The majority of MPs voted against allowing a terminally ill person to obtain assistance in dying from a doctor.

The motion rejected by the majority of MPs in this vote was:

• That leave be given to bring in a Bill to enable a person who is suffering distress as a result of his terminal illness or incurable physical condition to obtain assistance from a doctor to end his life; and for connected purposes.

The majority of MPs voted to reduce the age of consent for homosexual acts from eighteen to sixteen bringing equality to the the law affecting heterosexual and homosexual acts.

The majority of MPs voted to insert a new clause into the Crime and Disorder Bill^[1] which read:^[2]

• In Sexual Offences Act 1956,^[3] substitute "sixteen" for the word "eighteen".
• In Sexual Offences Act 1967,^[4] substitute "sixteen" for the word "eighteen".
• In Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995,^[5] substitute "sixteen" for the word "eighteen".
• In Homosexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 1982 (homosexual acts in private), substitute "18" with "17".

The last part was to equalize the age of consent between homosexual and heterosexual acts which at the time was set at 17 in Northern Ireland.

This clause did not survive into the Crime and Disorder Act 1998,^[6] and finally appeared in Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000.

• [1] Crime and Disorder Bill, House of Lords, 1 April 1998
• [2] Ann Keen MP, House of Commons, 22 June 1998
• [3] Sexual Offences Act 1956, Section 12, buggery
• [4] Sexual Offences Act 1967, Section 1, amendment of law relating to homosexual acts in private
• [5] Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995, Section 13, homosexual offences
• [6] Crime and Disorder Act 1998, OPSI

The majority of MPs voted to reduce the age of consent for homosexual acts from eighteen to sixteen bringing equality to the the law affecting heterosexual and homosexual acts.

The motion supported by the majority of MPs taking part in this vote was:

• That the Bill be now read a Second time:--

A majority of MPs voted for the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill to be read a second time, thus moving it closer to becoming law.

The bill sought to reduce the age at which buggery was legal from 18 to 16. ("Buggery" is the legal term for anal intercourse either between men or between a man and a woman.) It also sought to reduce the age at which other homosexual acts were permitted from 18 to 16.

The House divided: Ayes 313, Noes 130.

The majority of MPs voted to reduce the age of consent for homosexual acts from eighteen to sixteen bringing equality to the the law affecting heterosexual and homosexual acts.

The majority of MPs voted to reduce the age at which buggery, indecency between men, and homosexual acts in private is legal from 18 to 16.

MPs were considering the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill

The motion supported by the majority of MPs taking part in this vote was:

• That the clause stand part of the Bill

The clause in question was Clause 1^[1] titled: Reduction in age at which certain sexual acts are lawful.

("Buggery" is the legal term for anal intercourse either between men or between a man and a woman.) The clause also sought to reduce the age at which other homosexual acts were permitted from 18 to 16.

• [1] Clause 1 of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill as at the time of the vote

The majority of MPs voted to make it illegal to withdraw or withhold medical treatment or sustenance with the intent of hastening or otherwise causing death.

MPs were considering the Medical Treatment (Prevention of Euthanasia) Bill^[1].

Thee motion approved by the majority of MPs in this vote was:

• I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The operative clause of the Bill, clause 1, stated:

• It shall be unlawful for any person responsible for the care of a patient to withdraw or withhold from the patient medical treatment or sustenance if his purpose or one of his purposes in doing so is to hasten or otherwise cause the death of the patient.

In April 2000 BBC reported^[2]:

• The Bill ran out of time for debate. It now goes back into the long queue of backbench Bills for debate and stands very little chance of becoming law.

==

• [1] Text of the Medical Treatment (Prevention of Euthanasia) Bill on the Parliament.UK website
• [2] Euthanasia Bill blocked, BBC News, Friday, 14 April, 2000

The bill sought to reduce the age at which buggery was legal from 18 to 16. ("Buggery" is the legal term for anal intercourse either between men or between a man and a woman.) It also sought to reduce the age at which other homosexual acts were permitted from 18 to 16.

The House divided: Ayes 317, Noes 117.

The majority of MPs voted to curtail debate on requiring the Consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions for a prosecution under the Medical Treatment (Prevention of Euthanasia) Bill. The threshold of 100 MPs required to curtail the debate was not met though.

MPs were considering the Medical Treatment (Prevention of Euthanasia) Bill^[1].

The operative clause of the Bill, clause 1, stated:

• It shall be unlawful for any person responsible for the care of a patient to withdraw or withhold from the patient medical treatment or sustenance if his purpose or one of his purposes in doing so is to hasten or otherwise cause the death of the patient.

MPs were specifically considering a proposed new clause titled Consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions stating:

• No prosecution under this Act shall be brought without the prior consent of the Director of Public Prosecution.

This division was on if to curtail the debate. The question supported by the majority of MPs was:

• That the Question be now put

The result of the vote was: Ayes 96, Noes 10. House of Commons Standing Order 37^[2] states, in relation to such questions:

• that question shall not be decided in the affirmative unless it appears by the numbers declared from the chair that not fewer than one hundred Members voted in the majority in support of the motion.

As a result the debate continued.

• [1] Text of the Medical Treatment (Prevention of Euthanasia) Bill on the Parliament.UK website
• [2] House of Commons Standing Order 37

Lords amendments considered.

Lords amendment to Commons amendment No. 10: No. 2, in page 16, line 21, at beginning insert--

("Subject to section ( Alternative arrangements in case of certain local authorities ),").

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord):

With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 3 to 15 and 17.

Commons amendment No. 10 goes to the heart of the Bill.

increased efficiency, transparency and accountability.

in total opposition to a main plank of the Bill.

The amendments open the possibility that for certain councils the options for new constitutions from which local people can choose will, in addition to the range of executive constitutions, include constitutions based on a modernised committee system.

delivering the increased efficiency, transparency and accountability which the Government . . . wish to see.--[ Official Report, House of Lords , 24 July 2000; Vol. 354, c. 21-22.]

