Terrorism Bill — Extension Of Period Of Detention to 28 Days — but not 60 — 9 Nov 2005 at 16:39
The majority of MPs voted to change the revision of the period of detention without charge for terrorist suspects from 14 days to "three months", to "28 days" instead.[1]
The previous vote[2] was against restating "three months" as "90 days", which would have ended the winner-takes-all voting procedure.
Had this current vote been lost, the next voted would been about changing the plan to "60 days".
Some people called this a Dutch auction. However, it's worse than that because the time periods were not presented in an appropriate order, and those who wanted a shorter time limit were compelled to vote for the 28 days after rejecting the 90 day limit for fear that the 60 day limit would have stuck.
(A case where the provisions were presented in the correct order and voted on like a real auction can be seen on 20 May 2008 in relation to the Termination of pregnancy.)
The original powers of the police to detain terrorist suspects -- without stating the charges against the person -- for longer than other criminal acts (still limited to 48 hours) was established by the Terrorism Act 2000 and set to 7 days.[3]
This was later doubled to 14 days by the Criminal Justice Act 2003[4] following a debate without a vote.[5]
The current extention to 28 days requires annual renewal,[6] which was granted following a debate without a vote,[7] and is scheduled to be renewed a second time in July 2008.[8]
- [1] David Winnick MP, House of Commons, 9 November 2005
- [2] Extention to 90 days - rejected, House of Commons Division, 9 November 2005
- [3] Warrants of further detention, Section 29, Schedule 8 of Terrorism Act 2000
- [4] Limit on period of detention without charge of suspected terrorists, Section 306, Criminal Justice Act 2003
- [5] Beverley Hughes MP, House of Commons, 20 May 2003
- [6] Expiry or renewal of extended maximum detention period, Clause 25, Terrorism Act 2005
- [7] Tony McNulty MP, House of Commons, 10 July 2007
- [8] The Terrorism Act 2006 (Disapplication of Section 25) Order 2008, 25 July 2008
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.
| Party | Majority (Aye) | Minority (No) | Both | Turnout |
| Con | 188 | 2 | 0 | 96.9% |
| DUP | 9 | 0 | 0 | 100.0% |
| Independent | 2 | 0 | 0 | 100.0% |
| Lab | 49 (+2 tell) | 287 (+2 tell) | 0 | 96.0% |
| LDem | 62 | 0 | 0 | 100.0% |
| PC | 3 | 0 | 0 | 100.0% |
| Respect | 1 | 0 | 0 | 100.0% |
| SDLP | 3 | 0 | 0 | 100.0% |
| SNP | 6 | 0 | 0 | 100.0% |
| UUP | 0 | 1 | 0 | 100.0% |
| Total: | 323 | 290 | 0 | 96.9% |
Rebel Voters - sorted by name
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