |

Party Summary

Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.

What is Tell? '+1 tell' means that in addition one member of that party was a teller for that division lobby.

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.

PartyMajority (No)Minority (Aye)BothTurnout
Con0 128 (+2 tell)080.2%
DUP0 4057.1%
Ind0 1050.0%
Lab270 (+2 tell) 0066.7%
LDem0 35063.6%
PC0 3075.0%
UUP0 3060.0%
Total:270 174069.7%

Rebel Voters - sorted by party

MPs for which their vote in this division differed from the majority vote of their party. You can see all votes in this division, or every eligible MP who could have voted in this division

Sort by: Name | Constituency | Party | Vote

NameConstituencyPartyVote
no rebellions

About the Project

The Public Whip is a not-for-profit, open source website created in 2003 by Francis Irving and Julian Todd and now run by Bairwell Ltd.

There are lots of plans afoot, including extensive redevelopment of the site and plans for new functionality. To keep up with what's happening, please check out the blog. We're working on updating all the contact details throughout the site, but if you'd like to talk to us about the project, please email [email protected]

The Whip on the Web

Advertisement - Helping keeping PublicWhip alive