Terrorist Asset-Freezing (Temporary Provisions) Bill (Allocation of Time) — Clause 1 — Temporary validity of certain Orders in Council — 8 Feb 2010 at 21:00

Jon Cruddas MP, Dagenham voted with the majority (No).

The majority of MPs voted not to introduce an appeal process for the Government's asset-freezing regime.

During the debate which preceded the vote Cambridge MP David Howarth spoke strongly against the provisions currently in place saying[1]:

  • Under the order as it stands, the Treasury, acting on the basis solely of reasonable suspicion, and without any prior supervision by the courts, can subject a person to the full asset-freezing regime. There is absolutely no appeal. There is judicial review, and we have debated its adequacy, but the conclusion that I and many other right hon. and hon. Members have come to in the debate is that judicial review is not adequate. There is not only no provision for an appeal, but no limit to the number of times that a direction, which lasts a year, may be renewed. Effectively, that is an indeterminate-life-sentence.

Mr Howarth explained the purpose of the amendment which was the subject of this vote[1]:

  • Its effect is to alter the process by which a person becomes subject to the asset-freezing regime, to change the length of time that a person can be subject to the regime on the basis of reasonable suspicion alone, and to introduce appeal mechanisms both for the bringing into force of the asset-freezing regime and for the licensing regime-a point that has been mentioned in the debate.

The amendment was defeated, Mr Howarth and his Liberal Democrat colleagues found themselves in the minority when they voted.

Debate in Parliament | Source |

Party Summary

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.

PartyMajority (No)Minority (Aye)BothTurnout
Con1 101.0%
DUP0 1012.5%
Ind0 3050.0%
Lab253 (+2 tell) 3073.9%
LDem0 40 (+2 tell)066.7%
PC0 2066.7%
SDLP0 1033.3%
SNP0 2028.6%
Total:254 53049.2%

Rebel Voters - sorted by party

MPs for which their vote in this division differed from the majority vote of their party. You can see all votes in this division, or every eligible MP who could have voted in this division

Sort by: Name | Constituency | Party | Vote

NameConstituencyPartyVote
Jeremy CorbynIslington NorthLabaye
Lynne JonesBirmingham, Selly OakLabaye
John McDonnellHayes and HarlingtonLabaye

About the Project

The Public Whip is a not-for-profit, open source website created in 2003 by Francis Irving and Julian Todd and now run by Bairwell Ltd.

There are lots of plans afoot, including extensive redevelopment of the site and plans for new functionality. To keep up with what's happening, please check out the blog. We're working on updating all the contact details throughout the site, but if you'd like to talk to us about the project, please email [email protected]

The Whip on the Web

Advertisement - Helping keeping PublicWhip alive