If councils like the models proposed by the Government, they can . . . move in that direction, but the structures should not be imposed on them.--[ Official Report, Standing Committee A , 16 May 2000; c. 158.]

savaged by a dead sheep.--[ Official Report , 14 June 1978; Vol. 951, c. 1027.]

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 3 to 15, and 17 agreed to.

Lords amendment to Commons amendment No. 120: No. 19, in page 26, line 3, leave out ("paragraph 5A") and insert ("paragraphs 5B to 5I")

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Lords amendments Nos. 31 to 35 add several modifications to the schedule that was introduced into the Bill in the Commons on Report. That schedule sweeps up a number of amendments to the Local Government Act 1972, which are consequential upon the establishment of executives and elected mayors under part II.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 21 to 23, and 25 agreed to.

Lords Reason:

The Lords disagree to Commons amendment No. 377 for the following Reason:

Because the prohibition on the promotion of homosexuality contained in section 2A of the Local Government Act 1986, as amended by Clause 91 of the Bill, should remain in force.

I beg to move, That this House does not insist on its amendment to which the Lords have disagreed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 27 to 29 and 39 to 41.

will be legal to promote gay rights in citizenship lessons, which, I understand, are shortly to become compulsory.--[ Official Report, House of Lords , 24 July 2000; Vol. 616, c. 102.]

It is bizarre that any Government I lead should be seen as anti-family.

I recognise that there may be a need for teachers to touch on the subject of homosexuality in the classroom.

objective discussion of homosexuality in the classroom, in the way that I suggested a short time ago, would be perfectly proper, because it is not promotion of homosexuality.--[ Official Report , 15 December 1987; Vol. 124, c. 1019.]

I regard Section 28 as bad legislation. If it is not repealed today, what effect will that have? Reference has already been made to the certificate attached to the Bill. Will the Bill, when enacted, be incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights? Will it contravene our own Human Rights Act, which comes into force into October?--[ Official Report, House of Lords , 24 July 2000; Vol. 616, c. 118.]

with (a) Childline, (b) the NSPCC and (c) Barnardos about the repeal of section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988.

The Government have had no discussions with Childline, the NSPCC or Barnardos about the repeal of section 28. I understand that the organisations do not hold official positions on the repeal.--[ Official Report , 19 June 2000; Vol. 352, c. 5W.]

I would suggest that there are fewer guidelines to censure bullying when it's over the issue of sexuality.

Section 28 is a major stumbling block to discussing sexual orientation and homophobic bullying.

The research evidence therefore suggests something that Conservative Members will not accept: section 28 helps homophobic bullying. They can ignore the scientific research, but they must recognise that they are doing so.

Question put, That this House does not insist on its amendment No. 377, to which the Lords have disagreed:--

The House divided: Ayes 381, Noes 36.

The majority of MPs voted in favour^[1] of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Research Purposes) Regulations which said:^[2]

• Research licences may be authorised under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990^[3] for the purposes of
• increasing knowledge about the development of embryos;
• increasing knowledge about serious disease, or
• enabling any such knowledge to be applied in developing treatments for serious disease.

A list of such licenses would be useful to link to from here.

• [1] Yvette Cooper MP, House of Commons, 19 December 2000
• [2] Statutory Instrument 188 (2001), House of Commons, 24 January 2001
• [3] Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, Section 45, OPSI

Order for Second Reading read.

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

It is important to realise that the changes that have occurred within our lifetime have not always automatically improved the quality of our day-to-day existence. It is thought that assumptions such as the one that we have become a nation of people who want to shop until we drop are more important than considerations of either the quality of life that we create for ourselves and our families or the general standards that we set. Although my Bill is simple, it reflects the fact that, through the law of unintended consequences, we have unthinkingly changed something that was quite precious and the end result is to the advantage of no one.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:--

Those voting Aye in this division were voting to move the Bill banning trading on Christmas day to the next stage.

The House divided: Ayes 37, Noes 0.

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for civil registration of a relationship between two people who are cohabiting, and for such registration to afford certain legal rights; and for connected purposes.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 23 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):-

Those voting Aye in this division were in favour of bringing a bill before parliament that gave additional rights to unmarried, cohabiting couples.

The House divided: Ayes 179, Noes 59.

The Aye-voters agreed that Clause 38 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill should be part of the law. This Clause is not entirely recognizable in its final version of clause 38 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001.

This clause requires the phrase "racial or religious hatred" to be substituted for "racial hatred" in a number of other Acts.

The Aye-voters rejected the Lords decision to remove clause 39 from the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill.

This clause substitutes the phrase "Racially or religiously aggravated" for "Racially-aggravated" in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, Powers of Criminal the Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, and the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

This amendment to the Adoption and Children Bill allowed unmarried couples (both heterosexual and homosexual) to adopt children. Those voting aye were for the amendment.

Amendment proposed: No. 148, in page 28, line 41, leave out "married".-[Mr. Hinchliffe.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:-

The House divided: Ayes 288, Noes 133.

This amendment to the Adoption and Children Bill would have allowed unmarried heterosexual couples to adopt children. (Homosexual couples were specifically excluded.) The no-voters defeated this amendment.

The House divided: Ayes 174, Noes 301.

Whilst in the commons for the first time, the Adoption and Children bill was amended to allow unmarried heterosexual and homosexual couples to adopt children. However, when the bill went to the Lords, they rejected the amendment and reinstated the original "married couples only" rule. Back in the commons, the aye voters in this division sought to reject the modification in the Lords and allow umarried heterosexual and homosexual couples to adopt.

The House divided: Ayes 344, Noes 145.

The majority of MPs voted to repeal a ban on the promotion of homosexuality in schools.

The Majority of MPs voted to keep a clause in the Local Government Bill^[1] designed to repeal the section in the Local Government Act 1986 that says:^[2]

A local authority shall not

• intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality;
• promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship.

The insertion of this section into the law had been as a result of the controversial Section 28 which was part of the Local Government Act 1988.^[3]

The amendment which was rejected by the majority of MPs taking part in this vote was:

• Amendment: No. 8, in page 70, line 41, leave out Clause 119.

