text_body: --- DIVISION TITLE ---
  
  Prevention of Terrorism Bill - Second Reading - Amendment
  
  --- MOTION EFFECT ---
  
  <p>The Aye-voters failed to <a href="http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debate/?id=2005-02-23.353.4">change</a> the motion for debate from:</p>
  
  <p class="indent">The Bill now be read a Second time.</p>
  
  <p>to:</p>
  
  <p class="indent">This House declines to give a Second Reading to the <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmbills/061/2005061.htm"> Prevention of Terrorism Bill</a>, 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.</p>
  
  <p>Had they succeeded they would have blocked the first stage of the process of bringing this Bill into law.  The <a href="http://publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2005-02-23&number=94"> next vote</a> 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.  To the the untrained eye it looks like an exact negation of this vote, but the MPs votes votes were slightly different.  </p>  
  
  
  --- COMMENTS AND NOTES ---
  
  <p><i>Question put,</i> That the amendment be made.</p>
  
  <p><i>The House divided:</i> Ayes 216, Noes 316.</p>
  