Terrorism Bill — 16 Mar 2006 at 15:00
Andrew Smith MP, Oxford East voted with the majority (No).
Those voting Aye failed to block the Government's proposal to remove the Lords amendments to the Terrorism Bill. They attempted to do this by proposing a counter-amendment which, had it been passed, would have cancelled the effect of the Government amendment.
The rejected amendment would have restated Section 1(4):
for the purposes of this section, "indirect encouragement" comprises the making of a statement referring to terrorism in such a way that the listener, reader or viewer would infer that he should emulate it.'
and inserted an extra clarification after Section 2(8) (page numbering very unclear) which would have said:
The reference in subsection (8) to something that is capable of being understood as an indirect encouragement... of acts of terrorism... comprises the making of a statement referring to terrorism in such a way that the listener, reader or viewer would infer that he should emulate it.'
In other words, to be busted for this terrorism offence you would have actually had to be encouraging people to do it, not simply make joke about it.
The Lords amendments were rolled back by the vote in Division 196.
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||159 (+1 tell)||0||81.6%|
|Lab||298 (+2 tell)||1||0||85.3%|
|LDem||0||60 (+1 tell)||0||96.8%|
|Clare Short||Birmingham, Ladywood||whilst Lab||aye|