Clause 119 of the Bill became clause 122 in the Act^[4] and stated:

• Section 2A of the Local Government Act 1986 (c. 10) (local authorities prohibited from promoting homosexuality) ceases to have effect.

==

• [1] Local Government Bill, Clause 119, 13 February 2003
• [2] Local Government Act 1986, Clause 2A, Prohibition on promoting homosexuality by teaching or by publishing material
• [3] Local Government Act 1988, Section 28
• [4] Clause 122 of the Local Government Act 2003

Those voting Aye in the division allowed the introduction of a bill to ban smoking in restaurants.

The majority of MPs voted to reclassify cannabis from a class B to a class C drug.^[1][2]

They did this by passing an order^[3] to change its listing in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.^[4][5]

This policy was reversed in 2008 in a vote^[6] in which most Labour MPs switched sides, whereas the Conservative and LibDem parties remained consistent.

• [1] Class A, B and C drugs, Home Office
• [2] Caroline Flint MP, House of Commons, 29 October 2003
• [3] Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Modification) (No. 2) Order 2003, Statutory Instrument, 29 January 2004
• [4] Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, Statute Law Database, (out of date version).
• [5] Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, Wikipedia
• [6] Cannabis - reclassification from class C to class B, House of Commons Division, 12 November 2008

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The Bill provides transsexual people with the opportunity to gain the rights and responsibilities appropriate to the gender in which they are now living. At present, transsexual people live in a state of limbo. Their birth gender determines their legal status.

Those voting Aye to this bill were voting to progress the bill allowing transexual people to change their legal gender.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:-

The House divided: Ayes 335, Noes 26.

The amendment under discussion would create protection for religious organisations against the effects of the bill (in a similar way that sporting events were granted protection). The amendment read as follows.

If a court’s determination of any question arising under this Act might affect the exercise by a religious organisation (itself or its members collectively) of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, it must have particular regard to the importance of that right.

The House divided: Ayes 104, Noes 276.

The majority of MPs voted against allowing mixed sex marriages which become a same sex marriage to remain valid as long as neither party objected.

MPs were considering the Gender Recognition Bill.

The proposed new clause rejected in this vote was titled: Successful applications: married couples and stated:

• 'If an interim gender recognition certificate has been issued to a person under section 4(3) an application may be made to the Secretary of State to award a full gender recognition certificate without the provisions of Schedule 2 or section 5 having effect if—
• (a) neither party to the marriage wish the marriage to be dissolved or annulled,
• (b) both parties to the marriage can show they intend to continue living together, and
• (c) the marriage took place before the date of Royal Assent of this Act.

Clause 4 of the Bill was titled Successful applications and began:

• (1) If a Gender Recognition Panel grants an application under section 1(1) it must issue a gender recognition certificate to the applicant.
• (2) Unless the applicant is married, the certificate is to be a full gender recognition certificate.
• (3) If the applicant is married, the certificate is to be an interim gender recognition certificate.

Schedule 2 of the Bill allowed for a marriage to be voided on the grounds of an interim gender recognition certificate being issued to either party (with similar provisions allowing for divorce in Scotland).

Section 5 provided for the subsequent issue of full gender recognition certificate after a marriage involving a party with a interim gender recognition certificate is voided or ended by divorce or the death of a party to the marriage.

Had the rejected new clause become part of the Bill it would have enabled two people legally recognised to be of the same sex to remain married, if they had been previously married as a mixed sex couple.

At the time of the vote same sex marriage was not legal in the United Kingdom

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

This is a Bill with a simple rationale. It addresses the difficulties faced by a small, vulnerable minority who have been denied basic legal rights for too long, and seeks to provide transsexual people with legal recognition of an everyday reality: the gender to which they now belong. On meeting the criteria in the Bill, a person will become in law the gender in which he or she now lives. That means that he or she will be able to get a birth certificate that reflects the acquired gender, and be able to marry or claim a pension in that gender.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:-

Those voting Aye in this division were voting for to allow a transsexual person to change their legal gender.

The House divided: Ayes 355, Noes 46.

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The Bill represents a historic step on what has been a long journey to respect and dignity for lesbians and gay men in Britain. It is a natural progression in our vision to build an inclusive society. As such, it builds on reforms that began back in 1967 with Leo Abse's private Member's Bill, backed by the then Home Secretary, Roy Jenkins. The Government's commitment to equality has been strong and unequivocal. We have equalised the age of consent, outlawed discrimination in the workplace on the grounds of sexual orientation, secured protection from homophobic hate crimes and supported the abolition of section 28.

In creating a new legal relationship for same-sex couples, this Bill is a sign of the Government's commitment to social justice and equality. It is also a recognition of the realities of modern Britain. Across this country today thousands of same-sex couples have made the decision to share their lives, their home, their finances and the care of their children or of older relatives. They may have loved and cared for each other for many years, yet their relationship is invisible in the eyes of the law. The Bill sends a clear message about the importance of stable and committed same-sex relationships.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:-

Those voting Aye in this division voted to move to Bill for recognising same-sex partnerships to the next stage.

The House divided: Ayes 426, Noes 49.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 6 November 2003],

That the following provisions shall apply to the Civil Partnership Bill [ Lords ]:

Committal

1. The Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.

Proceedings in Standing Committee

2. Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on 21st October 2004.

3. The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

Consideration and Third Reading

4. Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.

5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.

Programming Committee

6. Sessional Order B (programming committees) made on 28th June 2001 shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.

Programming of proceedings

7. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further messages from the Lords) may be programmed.-[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

Those voting Aye to this division were in support of the procedures and timings for discussing the Lords' "Civil Partnership Bill" in parliament.

The House divided: Ayes 337, Noes 105.

I beg to move,

That this House takes note of European Union document No. 10249/04, with ADD 1 and ADD 2, Commission Communication on the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice: assessment of the Tampere Programme and future orientations; notes that the Communication forms the basis of negotiations for the next European Union Justice and Home Affairs Work Programme; and supports the Government's position that the Work Programme should focus on measures that complement the efforts of Member States and will be of most benefit to European Union citizens.

