text_body: --- DIVISION TITLE ---
  
  Prevention of Terrorism Bill - Weak Sunset Clause
  
  --- MOTION EFFECT ---
  
  <p>The Aye-voters reaffirmed their earlier vote in <a href="http://publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2005-03-10&number=133"> Division 133</a> which reaffirmed their vote the day before in <a href="http://publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2005-03-09&number=126"> Division 126</a> which was to reject the House of Lords insertion of a Sunset Clause into the <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200405/ldbills/034/05034.i-iii.html"> Prevention of Terrorism Bill</a>.  </p>
  
  <p>There are probably some other compromises on this sunset provision that are too obscured in the technicalities for me to waste more time on.  Why don't we get Parliament to do this job properly in laying out what these votes are, instead of: </p>
  
  <p class="indent">This House disagrees with Lords amendment No. 33D and insists on its amendment No. 33C in lieu, does not insist on its amendments Nos. 33A and 33B and proposes amendments (a) and (b) in lieu.</p>
  
  <p>The main issue of the compromise is whether the choice to repeal the Act at a later date would be taken now, or at a later date.  The only technical difference between these positions is the date of such a vote, which can be of great importance to the outcome, like the timing of the General Election.  </p>  
  
  
  
  --- COMMENTS AND NOTES ---
  
  <p class="italic">Motion made, and Question put,</p>
  
  <p class="indent">That this House disagrees with Lords amendment No. 33D and insists on its amendment No. 33C in lieu, does not insist on its amendments Nos. 33A and 33B and proposes amendments (a) and (b) in lieu.&#8212;<i>[Ms Blears.]</i></p>
  
  <p><i>The House divided:</i> Ayes 307, Noes 212.</p>
  