Prevention of Terrorism Bill — Insisted Amendments — Application to a Court — 10 Mar 2005 at 18:45
Dominic Grieve MP, Beaconsfield voted in the minority (No).
The Aye-voters "insisted" on a series of the changes to the Prevention of Terrorism Bill, that they had previously voted on the day before, but which had been rejected by the House of Lords during their debate.
I think the Lords' changes were to require the Secretary of State to apply to a court for a control order in all cases, rather than issue them all himself on his own say-so, and the further House of Commons amendments (that were "insisted on" here) were a compromise that said that some of them required a court, and some could be made himself.
Matters get very confused because the versions of the Bill during the night don't appear to have been published on the web, and all links to them have anyway been broken since it has now become an Act.
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||0||139 (+1 tell)||0||87.0%|
|Lab||320 (+2 tell)||29||0||86.0%|
|LDem||0||51 (+1 tell)||0||94.5%|