Serious Crime Bill [HL] — intercept evidence in court — 25 Apr 2007 at 17:46
Lord Cunningham of Felling voted in the minority (Not-Content).
This is an amendment tabled by the Lib Dems which seeks to allow intercept evidence in courts, were a serious crime has been committed.
Those voting aye are voting for the amendment - i.e. to allow intercept evidence in court.
moved Amendment No. 21:
After Clause 3, insert the following new Clause-
"Involvement in serious crime: evidence
(1) In considering for the purposes of this Part whether a person is involved in serious crime, the High Court may take account of any evidence admissible under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (c. 23).
(2) Schedule (Intercept evidence) (which makes provision for the admissibility of intercept evidence in cases involving serious crime) has effect."
On Question, Whether the said amendment(No. 21) shall be agreed to?
*Their Lordships divided: Contents, 182; Not-Contents, 121.
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 is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.
|Party||Majority (Content)||Minority (Not-Content)||Turnout|
|Con||102 (+1 tell)||2||50.7%|
|Crossbench||25 (+1 tell)||5||16.4%|
|Lab||1||111 (+2 tell)||53.8%|
|Baroness Park of Monmouth||Con||no|
|Lord Armstrong of Ilminster||Crossbench (front bench)||no|
|Viscount Colville of Culross||Crossbench (front bench)||no|
|Lord Jay of Ewelme||Crossbench (front bench)||no|
|Lord Sutherland of Houndwood||Crossbench (front bench)||no|
|Lord Judd||Lab (minister)||aye|