Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill — Amendment to Clause 89 — Identification at a Police Station — 26 Nov 2001 at 20:45
Ian Davidson MP, Glasgow Pollok voted with the majority (No).
The Aye-voters failed to make a series of changes to Clause 89 (or Clause 90 of the final act) of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill which adds a new clause into the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
This Clause allows someone who is detained at a police station to be fingerprinted or searched for a birthmark that would identify them to the police. The change that was proposed (and rejected) would have inserted in the phrase "in connection with a terrorist investigation" in several crucial parts of this law. As it stands, this Act extends the power of the police in areas that are unconnected with Terrorism.
Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.
What is Tell? '+1 tell' means that in addition one member of that party was a teller for that division lobby.
What are Boths? An MP can vote both aye and no in the same division. The boths page explains this.
What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.
|Party||Majority (No)||Minority (Aye)||Both||Turnout|
|Con||0||138 (+1 tell)||0||84.8%|
|Lab||329 (+2 tell)||4||0||81.5%|
|LDem||0||47 (+1 tell)||0||92.3%|
|Jeremy Corbyn||Islington North||Lab||aye|
|George Galloway||Glasgow Kelvin||whilst Lab||aye|
|Lynne Jones||Birmingham, Selly Oak||Lab||aye|
|Paul Marsden||Shrewsbury and Atcham||whilst Lab||aye|
|Lady Hermon||North Down||UUP (front bench)||no|