[S2M-1090.1 (Amendment)] Decision Time — 25 Mar 2004 at 17:01
This looks like the vote on S2M-1090.1
The description in the bulletin on 2004-03-25 is:
*S2M-1090.1 Michael Matheson: Protecting Communities - Reforming the Role of Non-Jury Courts-As an amendment to motion (S2M-1090) in the name of Cathy Jamieson, leave out from "considers" to end and insert "supports the need to have a fair, effective and efficient summary criminal justice system; welcomes the recent report by Sheriff Principal McInnes; acknowledges the note of dissent within the report, and believes that future changes to the summary justice system must impart confidence to everyone: victims, witnesses, accused persons, court users and, above all, the communities they serve.
You can search for this motion (S2M-1090.1) on TheyWorkForYou
Text Introducing Division:
The sixth question is, that amendment S2M-1090.1, in the name of Michael Matheson, which seeks to amend motion S2M-1090, in the name of Cathy Jamieson, on protecting communities and reforming the role of non-jury courts, be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
Party Summary
Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.
| Party | Majority (No) | Minority (Aye) | Abstentions | Turnout |
| Con | 0 | 0 | 16 | 88.9% |
| Green | 0 | 7 | 0 | 100.0% |
| Independent | 0 | 1 | 1 | 66.7% |
| Lab | 46 | 0 | 0 | 92.0% |
| LDem | 16 | 0 | 0 | 94.1% |
| SNP | 0 | 25 | 0 | 96.2% |
| SSP | 0 | 5 | 0 | 83.3% |
| Total: | 62 | 38 | 17 | 92.1% |
All MPs Eligible to Vote - sorted by constituency
Includes MPs who were absent (or abstained) from this vote.
Sort by: Name | Constituency | Party | Vote