Prevention of Terrorism Bill — Rejection of Lords' Amendment to Clause 3 — Balance of Probability — 9 Mar 2005 at 19:06
Simon Burns MP, West Chelmsford voted in the minority (No).
The Aye-voters rejected the change that the House of Lords had made to clause 3 of the Prevention of Terrorism Bill.
The rejected replacement for Clause 3 is filed under Amendment No. 8 in the list of Lord's amendments and would have inserted a subsection at the beginning of the clause that read:
3(1) The court may make a control order against an individual if it (a) is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the individual is or has been involved in terrorism-related activity; (b) considers that it is necessary, for purposes connected with protecting members of the public from a risk of terrorism, to make a control order imposing obligations on that individual; and (c) has been informed by the Director of Public Prosecutions that there is no reasonable prospect of a successful prosecution of the individual for the terrorism-related activity.
In other words, this power could have only been used if the danger was likely, actual, and there is no alternative.
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 (Aye)||Minority (No)||Both||Turnout|
|Con||0||146 (+1 tell)||0||91.3%|
|Lab||333 (+2 tell)||37||0||91.2%|
|LDem||0||52 (+1 tell)||0||96.4%|