Prevention of Terrorism Bill — Amendments — Burden of Proof — 10 Mar 2005 at 33:13
disagreed with Lords Amendment 33D and insists on its Amendments 33C and 33G in lieu, does not insist on its Amendment 33F and proposes Amendments (a) and (b) in lieu.
I can't face it. Is this to do with the burden of proof argument that is reported to be the main sticking point as well as the sunset clause?
For information, the original burden of proof required by the original Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, the section of which passed with a vote on 21 November 2001 had as its burden of proof:
The Secretary of State may issue a certificate [authorizing detention of foreign nationals in a maximum security prison without charge or trial] if the Secretary of State reasonably (a) believes that the person's presence in the United Kingdom is a risk to national security, and (b) suspects that the person is a terrorist.
It took a legal judgement on one of the cases by the Law Lords to make this an issue worth fighting overnight for.
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||145 (+1 tell)||0||90.7%|
|Lab||307 (+2 tell)||19||0||80.4%|
|LDem||0||51 (+1 tell)||0||94.5%|