Iraq — Security Situation — 17 May 2004 at 18:45
Those voting No rejected the motion before Parliament, which read:
This House notes with concern the deteriorating security situation in Iraq and the Middle East and the impact on public opinion in Iraq of the reports of mistreatment of Iraqi citizens and detainees; believes that progress in Iraq is only possible if the role of the United Nations is expanded and enhanced and the transfer of sovereignty to the Iraqis on 30th June is real and visible; recalls that on 18th March 2003 when this House endorsed military action against Saddam Hussein it did so on an understanding that progress on the road map for a peace settlement between Israel and the Palestinians would be a priority for Her Majesty's Government; expresses its disappointment that recent events have made the achievement of a negotiated two state solution more difficult and less likely; recognises the bravery and professionalism of British armed forces serving in Iraq in difficult and dangerous circumstances; calls upon Her Majesty's Government not to commit any further troops unless requested by United Kingdom commanders in Iraq for the purposes of securing the safety of British forces and the fulfilling of Britain's legal obligations under international law towards the inhabitants of Iraq; and further declares that any such troops should remain under United Kingdom operational command and within the area currently under United Kingdom control.
The new amendment that was proposed in its place and passed without a vote read:
This House welcomes the work being done by the UK and its Coalition partners to establish stability and security in Iraq; regards any mistreatment of Iraqis by Coalition forces to be unacceptable; recognises the bravery and professionalism of British forces in Iraq in assisting the Iraqi people in rebuilding Iraq; applauds the work of the UN Secretary-General's special adviser, Lakhdar Brahimi, for his contribution to helping establish a sovereign Iraqi Interim Government which will assume power by 30th June; and supports the Government in its efforts to secure a new Security Council resolution and deliver the wishes of the Iraqi people for a sovereign, stable and democratic Iraq.
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|
|Lab||273 (+2 tell)||8||0||69.4%|
|LDem||0||47 (+2 tell)||0||90.7%|
|Tony Baldry||Banbury||Con (front bench)||aye|
|Douglas Hogg||Sleaford and North Hykeham||Con||aye|
|Jeremy Corbyn||Islington North||Lab||aye|
|Mr Tam Dalyell||Linlithgow||Lab||aye|
|Mark Fisher||Stoke-on-Trent Central||Lab||aye|
|John Martin McDonnell||Hayes and Harlington||Lab||aye|
|Clare Short||Birmingham, Ladywood||Lab||aye|
|Alan Simpson||Nottingham South||Lab||aye|
|Robert Wareing||Liverpool, West Derby||Lab||aye|