text_body: --- MOTION EFFECT ---
  
  <p>The Aye-voters insisted again on its <a href="http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debate/?id=2005-03-10.1826.1">changes</a> to the <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200405/ldbills/034/05034.i-iii.html"> Prevention of Terrorism Bill</a>, that it had insisted on in <a href="http://publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2005-03-10&number=135"> Division 135</a>, <a href="http://publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2005-03-10&number=131"> Division 131</a>, and the day before in <a href="http://publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2005-03-09&number=122"> Division 122</a>.  </p>  
  
  <p>This was the one where the courts rather than the secretary of state was to issue these "Control Orders" (house arrest on anyone in the country without charge or the necessity of proof of guilt).  There may be some levels of compromise buried in the amendment Nos. 37A-37C, 37E-37O, 37Q-37T, 17H-17M, but I'm bored and can't find them.  Perhaps this is how they won the day: by driving everyone into the ground with all this technicality.</p>
  
  
  
  
  --- COMMENTS AND NOTES ---
  
  <p>I beg to move, That this House insists on its amendments 1A and 1B to Lords amendment No. 1, insists on its disagreement to Lords amendments Nos. 12, 13, 15, 17, 22, 28 and 37 and insists on its amendments Nos. 37A to 37C and 37E to 37O, does not insist on its amendment No. 37V, insists on its disagreement to Lords amendments Nos. 37Q to 37T proposed in lieu of Lords amendment No. 8 and insists on its amendments Nos. 17H to 17M to the words restored to the Bill by its insistence on its disagreement to Lords amendment No. 17 and proposes amendment (a) in lieu.</p>
  
  <p class="italic">It being one hour after the commencement of proceedings, Mr. Deputy Speaker put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [9 March].</p>
  
  <p><i>The House divided:</i> Ayes 301, Noes 211.</p>
  