I beg to move, in line 4, to leave out from "orientations" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:

"but believes that the Government has failed adequately to support the national interest in its response to the Tampere Programme, including its failure to halt the proposal to introduce co-decision and Qualified Majority Voting on immigration, asylum, visas and border measures and the Commission's aim further to harmonise the civil and criminal justice systems of Member States."

Question put, That the amendment be made:-

Those voting Aye in this division were condeming the government for its failure to protect British interests in relation to border control.

The House divided: Ayes 115, Noes 277.

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put:-

The main question was as follows. See division 260 for the question that was "negatived".

That this House takes note of European Union document No. 10249/04, with ADD 1 and ADD 2, Commission Communication on the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice: assessment of the Tampere Programme and future orientations; notes that the Communication forms the basis of negotiations for the next European Union Justice and Home Affairs Work Programme; and supports the Government's position that the Work Programme should focus on measures that complement the efforts of Member States and will be of most benefit to European Union citizens.

The House divided: Ayes 275, Noes 114.

I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 3, line 35 at end insert-

'29E Unreasonable works and alterations

Question put, That the amendment be made:-

The Bill under debate required members clubs that were previously single sex to become open to both sexes. As part of this, it required the clubs to carry out works to make the facilities appropriate for both sexes. This amendment was designed to make sure that clubs didn't have to carry out "Unreasonable works". Those voting Aye in the division agreed to the amendment.

The House divided: Ayes 7, Noes 20.

The aye-voters supported a 'reasoned amendment' opposing the Second Reading of the Gambling Bill for the specific reasons stated, principally that the bill was too permissive and would have led to an increase in gambling addiction. Had it passed, the amendment would have killed the Gambling Bill. When it failed the House still had to take a formal vote on whether the Bill should pass the Second Reading stage.

The full text of the amendment was:

"this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Gambling Bill since it fails to take account of the recommendations of the Joint Committee on the Draft Bill with regard to regional casinos; consequently fails to impose adequate controls on the number and location of such casinos and on the number and type of gambling machines contained; does not give local authorities sufficient powers to reject specific casino applications; opens the door to an influx of overseas-owned super casinos in our towns and cities, close to where people live; and is likely to promote gambling and lead to further diversion of funds from the National Lottery, severe disadvantage to the existing UK gaming industry and a significant increase in problem gambling."

The House divided: Ayes 183, Noes 293.

The aye-voters passed the 'Second Reading' of the Gambling Bill and ensured that it moved on to the next stage. The main thrust of the bill was to deregulate the gambling industry and allow for a number of 'supercasinos' to be opened, though it also tightened up some regulations, mostly in uncontentious ways.

A 'no' vote in this division would have had exactly the same effect as an 'aye' vote in the reasoned amendment that preceded it, namely to kill the bill, but without sending the message that it was being killed for the specific reasons stated in that amendment.

The House divided: Ayes 286, Noes 212.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:-

Those voting Aye in this division were seeking to outlaw reasonable chastisement (e.g. gentle smacking) of children.

The House divided: Ayes 75, Noes 424.

Question accordingly negatived.

Madam Deputy Speaker then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Amendment proposed: No. 23, in page 37, line 18, leave out clause 56.-[Mr. Andrew Turner.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:-

Clause 56 allowed reasonable chastisement of children. Those voting Aye in this division sought to remove clause 56 and therefore outlaw reasonable chastisement of children.

The House divided: Ayes 208, Noes 284.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The clause in question is as follows.

'(1) Two siblings, both of whom are aged over thirty years, shall be eligible to register as civil partners provided that they have lived together for a continuous period of twelve years immediately prior to the date of registration.

(2) In this section "sibling" means a brother, sister, half-brother or half-sister.

(3) Chapter 2 of Part 2, Chapter 5 of Part 3 and Chapter 2 of Part 4 shall not apply to civil partnerships formed by virtue of this section.

(4) Section [Termination of civil partnerships other than same sex couples] shall apply to civil partnerships formed by virtue of this section.'.—[Mr. Leigh.]

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:-

The Civil Partnership Bill sought to give homosexual couples the equivalent rights to those of married couples. This clause sought to additionally give those rights to brothers and sisters who were living together. Those voting Aye in this division were voting for the clause.

The House divided: Ayes 74, Noes 381.

The majority voted to pass the Civil Partnerships Bill, completing its stages in the Commons.

The No-voters changed the motion for debate from:

This House notes that the vast majority of pupils are well behaved and eager to learn but is concerned that their ability to do so is increasingly undermined by a disruptive minority; regrets the fact that an assault takes place on a teacher every seven minutes, as reported by teaching unions; further notes that incidents involving poor behaviour, intimidation, violence, guns and drugs in schools are all increasing; deplores the announcement by the Government that it will force every state school, irrespective of the wishes of its head teacher, to take a share of pupils with disruptive or even violent backgrounds; believes that head teachers should be given, unequivocally, the final say on expulsions by abolishing independent appeals panels; calls for a six fold increase in the number of places to be provided for high quality, intensive but separate education of those whose behavioural difficulties make them unsuitable for inclusion in mainstream schools; is confident that the ability of teachers to exercise discipline would be greatly enhanced by protecting them from the fear of false allegations of abuse, and urges swift legislation to guarantee anonymity for teachers facing accusations at least up to the point where a formal criminal charge is brought; recognises that teachers, parents and pupils all, overwhelmingly, want to see stronger action on discipline and have the right to expect it; and consequently, further believes that it is time for the rights of the majority of pupils, parents and teachers to be given greater weight.

to:

This House welcomes the high priority the Government gives to improving behaviour and discipline in schools; supports Government measures to promote positive behaviour by empowering headteachers to deal with badly behaved pupils; celebrates the success that is evident, including attendance being at its highest ever level and Ofsted reporting behaviour satisfactory or better in 99 per cent, of primary schools and 95 per cent, of secondary schools; affirms the Government's commitment to tackle problems that remain; further supports the Government's reform of exclusions to strengthen the power of headteachers; deplores attempts to destroy that system, which would expose headteachers to litigation; welcomes the fact that headteachers, local education authorities and staff are endorsing Government plans for Foundation Partnerships which help schools co-operate to put pupils back on the right track; notes that capacity of pupil referral units has almost doubled under this Government to 13,000 places; considers that to multiply this capacity by six would not represent cost-effective spending on behaviour; deplores the suggestion that privatised borstals are the answer to every problem; endorses the action that the Government is taking to keep drugs and knives out of schools; further endorses the Government's drive to ensure that parents play their part in ensuring that children attend school regularly and behave well; further supports the Government's reforms for dealing with allegations against teachers swiftly and fairly; and agrees with the Government that no pupil has the right to disrupt the education of others and that every pupil, not just the few, should have the opportunity to succeed in life and to contribute."

which then passed automatically.

