text_body: --- DIVISION TITLE ---
  
  Prevention of Terrorism Bill - Insisted Amendments - Application to a Court
  
  --- MOTION EFFECT ---
  
  <p>The Aye-voters "insisted" on a series of the changes to the <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200405/ldbills/034/05034.i-iii.html"> Prevention of Terrorism Bill</a>, that they had previously <a href="http://publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2005-03-09&number=122"> voted on the day before</a>, but which had been rejected by the House of Lords during their debate.  </p>  
  
  <p>I think the Lords' changes were to require the Secretary of State to apply to a court for a control order in all cases, rather than issue them all himself on his own say-so, and the further House of Commons amendments (that were "insisted on" here) were a compromise that said that some of them required a court, and some could be made himself.  </p>
  
  <p>Matters get very confused because the versions of the Bill during the night don't appear to have been published on the web, and all links to them have anyway been broken since it has now become an Act.</p>  
  
  <p>If you want to do a better job here, link to the <a href="http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debate/?id=2005-03-10.1761.3">question put</a>, and read <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200405/ldbills/041/05041.1-7.html">a list of commons amendments</a>.</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 37A to 37O, disagrees to Lords amendments 37Q to 37T proposed in lieu of Lords amendment No. 8, and proposes amendments (a) to (f) to the words restored to the Bill by its insistence on its disagreement to Lords amendment No. 17.</p>
  
  <p class="italic">Question put,</p>
  
  <p><i>The House divided:</i> Ayes 320, Noes 226.</p>
  
  