Hunting Bill — 15 Sep 2004 at 21:52

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

I have five brief points to make, arising from today's events, in asking the House confidently to give the Bill its Third Reading. The first issue is the language and tone of debate. This is an important matter when debate has been so polarised and passionate. In particular, we need to hear a change of tone on the part of the Countryside Alliance in response to today's events. To its credit-[Interruption.] I hope that Opposition Members will listen to what I am saying, and act responsibly themselves. To its credit, the Countryside Alliance has called the disruption in Westminster "unfortunate and unnecessary". I know that that is the view of its chairman and perhaps others. The press release goes on to say, however, that the disruption is ultimately the responsibility of those pursuing vindictive and unjust law. The Countryside Alliance should explain to its members the sincerity of the views of those who oppose hunting and why the House of Commons has decided on a ban. It should also explain that the Government have been responsible in seeking to assist those who have strong views on this matter. It needs to explain that the Bill is neither vindictive nor unjust and that using such language can appear only to excuse misbehaviour. The Countryside Alliance needs to tell its members to act responsibly and to help them understand the legislation and the options open to them.

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

The House divided: Ayes 339, Noes 155.

Debate in Parliament | Historical Hansard | Source |

Public Whip is run as a free not-for-profit service. If you'd like to support us, please consider switching your (UK) electricity and/or gas to Octopus Energy or tip us via Ko-Fi.

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 (Aye)Minority (No)BothTurnout
Con4 127 (+2 tell)081.6%
Independent0 1050.0%
Independent Conservative0 10100.0%
Lab307 (+2 tell) 3076.8%
LDem28 16080.0%
PC0 40100.0%
UUP0 3060.0%
Total:339 155078.3%

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

Roger GaleNorth ThanetCon (front bench)aye
Mr John TaylorSolihullCon (front bench)aye
Mr Teddy TaylorRochford and Southend EastConaye
Ann WiddecombeMaidstone and The WealdCon (front bench)aye
Mark FisherStoke-on-Trent CentralLab (minister)no
Kate HoeyVauxhallLab (minister)no
Barry SheermanHuddersfieldLab (minister)no
Alan BeithBerwick-upon-TweedLDem (front bench)no
Mr John BurnettTorridge and West DevonLDem (front bench)no
Menzies CampbellNorth East FifeLDem (front bench)no
Ms Sue DoughtyGuildfordLDem (front bench)no
Mr Matthew GreenLudlowLDem (front bench)no
Evan HarrisOxford West and AbingdonLDem (front bench)no
Nick HarveyNorth DevonLDem (front bench)no
Paul KeetchHerefordLDem (front bench)no
Norman LambNorth NorfolkLDem (front bench)no
Michael MooreTweeddale, Ettrick and LauderdaleLDem (front bench)no
Mark OatenWinchesterLDem (front bench)no
Lembit ÖpikMontgomeryshireLDem (front bench)no
Robert SmithWest Aberdeenshire and KincardineLDem (front bench)no
John ThursoCaithness, Sutherland and Easter RossLDem (front bench)no
Mr Paul TylerNorth CornwallLDem (front bench)no
Roger WilliamsBrecon and RadnorshireLDem (front bench)no

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.

The Whip on the Web

Help keep PublicWhip alive