The No-voters changed the motion for debate from:

This House agrees that on the separation of parents, priority should be given to the interests of the children; believes that it is in the best interests of all children for both parents to be fully involved in their upbringing and hence that separated parents should each have a legal presumption of reasonable contact with their children, except where a child's safety would be at risk, so that children are able to benefit from being parented by both their parents, as well as from contact with any grandparents and extended family members able and willing to play a role in their upbringing; regrets the Government's opposition to such a legal presumption, which will lead to yet more children being denied access to both their parents and their extended families; views with concern the Government's failure to implement the Early Intervention Project; and calls on the Government to replace the legal term 'contact' with 'parenting time', to introduce a legal presumption of co-parenting and to introduce early intervention in parental separation, with court-backed mediation and guidelines on parenting-time.

to:

This House believes that, on the separation of parents, the welfare of the children should be the paramount consideration in any family court proceedings concerning the upbringing of a child, and recognises that children benefit from a meaningful relationship with both parents after separation, so long as it is safe; congratulates the Government on the proposals in its consultation document Parental Separation: Children's Needs and Parents' Responsibilities, which addresses the realities of the reform that is needed in family justice, including its commitment to legislate to improve facilitation of contact and enforcement of contact orders; notes that the use of the term 'parenting time' in place of 'contact' fails to recognise the important role of the extended family, including children's siblings, in children's upbringing and that contact orders are not only made in relation to parents; and deeply regrets the official Opposition's view that any presumption is needed in law beyond the principle that the welfare of the child is paramount.

which then passed automatically.

Those who voted Aye failed to change the motion for debate to:

This House declines to give a Second Reading to the Identity Cards Bill because it would lead to an unreasonable intrusion into the liberties and privacy of the citizen; it would not achieve benefits proportionate to the cost, as the underlying technology is likely to prove unreliable; and the introduction of such cards is likely to lead to a requirement that they be carried at all times and such a requirement would be objectionable in principle and would lead to serious tension between the police and the citizen.

which could have blocked the Identity Cards Bill, had it been passed.

Note to readers: This is the old Identity Cards Bill, introduced by the then Home Secretary David Blunkett in the 2001 Parliament. It passed all stages in the House of Commons, but ultimately failed to get into law due to the timing of the 2005 General Election. The new Identity Cards Bill was introduced by the Home Secretary Charles Clarke on 28 June 2005 and, although it is virtually the same, must proceed through all the stages of Parliamentary scrutiny once again.

The Aye-voters sent the Identity Card Bill into the next stage of the Parliamentary progress, the Standing Committee.

After the Standing Committee has read it, it reports its recommended changes back to the House and, after the Third Reading, the Bill goes to the House of Lords and then into law.

Before the Gambling Bill, casinos could only allow people in after they had become members, for which they had to prove their age and identity, and wait 24 hours. The Bill removed these restrictions. MPs voting No here defeated an amendment that would have meant casinos still had to check the age and ID of people coming in.

Those voting Aye passed the Third Reading of the Gambling Bill. This completed the Bill's passage through the House of Commons. It would now become law subject to the agreement of the House of Lords and any amendments they made.

The main thrust of the bill was to deregulate the gambling industry and allow for a number of 'supercasinos' to be opened, though it also tightened up some regulations, mostly in uncontentious ways. In earlier stages it had been studied and modified by a committee of MPs and also by the whole house.

Later, during the Lords' consideration of the Bill, the government accepted an amendment reducing the number of supercasinos from 8 to 1.

The House divided: Ayes 236, Noes 38.

The majority of MPs voted to retain the offence of blasphemy and blasphemous libel in British law.

They did this by voting against inserting a new clause into the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill, which said:

• The offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel are abolished.^[1]

During the debate it was asserted that all votes in this issue are free for members of the Conservative Party.^[2]

• [1] Evan Harris MP, House of Commons, 7 February 2005
• [2] Dominic Grieve MP, House of Commons, 7 February 2005

At the time of this debate, communications that had been intercepted by law enforcement agencies in the UK could not be presented as evidence in criminal court cases. The clause that was being voted on sought to remove this restriction so that intercepted communications would be admisible as evidence.

The no voters rejected the clause, therefore keeping the law unchanged.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:-

The clause in question (Clause 1) establishes the main principles of the bill. Those voting Aye in this division agreed to the main principles of the National Identification Scheme Bill.

The House divided: Ayes 128, Noes 221.

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

I begin, on behalf of the Government, by thanking all those who have worked hard to bring the Bill to this stage. I associate myself entirely with the comments made by my hon. Friend the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration in commending the work of the Joint Committee and hon. Members from all parties who contributed to that. I thank officials in the Home Office for the consistent and coherent work that they have done over a long time. I also thank the staff of the House for their work to bring the Bill to this stage.

It being Six o'clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [this day].

The House divided: Ayes 224, Noes 64.

The no voters kept the following proposed clause out of the Gating Orders bill. The clause would have tightened the law on discarding litter including chewing gum in particular.

'In section 89 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (Duty to keep land and highways clear of litter), after subsection (4) insert—

"(4A) The appropriate person may by regulations make provision about the standards to which persons must keep land clear of litter under subsection (1) above in respect of different kinds of litter.

