Comparison of Divisions: Prevention of Terrorism Bill — Second Reading — Amendment — 23 Feb 2005 at 19:47 with Division No. 94 on the same day at 19:59

(Swap the two divisions around).

Vote (a) : Prevention of Terrorism Bill — Second Reading — Amendment - 23 Feb 2005 at 19:47 - Division No. 93

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.

Vote (b) : Prevention of Terrorism Bill — Second Reading - 23 Feb 2005 at 19:59 - Division No. 94

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.

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.

Difference in Votes - sorted by party

MPs for which their vote on Motion (a) differed from their inverted vote on Motion (b). You can also see just opposite votes between these two divisions, or simply all the votes.

Sort by: Name | Constituency | Party | Vote (a) | Vote (b)

NameConstituencyPartyVote (a)Vote (b)
Mrs Virginia BottomleySouth West SurreyCon (front bench)aye absent
Mr Michael PortilloKensington and ChelseaConaye absent
Liam FoxWoodspringCon (front bench)absent no
John HayesSouth Holland and The DeepingsCon (front bench)absent no
Graham AllenNottingham NorthLabno no
Bill EtheringtonSunderland NorthLabno no
Mr Tony McWalterHemel HempsteadLab (minister)no no
Mr Andrew BennettDenton and ReddishLab (minister)no absent
Clive BettsSheffield, AttercliffeLab (minister)no absent
Sally KeebleNorthampton NorthLabno absent
Rob MarrisWolverhampton South WestLab (minister)no absent
Rudi VisFinchley and Golders GreenLabno absent
David TaylorNorth West LeicestershireLab (minister)both no
Ann CryerKeighleyLab (minister)absent aye
Mr Win GriffithsBridgendLab (minister)absent aye
Mr Harold BestLeeds North WestLab (minister)absent no
Richard BurdenBirmingham, NorthfieldLab (minister)absent no
Jim CousinsNewcastle upon Tyne CentralLab (minister)absent no
Frank DobsonHolborn and St PancrasLababsent no
Gwyneth DunwoodyCrewe and NantwichLab (minister)absent no
Frank FieldBirkenheadLab (minister)absent no
Neil GerrardWalthamstowLab (minister)absent no
Ian GibsonNorwich NorthLab (minister)absent no
Kate HoeyVauxhallLab (minister)absent no
Kelvin HopkinsLuton NorthLab (minister)absent no
Peter KilfoyleLiverpool, WaltonLababsent no
Gordon PrenticePendleLab (minister)absent no
Clare ShortBirmingham, LadywoodLababsent no
Dennis SkinnerBolsoverLab (minister)absent no
Alan WilliamsSwansea WestLab (minister)absent no
Alan ReidArgyll and ButeLDem (front bench)aye absent
Ms Sue DoughtyGuildfordLDem (front bench)absent no

Division Similarity Ratio

The measure of similarity between these two divisions is a calculation based on a comparison of their votes.

There were 659 MPs who could have voted in both of these divisions, and 3 voted the same way, with 522 voting in opposite ways. There were 105 MPs who didn't vote in either division, and 29 who voted in only one of them.

We invert the vote on the second division if it makes the distance closer (since the meaning of 'Aye' and 'No' are often interchangeable depending on how the question was put). In this case, they line up on opposite sides. An 's vote in in only one of the divisions contributes a factor of 0.2 to the distance. The calculation runs as follows:

ratio =
[same-votes]
([same-votes] + [differing-votes] + 0.2x[abstain-in-one])
=
522
(522 + 3 + 0.2x29)
=
522
530.8
= 0.983 = 98.3 %.


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.

TWe're working on updating the site, but if you'd like to talk to us about the project, please email [email protected]

The Whip on the Web

Help keep PublicWhip alive