Prevention of Terrorism Bill — New Clause 6 — Court of Terrorism Control — 28 Feb 2005 at 21:56
Ian Davidson MP, Glasgow Pollok did not vote.
The Aye-voters failed to add a new clause to the text of the Prevention of Terrorism Bill, which would have defined the "Court of Terrorism Control" that would overseen the process of the Secretary of State obtaining "Control Orders". This court would be obliged to operate within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 1998, and not admit any evidence that had been obtained under torture.
It's not clear to me, given the failure of the previous vote that would have required the Secretary of State to have applied to the court to make his "Control Orders", what this court would have done, but these matters may be lost in the capability of Parliamentary procedure to take full account of the complex connections between the components of the business at hand.
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.
|Party||Majority (No)||Minority (Aye)||Both||Turnout|
|Con||0||136 (+1 tell)||0||85.1%|
|Lab||284 (+2 tell)||5||0||71.3%|
|LDem||0||36 (+1 tell)||0||67.3%|
|Diane Abbott||Hackney North and Stoke Newington||Lab||aye|
|Lynne Jones||Birmingham, Selly Oak||Lab||aye|
|Brian Sedgemore||Hackney South and Shoreditch||Lab||aye|