(4B) In particular, such regulations may make particular provision about discarded chewing gum and the discarded remains of other products designed for chewing."'.

The no voters chose not to include the following clause in the Gating Orders Bill. The clause would have called for more effort to be put into waste (garbage) minimisation.

'(1) The Secretary of State shall consult waste collection and waste disposal authorities on the introduction of statutory targets for the minimisation of municipal waste.

(2) The Secretary of State shall consult representatives of industry on the potential for minimisation of waste of—

(a) statutory waste minimisation targets;

(b) statutory requirements for substitution of materials that are hazardous, difficult to recover, or difficult to recycle; and

(c) market incentives to promote the redesigning of products to extend their useful life and limit unrecoverable waste.'.

The no voters rejected the following amendment to the clause making business owners responsible for abandoned shopping trolleys. The clause would have prevented business owners from being guilty if they had taken all resonable steps to avoid abandonment of the trolleys.

'(6) In proceedings against a person under sub-paragraph (4) for enforcement of a charge, it is a defence for the person to prove that he took all reasonable steps to prevent abandonment of his trolleys.'.

The Aye-voters failed to change the motion for debate from:

The Bill now be read a Second time.

to:

This House declines to give a Second Reading to the Prevention of Terrorism Bill, because it contains excessive powers in relation to requirements on a person to remain at a particular place when such powers are not presently necessary; gives to the Executive powers that should be exercised by the judiciary; allows decisions to be made on an insufficient standard of proof; fails to address the need to bring terrorists to trial on the basis of all evidence available; and thus wrongly infringes the right to liberty of the individual.

Had they succeeded they would have blocked the first stage of the process of bringing this Bill into law. The next vote is on the original question, "That the Bill be read a second time", which is Parliamentary speak for moving the Bill onto the next stage of procedure. It looks like an exact negation of this vote, but the MPs votes votes were slightly different.

The Aye-voters agreed that the Prevention of Terrorism Bill should be "read a Second time", which is Parliamentary speak for sending it to the next stage of the process where it is reviewed section by section in Committee, after which it is read a Third time (another debate and vote) before going to the House of Lords for further work.

This Bill was "read a first time" on 22 February (a day earlier) by the act of being printed. The relevant document quoted at the start of the debate (which took place over 6 hours) was Memorandums laid before the Constitutional Affairs Committee on the Operation of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC), HC323-II. It requires some sort of a crisis to cause the procedure to move this quickly. In this case it is because there is a perceived need to replace parts of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 which had been subjected to many votes and problems in Parliament since it was passed.

The Aye-voters agreed timetable for review of the Prevention of Terrorism Bill. It is specified that the "Committee stage" to review the Bill, section by section, will take place on the floor of the House in a debate lasting no more than 5 hours. Normally this process takes place over a number of days in a small Standing Committee of MPs who have time to review the text carefully, but this is how it is done when time is short.

After this Committee stage debate, the final "Third reading" debate and vote (before the Bill is sent to the House of Lords) was ordered to take no more than one hour. If the Lords don't make any changes to the Bill, it becomes law as an Act of Parliament. Otherwise the MPs must review the changes the Lords have made and can choose to disagree with them. The Bill then goes back to the Lords, and these two steps are repeated until done, or the Parliament Act is cited.

The day for this Committee and Third reading process was scheduled through the "usual channels" on 28 February 2005, and the first vote on that day was to allow 6 hours for the debate.

The majority of MPs voted against giving a greater role to the courts in relation to the imposition of control orders.

The Aye-voters failed to make a series of changes to the text of the Prevention of Terrorism Bill

These changes for the most part replaced "Secretary of State" with "court". For example, the phrase "The Secretary of State may make a control order against an individual" would become "The Secretary of State may apply to the court for a control order...".

The Aye-voters failed to add a new clause to the text of the Prevention of Terrorism Bill, which would have defined the "Court of Terrorism Control" that would overseen the process of the Secretary of State obtaining "Control Orders". This court would be obliged to operate within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 1998, and not admit any evidence that had been obtained under torture.

It's not clear to me, given the failure of the previous vote that would have required the Secretary of State to have applied to the court to make his "Control Orders", what this court would have done, but these matters may be lost in the capability of Parliamentary procedure to take full account of the complex connections between the components of the business at hand.

The Aye-voters agreed that clauses 1-13 of the Prevention of Terrorism Bill should "stand part" of the Bill. There are only 13 clauses in this Bill. Thus concluded the clause by clause "Committee stage" scrutiny of the text of the Bill. It is now time for the Third reading, where there is one final vote before it is passed on to the House of Lords.

The Aye-voters agreed that the Prevention of Terrorism Bill be read a Third time, which is to say that it has completed all the necessary stages in the House of Commons, and now goes to the House of Lords for further discussion and review before it can become law. The Third reading debate, prior to the vote is worth looking at for the protestation about the lack of review during the Committee stage.

The public should be reminded of the fact that Parliament is the supreme law making body in this country. If a majority of MPs had voted against this Bill in any of its stages, it would have been history. Contrary to how it would appear, MPs are legally and morally free to vote whichever way they choose, regardless of party affiliation. They are not like judges: bound by statute, precedent, and the common law.

I beg to move amendment No. 355, in page 6, line 9, leave out from 'that' to end of line 14 and insert

'I will well and truly serve our Sovereign . . . . . . . . . .in the office of Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain and that I will faithfully and at all times uphold the continued independence of the judiciary and the rule of law, in accordance with the laws and usages of this Realm.".'.

Question put, That the amendment be made:-

Those voting Aye in this division agreed to change the new oath of Lord Chancellor to the above from the otherwise proposed oath shown below.

"I . . . do swear that in the office of Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain I will respect the rule of law, defend the independence of the judiciary and discharge my duty to ensure the provision of resources for the efficient and effective support of the courts for which I am responsible . . . So help me God."

