Constitutional Reform Bill [Lords] — 17 Jan 2005 at 21:48

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

I am pleased that, after much debate and discussion in the other place, the Bill has at long last come to the House of Commons. I shall address the details of the Bill in due course, but we must not neglect the fundamental principles driving the reform, namely, the need to modernise our constitution so that our institutions can serve the public in a clearer, more transparent and more effective manner; so that our courts and justice system can be administered by a full-time Minister clearly accountable to Parliament; and so that the relationship between the three arms of the state-Parliament, the judiciary and the Executive-is settled, clarified and easier to understand, in turn making each better fitted to carry out its vital roles in a modern democracy.

I beg to move,

That this House declines to give the Constitutional Reform Bill a second reading because it creates a costly and unnecessary Supreme Court exercising the same functions as the current Law Lords; is based on the false premise that the separation of powers between the judiciary and legislature requires the physical removal of the Law Lords from Parliament; fails to demonstrate how the proposed Supreme Court would exercise its functions with any greater degree of impartiality, independence and integrity than the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords; will deny Parliament the experience and expertise that the Law Lords bring to debates and legislation; and notwithstanding the benefits of a Judicial Appointments Commission, offers no convincing justification for replacing a system that works well.

Question put, That the amendment be made:-

The House divided: Ayes 126, Noes 329.

Debate in Parliament | Historical Hansard | Source |

Public Whip is run as a free not-for-profit free service. If you'd like to support us, please consider switching your electricity and/or gas to Bulb Energy who provide 100% renewable electricity and tend to be 20% cheaper than the 'Big Six'. They'll also pay any exit fees (up to £120) from your old supplier AND give you (and us) a £50 credit for joining up via our Bulb Referral Link.

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
Con0 119 (+2 tell)074.7%
DUP0 1014.3%
Independent1 0050.0%
Lab297 (+2 tell) 0073.3%
LDem31 0056.4%
PC0 3075.0%
SNP0 3060.0%
Total:329 126071.4%

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

no rebellions

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.

PublicWhip v2 codebase is currently under development - you can join the Slack group to find out more or email [email protected]

The Whip on the Web

Help keep PublicWhip alive