text_body: --- MOTION EFFECT ---
  
  <p>The Aye-voters: 
  
  <p class="indent">disagreed with Lords Amendment 33D and insists on its Amendments 33C and 33G in lieu, does not insist on its Amendment 33F and proposes Amendments (a) and (b) in lieu.</p>
  
  <p>I can't face it.  Is this to do with the burden of proof argument that is reported to be the main sticking point as well as the sunset clause?  </p>
  
  <p>For information, the original burden of proof required by the original <a href="http://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts2001/20010024.htm">Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001</a>, the section of which passed with a vote on <a href="http://publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2001-11-21&number=75">21 November 2001</a> had as its burden of proof: 
  
  <p class="indent">The Secretary of State may issue a certificate [authorizing detention of foreign nationals in a maximum security prison without charge or trial] if the Secretary of State reasonably (a) believes that the person's presence in the United Kingdom is a risk to national security, and (b) suspects that the person is a terrorist.</p>
  
  <p>It took a legal judgement on one of the cases by the Law Lords to make this an issue worth fighting overnight for.</p>
  
  
  --- COMMENTS AND NOTES ---
  
  <p><i>The House divided:</i> Ayes 307, Noes 216.</p>
  