The Committee divided: Ayes 167, Noes 272.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

It is necessary to return to some of the basic issues surrounding the Bill to understand why we tabled the new clause. The old structure of the Lord Chancellor provided, as we have debated peripherally this afternoon, that he was a judge first and foremost. He was a judge with a hybrid role, because as well as sitting as the head of the judiciary and a Law Lord, and being Speaker of the House of Lords, he was a Minister.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:-

This clause prevents the Lord Chancellor (head of the judiciary) from taking ministerial office. The Lord Chancellor is clearly in a position of great importance. This clause is designed to prevent him from being influenced by political pressure or pressure from constituants. Those voting Aye in this division agreed that the Lord Chancellor should not also be a Minister.

The Committee divided: Ayes 167, Noes 283.

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

A good summary of this bill (protected by parliamentary copyright) can be found in paragraph 3 of the explanatory notes for the bill. Those voting Aye in this division were voting for the bill to be made law.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:-

The House divided: Ayes 280, Noes 118.

Those voting Aye in this division wanted to modify the Road Traffic Act (1988) to prohibit...

"...the modification or retrofitting to the front of a motor vehicle any equipment which in the opinion of the Secretary of State may render the vehicle more likely to cause injury to a third party in the event of an accident."

The issue in this division was an amendment to an amendment the House of Lords had made to the Prevention of Terrorism Bill.

The effect of the amendment was to insert the italicized words into clause 1(2):

The power to make a control order against an individual shall be exercisable (a) except in the case of an order imposing obligations that are incompatible with the individual’s right to liberty under Article 5 of the Human Rights Convention, by the Secretary of State; and (b) in the case of an order imposing obligations that are or include derogating obligations, by the court on an application by the Secretary of State.

Therefore the amendment would allow control orders which did not infringe the European Convention on Human Rights to be imposed by the Home Secretary. Those voting Aye were voting to give the Home Secretary the power to impose these control orders prior to being reviewed by the court; those voting No were insisting that all control orders must be approved by the courts before coming into effect.

The Aye-voters rejected the change that the House of Lords had made to clause 3 of the Prevention of Terrorism Bill.

The rejected replacement for Clause 3 is filed under Amendment No. 8 in the list of Lord's amendments and would have inserted a subsection at the beginning of the clause that read:

3(1) The court may make a control order against an individual if it (a) is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the individual is or has been involved in terrorism-related activity; (b) considers that it is necessary, for purposes connected with protecting members of the public from a risk of terrorism, to make a control order imposing obligations on that individual; and (c) has been informed by the Director of Public Prosecutions that there is no reasonable prospect of a successful prosecution of the individual for the terrorism-related activity.

In other words, this power could have only been used if the danger was likely, actual, and there is no alternative.

I beg to move,

That for a period of suspension of one year commencing on 1 April 2005 the Resolution of the House of 18 December 2001 relating to Members who have chosen not to take their seats and thus do not qualify to participate in proceedings in Parliament shall not have effect in so far as it provides for their claiming support for their costs under the provisions of the Resolutions of this House relating to Members' Allowances, Insurance etc., and the allowances relating to travel within the United Kingdom for Members, their families and staff.

I beg to move amendment (a), in line 1, leave out from 'That' to '1st' and insert 'as from'.

Question put, That the amendment be made:-

The House divided: Ayes 170, Noes 358.

The effect of this amendment would be to make the suspension of Sinn Féin MPs' expenses be permanent, not just for one year.

Amendment proposed: (b), in line 4, leave out from "effect" to end.-[Mr. Lidington.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:-

The House divided: Ayes 171, Noes 357.

The amendment is to remove the detail of which parts of the 18 December 2001 Resolution be suspended. The Resolution allowed Sinn Féin MPs to gain some of the parliamentary privileges (office space and expenses, mainly) enjoyed by other MPs, but without having to take their seats (which would involve taking an Oath of Allegiance to the Queen).

The motion itself, as proposed by the Leader of the House and the Northern Ireland Secretary, suspends only the expenses for Sinn Féin MPs. This amendment, supported mainly by Conservatives and Unionists, would have suspended all their privileges. That it fell means that the four Sinn Féin MPs get to keep their office space and so on, but lose around £40,000-worth of expenses.

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.

If you want to do a better job here, link to the question put, and read a list of commons amendments.

The Aye-voters "insisted on" the results of the votes the day before in Division 127 and Division 128, which evidently had been overturned in a debate in the House of Lords.

These threw away the requirements that the court which would oversee the process (of issuing Control Orders) would have its rules set by the Lord Chief Justice rather than the Lord Chancellor, and for the rules of the court to comply with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to hear charges brought against you, innocense until proven guilty, etc).

To anyone who wishes to complain about the quality of my decoding of these motions, may I refer you to this statement at the head of the debate.

The Aye-voters reaffirmed their vote earlier 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.

The Aye-voters reaffirmed their vote earlier in Division 132 which reaffirmed their vote the day before in Division 125 which had evidently been overturned by the House of Lords.

This rejected proposal would have established a senior panel to review the operation of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 after eight months and make a report to Parliament.

The ayes voted to reject the proposal

The Aye-voters insisted again on its changes to the Prevention of Terrorism Bill, that it had insisted on in Division 135, Division 131, and the day before in Division 122.

This was the one where the courts rather than the secretary of state was to issue these "Control Orders" (house arrest on anyone in the country without charge or the necessity of proof of guilt). There may be some levels of compromise buried in the amendment Nos. 37A-37C, 37E-37O, 37Q-37T, 17H-17M, but I'm bored and can't find them. Perhaps this is how they won the day: by driving everyone into the ground with all this technicality.

The Aye-voters reaffirmed their vote earlier in Division 136, reaffirming Division 132 which reaffirmed their vote the day before in Division 125 which had evidently been overturned by the House of Lords.

This rejected proposal would have established a senior panel to review the operation of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 after eight months and make a report to Parliament.

It's not easy to find the compromises, which are amendments Nos. 27C, 27D and amendment (a). A publically available (and readable) record of what exactly was going on is in shambles, and about as easy as reading the output from a paper shredder.

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.

