Prevention of Terrorism Bill — Insisted Amendment — Courts and Control Orders — 10 Mar 2005 at 40:30
Sir Patrick Cormack MP, South Staffordshire voted in the minority (No).
The Aye-voters reaffirmed their vote earlier in Division 135, which reaffirmed the vote in Division 131, which reaffirmed their vote the day before in Division 122, and took out the changes made to the Prevention of Terrorism Bill by the House of Lords to make is so that a court would issue all control orders, rather than the secretary of state.
In technical speak, this was done by:
I beg to move, That this House insists on its amendments 1A and 1B to Lords amendment 1, insists on its disagreement to Lords amendments 12, 13, 15, 17, 22, 28 and 37 and insists on its amendments 37A to 37C and 37E to 37O and 37X, insists on its disagreement to Lords amendments 37Q, 37S and 37T proposed in lieu of Lords amendment 8, insists on its amendments 17H to 17M to the words restored to the Bill by its insistence on its disagreement to Lords amendment 17 and disagrees with Lords amendment 37Y.
If there are compromises in there, I leave it to you to find them and make them legible.
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||144 (+1 tell)||0||90.1%|
|Lab||319 (+2 tell)||15||1||82.6%|
|LDem||0||52 (+1 tell)||0||96.4%|