This bill sought to ban smoking in public places in Wales. The following outline was given at the start of the debate:

The purpose of the Bill is to give the National Assembly for Wales the powers that it requires to protect employees and members of the public in Wales from the effects of second-hand smoke. The Bill has the backing of hon. Members of all parties and of many organisations and individuals across Wales and England, including the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Nursing in Wales, the Wales TUC, the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health, Asthma UK, the British Heart Foundation, the British Lung Foundation and Cancer Research UK.

Those voting Aye were voting to allow the bill to proceed to the next stage in the life of a bill - where the details are hammered out in committee.

The House divided: Ayes 14, Noes 7.

Although the Ayes had the majority, the total of 21 voters fell short of the 40 required for any motion to be agreed to or rejected. As a result, the bill was carried over into the next sitting of the House.

This division was on a 'Reasoned amendment' which seeks to reject a Bill under consideration, and gives the reasons why it should be rejected.

The amendment was in the following terms:

"That this House declines to give a Second Reading to the National Lottery Bill because it creates the Big Lottery Fund, which will take the National Lottery further away from its original purpose of providing new resources to charities, sport, heritage and the arts; because it breaches the principle of additionality and allows the Secretary of State too much interference over the direction of Lottery funds and distributors; because it fails to restore funding to the original four good causes, which have lost £3 billion in Lottery funding since 1998; and because it fails to give the public sufficient say in where Lottery funding will go."

The effect of the amendment would have been to prevent any future progress on the Bill in this session. Those voting Aye were therefore agreeing with these criticisms and opposing the Bill; those voting No were disagreeing with the criticism and implicitly supporting the principle of the Bill.

This division was on what is called a 'reasoned amendment'. This is an amendment to the motion:

That the Bill be now read a Second time.

If passed, the effect of the amendment is to stop any future progress on the Bill under consideration. It is called a 'reasoned amendment' because it gives the reasons why the Bill is considered unsatisfactory. In this case the text of the amendment was:

That this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill because, while the Bill recognises the problems caused by extremists seeking to stir up hatred against others on the grounds of their ethnic identity, by creating a new offence of inciting religious hatred, it will disproportionately curtail freedom of expression, worsen community relations as different religious and belief groups call for the prosecution of their opponents, create uncertainty as to what words or behaviour are lawful and lead to the selective application of the law in a manner likely to bring it into disrepute."

Those voting Aye were therefore agreeing with these criticisms and wishing to prevent the Bill from advancing; those voting No were disagreeing with them and implicitly supporting the principle of the Bill.

This division was on the principle of the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill. The question was:

That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Those voting Aye were declaring their support for the principle of the Bill, while those voting No were opposed to it in principle.

The Aye-voters agreed that the Identity Cards Bill should be "Read a Second Time".

This means it can now be sent to Standing Committee D, which is a small group of MPs who formally review the bill line by line before it is returned to the main chamber for the "Third Reading" debate. Once the "Third Reading" is passed with a vote, it is reviewed by the House of Lords before it formally becomes an Act in law.

The timetable for this process is specified by the next vote. The following vote after that is the "money resolution", which gives the formal authority to the government to spend the public money necessary to carry out the functions of the act.

Note to readers: This is virtually the same Bill that was introduced to Parliament on 20 December 2004 but which ultimately failed due to the timing of the General Election.

The Aye-voters agreed to authorize the payments from the Treasury to the National Identity Scheme Commissioner, the Home Secretary, and to any other department whose costs are increased as a result of the passing of the Identity Cards Bill.

This vote is a formality which shows that Parliament is supposedly in control of all public money spent by the government.

This division occurred at the end of a Liberal Democrat opposition day. The Liberal Democrat front bench proposed the following motion:

This House recognises the serious threat posed to the planet by climate change; welcomes the decision of the Prime Minister to make this a priority for the UK presidency of the G8; notes with concern however the lack of progress being made to secure effective international agreement on the way forward and in particular the wrecking tactics of the present US Administration and the total lack of leverage on this issue by the Prime Minister over President Bush, who is still in public denial of even the basic science; believes that carbon emissions need to be cut by at least 60 per cent. by 2050; further believes that without such action, measures to reduce poverty in developing countries will be severely undermined; calls on the Prime Minister to use the G8 to win support for a successor regime to Kyoto based upon the principle of contraction and convergence, engaging the participation of both developed and developing nations; further believes that he will be in a stronger position to give an international lead if he now tackles his failures in domestic climate change policy, which mean that the UK is now virtually certain to miss its 2010 carbon emissions reduction target and is now in danger of missing even its Kyoto target; and urges him in particular to adopt effective policies to conserve energy within the domestic sector, and to cut emissions within the transport and energy sectors.

The Government front bench moved an amendment to replace the text of the motion with:

This House welcomes the UK's global leadership on climate change and in particular the Prime Minister's decision to make climate change one of the top two priorities for the G8 Presidency and a priority for the EU Presidency; recognises that UK initiatives in 2005 have already made important contributions to the international debate on future climate change policy, in particular the scientific conference on stabilisation in February 2005 and the Energy and Environment Ministerial Roundtable in March 2005; looks forward to the Gleneagles Summit and provides its full support to the Prime Minister's continuing efforts to secure a successful outcome; commends the UK's plans to continue to strive for further international action following Gleneagles through both the G8 and EU; further commends the Labour Party for being the only party to commit in its manifesto to a national goal to reduce emissions by 20 per cent. by 2010; celebrates the UK's achievement in already reducing emissions to 13.4 per cent. between the base year and 2003, beyond that required by the Kyoto Protocol; further welcomes the introduction of policies such as the climate change levy and renewables obligation that have been so important in achieving this; and looks forward to the publication of the climate change programme later this year which will set out further policies to deliver the goal of a 20 per cent. reduction in emissions by 2010.

The question before the House was whether the original wording should remain. Those voting Aye were voting to support the original motion and to reject the amendment. Those voting No were voting to reject the original motion although not necessarily supporting the amendment. In fact, once the original wording was rejected, the amendment was agreed without a further division.

*Pressure of other work means MPs or Lords are not always available to vote – it does not always indicate they have abstained. Therefore, being absent on a less important vote makes a disproportionatly small difference.